Wikiposts
Search
Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

PA38 Climb Performance

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11th Jun 2015, 17:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
PA38 Climb Performance

We operate two Mark 2 PA38s.

One of them seems to have a significantly poorer climb performance that the other one. We had thought that the installation of a new engine would improve the climb performance but it has not done so. Static RPM is the same on both a/c. We have both a/c reweighed and there is only a trivial difference in empty weights (in fact the a/c with poorer climb is about 12 lbs lighter).

The propellor pitch on both a/c is exactly the same.

We have asked engineers to check the rigging but nothing seems to be untoward.

I just wondered if anyone had any bright ideas as to why the climb performance was significantly different.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2015, 17:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In my days of doing lots of CofA air testing on light aircraft, the majority of climb performance issues were down to pitot/static system errors, so you're not actually flying at the speed you think.
Worth a look anyway!

Hope it helps.

Last edited by BizJetJock; 11th Jun 2015 at 17:44. Reason: Spelling!
BizJetJock is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2015, 18:42
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
BZJ, thanks for that!
fireflybob is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2015, 20:51
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Try slamming the doors to see if the vsi jumps around, usually sign of a static leak.
You might find the climb performance of the good climber is the one in error!
BigEndBob is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2015, 07:17
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Since you have two you could fly both in loose formation trying both climb and cruise (with the "good" one setting accurate speed and the other matching pitch and power). You'll soon reveal any ASI trouble. I would first get a laser rev counter on each during a power check to ensure RPM is accurate.
MrAverage is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2015, 07:18
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Don't know how the @ got in there, I definitely typed an a.
MrAverage is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2015, 08:49
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Station 42
Age: 69
Posts: 1,081
Received 90 Likes on 36 Posts
You could ask your engineers to carry out a pitot-static instrument test. It'll check indicator accuracy and show up any leaks. Shouldn't take more than an hour.
stevef is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2015, 11:36
  #8 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,217
Received 48 Likes on 24 Posts
The "l word" is banned on PPRune ostensibly to prevent banner adverts of any devices which get pointed at flying machines.

"How is my client supposed to know that pointing it at aeroplanes is dangerous m'lud when he bought it from a well known pilot website " sort of thing.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2015, 13:26
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
when you test the planes, have you weighed the pilots?


hey chubby, you take that one, hey slim, you take that one. hey, chubby's doesn't climb as well.

wonder why?


D'OH!
skyhighfallguy is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2015, 15:50
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
when you test the planes, have you weighed the pilots?
yes, of course we have taken all that into account.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2015, 18:25
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,882 Likes on 1,231 Posts
Did you replace the Lord mounts?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2015, 20:52
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Did you replace the Lord mounts?
Tell me more?
fireflybob is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2015, 18:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Measure the fuel burn. Might be poor tuning.
BigEndBob is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 14:48
  #14 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,217
Received 48 Likes on 24 Posts
Damned if I can see how the Lord mounts are going to change performance.


If t'wer I, I think I'd fly two identical performance climbs - same day, as near as possible same W&CG, use a GPS to cross-check pressure against geopotential altitude, and groundspeed for the same heading and altitude within an hour or so of each other. Record everything readily available (far better and safer, have somebody in the right hand seat do that whilst you concentrate on flying accurately and looking out): so IAS, GPS G/S, GPS Alt, Pressure Alt (make sure QNHs match), VSI, Ts&Ps, RPM, then afterwards total fuel burned. Record that every minute or so, or every 500ft or so through the climb.

Then line up the data and see where the differences are - you should start to get some useful clues. Bung it all in Excel and plot some graphs - and wherever the graphs are significantly different (personally I'd plot everything against altitude, with time another variable - also work out RoC numerically from altitude and time and plot that on the same scale as the VSI reading) you'll find the significant differences.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 20:39
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 106
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lord Mounts

Changing Lord mounts sure can effect performance, many times I have seen them installed in the wrong positions or with the wrong or missing spacers effecting the thrust line turning the plane into a dog. Get an inclinometer and check the difference between the levelling point (top of tail one behind rear window) and the pushrod tubes.
Mechanical tachos are also problematic, get it checked you may be surprised how far out they can be.
edsbar is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 21:22
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As well as checking the pitot/static system for leaks and instrument calibration (which should be done every Annual anyway), have you tried swopping propellers?

Just because the props look the same and have the same part number doesn't necessarily make them equal.

Have the props been strobed to check if the tachos are reading accurately at max static?
smarthawke is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 04:55
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As others have said, most likely an instrument issue. You may have weighed the aircraft but have you checked the balance?
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 07:34
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
As others have said, most likely an instrument issue. You may have weighed the aircraft but have you checked the balance?
Cgb, the CG position for both a/c is almost identical.

Thanks for all the suggestions, we are having a pitot/static check conducted this week and will see how that goes first.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 13:53
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Watching recently a Tomahawk, two up, stagger off our strip, "Tomahawk" and "climb rate" seemed a good oxymoron!!
cessnapete is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 07:32
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Station 42
Age: 69
Posts: 1,081
Received 90 Likes on 36 Posts
How many feet per minute are you getting with both aircraft btw?
stevef is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.