The Continental IO-520
"No," says the instructor, "24 inches is Maximum Except Take Off, so after you've taken off, you throttle back to 24, then as you climb away, and you trickle the power back in to maintain 24 inches until you're at full throttle."
In that case I have been abusing C210s and other IO520 powered aeroplanes for many years.
Yet another example of "crap" from an instructor with limited life experience.
Dr
In that case I have been abusing C210s and other IO520 powered aeroplanes for many years.
Yet another example of "crap" from an instructor with limited life experience.
Dr
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: All over
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive sat behind the ol trusty 520 for a thousand or so hours (185's, 206's) - cant praise em enough - never had a cracked pot either.
Engine handling is basic commen sence - I.e treat it as if it were your 50 k up front - the biggie is through warm up, shock cooling or rate of change with them.
reduced power T/O?, providing shes worm - feed it to her and when the first safe opportunity allows reduce boost & rpm accordingly.
Theres no point husbanding and engine to a point where you risk bending an airframe on the fence at the end of the strip.
I miss me Continential's
Engine handling is basic commen sence - I.e treat it as if it were your 50 k up front - the biggie is through warm up, shock cooling or rate of change with them.
reduced power T/O?, providing shes worm - feed it to her and when the first safe opportunity allows reduce boost & rpm accordingly.
Theres no point husbanding and engine to a point where you risk bending an airframe on the fence at the end of the strip.
I miss me Continential's
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the Hangar
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24"MP as maximum for C210 is hor5e$h1t. I've owned & operated a C210 in Central Qld now for close to 10 years. For every takeoff its balls to the wall for every pound of thrust I can get out of the thing. I don't touch throttle prop etc till at least 500'. If its a hot day I'll then only reduce RPM to 2550 - not manifold pressure, leave it at full throttle. It's comforting to keep up the power for the performance and the higher fuel flow helps manage engine temps too.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Behind the stick
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how everyone has a different idea on how to run these engines. I usually take off at full throttle and 2700 rpm for noise issues. This is 285hp max continuious power and so if ya gotta climb somewhere, whats the point in bringing it back ? 2550 RPM is 215hp out of 300, whats the point ? If i take off from somewhere where noise is not an issue, the all 3 forward and then bring the noise knob back to 2700 after takeoff for max climb performance and of course start brining the mixture back after a while to keep a good egt (those digital JPI engine analyzers are fantastic) and yr away laughing. This engine has done over 8000 hours run this way and always goes past TBO, never had any problems
I postulated my theory about running the engine at full throttle for five minutes after take off, but he countered by informing me that although the manufacturer states the limit is five minutes, what they really mean is thirty seconds, otherwise you'd be "tearing the engine to shreds inside".
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ag flying
Ag pilots tend to pull the rpm back asap when they are spreading super in Fletchers etc, and the flight time is about five minutes. They do lots of takeoffs in a day and the Continentals do not like 2850 rpm for most of their flight time.
But I used to leave max power set in the v tail years ago and let it reduce it's own power during climb as the mp dropped off. The engine went fine.
Piper aircraft have a power setting chart in the POH and flight manual, for the Lycoming and ANY setting in this chart is ok. Strangely, many pilots will not use most of them.
There are lots of old wives tales out there and too many pilots believe them. I think some just want an easy operating system, and so settle for only one power setting because it is easy. There is often much to be gained by using long range cruise settings. We too often do not get best performance out of our aircraft because of these imagined limitations.
But I used to leave max power set in the v tail years ago and let it reduce it's own power during climb as the mp dropped off. The engine went fine.
Piper aircraft have a power setting chart in the POH and flight manual, for the Lycoming and ANY setting in this chart is ok. Strangely, many pilots will not use most of them.
There are lots of old wives tales out there and too many pilots believe them. I think some just want an easy operating system, and so settle for only one power setting because it is easy. There is often much to be gained by using long range cruise settings. We too often do not get best performance out of our aircraft because of these imagined limitations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The manuals are only a good BASIC guide
Originally Posted by over and gout
Just read and apply whatever it says in the flight manual. You can't go wrong
Originally Posted by Continental 520
Nobody can provide a good enough reason to do any different to that. Nobody.
Think about where these manuals come from at a societal level: the most litigious nation in the world! A place with more lawyers per head of population (and probably per square mile!) than any other place on the planet! Think also of the massive slump in GA airframe production of the 80's & 90's; and the reason for it -Fear of Lawsuits.
These manuals you hold in such regard are written in a manner that is intended to protect even the most ham-fisted operator from himself and in doing so further protect the manufacturers from litigation when the ham-fisted clutz FUBAR's it and adds his own little bit of chlorine to the gene-pool. The number of lawsuits best described as scurrilous from aviation accidents/incidents, stemming from the absolute stupidity of the operator is beyond belief or comprehension!!! That the law-makers allow this to happen, then legislate in support of this nonsense, just bizzarre.
This then is the background upon which these manuals are written and eventually approved -and you guys want to support it as 'gospel'????
There are some extremely effective and important tehniques and tips within those manuals, but to accept every word as golden law is peurile.
There is a lot of knowledge within industry, from guys who have spent their whole working lives behind and/or on (Pilots and Engineers) these engines and their derivatives. It is only a fool that disregards the voice of experience. There is a crap-load of data and information available in these forae -Chimbu Chuckles' posts (calm yourself CC
) are a tremendous source of anecdotal evidence for the proper operation of these engines in an appropriate environment.Similarly, these engines have changed little in basic design over the last 50 years or so. They are a known quantity. Even the manufacturers (both engine and airframe) rely on an information flow from the field -pilots and engineers again- to fully understand how their products work in the operational environment. The information that makes it to the manuals is as much constantly evolving as it may be environmentally dependant. It is only that which will provide the greatest level of protection to the largest number of operators (and hence the manufacturer) that makes it to the manuals. Further, is the engine you operate supported by the most recent published manual appropriate? Or is it the manual originally supplied with the airframe/engine combination when new, back in 1960? Does the manual you so religiously defer to even bear a resemblance to the engine you are operating??? Personally I don't think I have ever known an operator that updates the engine manual when there is an engine change due problems or TBO. The engine manual is still that originally supplied, even though I as the operator know the manual does not reflect the actuality of the equipment installed. The block and mounting points may be the same as originally spec, but the engine may now have an alternator rather than a generator, shower-of-sparks mags rather than Bendix or Slicks, GAMIjectors and engine management instrumentation may have changed several times, cylinders could be damn near anything -and that's just a few possibilities!!! They all at some point have an effect on engine operation that may or may not be reflected in the engine manual! They should (in most cases) be supported by supplemental information -but are not always.
Don't forget either that those manufacturers whose manuals you hold in such regard are the ones who mandate the shonky instrumentation we usually use to manage these powerplants. There is better out there, at a cost, which leads to vastly improved economies of operation, lower failure rates and generaly simpler, more informed operation -but the manufacturers refuse to acknowledge or actively disparage the benefits. Just have a look at the Continental site and their words on GAMIjectors. Eye-opening. I would post a link -but I can't find it immediately.
At the end of the day, blind acceptance of anything, written or anecdotal without strong supporting evidence is at best damaging, potentially dangerous.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: E116
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
300ft is the stupidest place ive heard to bring the power back!! Thats just barely clearing the trees!!
Here is a bit of drift with another myth: Are engines more prone to failing when the power is changed? So when you reduce the power after takeoff is the engine more prone to failure at that point?
Here is a bit of drift with another myth: Are engines more prone to failing when the power is changed? So when you reduce the power after takeoff is the engine more prone to failure at that point?
Grandpa Aerotart
Agreed....the manual for my 1970 model A36 has NEVER been updated. A few years ago when CASA mandated POHs with an 'amendment service' I bought a new Manual from Raytheon (as was) and perused it at length...it was identical in every respect to my original except the cover.
When I questioned Raytheon USA via email about the amendment service their answer was "Huh?"
Thankyou CASA...you MORONS!
Technology has moved on since 1970...my A36 now has an IO550b, 3 bladed Blac mac prop, Gamijectors and an EDM 700 engine monitor. Firewall forward it is, in essence, a different aircraft to that which rolled out of the Beechcraft factory door in 1970.
Both my new and original POHs forbid LOP operation..understandably enough as it was near IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in flat 6 engines in 1970...and indeed highly problematic up until the mid/late 90s...because of the truly ****house engine instrumentation and quality control of the injectors. But that has changed.
As an another example my POH useable fuel 'limitation' is 280 liters...when the tanks hold 310 liters. Given the truly useless fuel gauges as fitted I suppose 280 liters was not a bad 'cover your ass' figure to protect idiots from themselves...but that has changed due to technology moving on. The EDM has a stunningly accurate fuel computer...I regularly check on the health of my fuel cells by running a tank dry on long trips...every single liter in my tanks is safely useable even in light turbulence...coupled with the lower cruise fuel burn, about 50l/hr, from LOP operation I can safely and reliably fly my aircraft a **** of a lot further than the POH suggests is possible. I can burn all 280 liters and land with 45 minutes in the tanks...I don't often, but I can and have.
When you sum up all the STC'd changes to my aircraft over the original I can say with little fear of contradiction that the mandated POH verbage whether you're talking engine management, fuel system, comms, navigation or even basic performance is UTTERLY USELESS!!
Even the weight and balance stuff came out of my old DCA aircraft specific Flight Manual.
Trouble with common sense is it is anything but common.
You might be a little surprised if I showed you the truth about warming up and shock cooling.
It is my 50k bolted up front.
I own two manufacturer aircaft flight manuals because CASA mandate it...
When I questioned Raytheon USA via email about the amendment service their answer was "Huh?"
Thankyou CASA...you MORONS!
Technology has moved on since 1970...my A36 now has an IO550b, 3 bladed Blac mac prop, Gamijectors and an EDM 700 engine monitor. Firewall forward it is, in essence, a different aircraft to that which rolled out of the Beechcraft factory door in 1970.
Both my new and original POHs forbid LOP operation..understandably enough as it was near IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in flat 6 engines in 1970...and indeed highly problematic up until the mid/late 90s...because of the truly ****house engine instrumentation and quality control of the injectors. But that has changed.
As an another example my POH useable fuel 'limitation' is 280 liters...when the tanks hold 310 liters. Given the truly useless fuel gauges as fitted I suppose 280 liters was not a bad 'cover your ass' figure to protect idiots from themselves...but that has changed due to technology moving on. The EDM has a stunningly accurate fuel computer...I regularly check on the health of my fuel cells by running a tank dry on long trips...every single liter in my tanks is safely useable even in light turbulence...coupled with the lower cruise fuel burn, about 50l/hr, from LOP operation I can safely and reliably fly my aircraft a **** of a lot further than the POH suggests is possible. I can burn all 280 liters and land with 45 minutes in the tanks...I don't often, but I can and have.
When you sum up all the STC'd changes to my aircraft over the original I can say with little fear of contradiction that the mandated POH verbage whether you're talking engine management, fuel system, comms, navigation or even basic performance is UTTERLY USELESS!!
Even the weight and balance stuff came out of my old DCA aircraft specific Flight Manual.
Engine handling is basic commen sense - I.e treat it as if it were your 50 k up front - the biggie is through warm up, shock cooling or rate of change with them.
You might be a little surprised if I showed you the truth about warming up and shock cooling.
It is my 50k bolted up front.
I own two manufacturer aircaft flight manuals because CASA mandate it...
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 22nd Apr 2007 at 15:30.
completely agree with your last post Chimbu, but I will just add that what you are saying is all well and good if you have the instrumentation to do it. Its still a rare event to see a GA single on the line with a charter company with GAMI's and EDM's etc.....
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with you on every level Chuck but one. For the rank amateur with a new toy and little experience (engine wise) the manufacturers manual is all the lad has to go on. Given, experience will overide that every time and I feel the FTDK has highlighted that, the manual that comes with the aircraft will hopefully keep the newbie out of the trees. I place a lot of value on your postulations however for the layman the book will, arguably, keep him safe.
Glad to hear you're in the left seat. You're an asset to this website.
D
Glad to hear you're in the left seat. You're an asset to this website.
D
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Deakin has a bit to say here http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/186216-1.html on POH’s, the 550 and 520. In summary he says
I don't recommend you throw away your POH. There is a lot of good info in it, and it's usually just about all you've got. But don't take it as holy writ, and read it with a jaundiced eye, remaining alert for errors, typos, and poor logic. Read it for entertainment value, for there is often some really funny stuff.
Then you have this. Guess there might be some funny stuff in the CAR's as well.
CAR 138 Pilot to comply with requirements, etc of aircraft’s flight manual, etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
I don't recommend you throw away your POH. There is a lot of good info in it, and it's usually just about all you've got. But don't take it as holy writ, and read it with a jaundiced eye, remaining alert for errors, typos, and poor logic. Read it for entertainment value, for there is often some really funny stuff.
Then you have this. Guess there might be some funny stuff in the CAR's as well.
CAR 138 Pilot to comply with requirements, etc of aircraft’s flight manual, etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Grandpa Aerotart
I agree completely...it is one of the things that makes my blood boil...that CASA haven't mandated the technology in commercial ops (at least) and modified the relevant theory subjects accordingly.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it rather sad that many operators of aircraft fitted with the IO-520 and other 'large' engines don't use some of the newer technology (engine moniters and tuned injectors) and reduce their fuel costs. It seems to me with the ever increasing price of fuel and competition in the market place that a saving in around about 15 to 20% on fuel would be a logical place to start.
Regards handling a IO-520 a long warm up until all temp and pressure gauges read 'green' and then a run up prior to loading passengers seems logical. On takeoff leave the manifold pressure at full throttle as it will be below 25" within 2 to 3 minutes most places i've flown. I bring the RPM back to around 2650 to allow for inaccuracy in the 20,000+ hours gauges on the things I am currently flying. It is generally hot, the aircraft is generally near MTOW and there are hills around and I wish to go UP.
Regards handling a IO-520 a long warm up until all temp and pressure gauges read 'green' and then a run up prior to loading passengers seems logical. On takeoff leave the manifold pressure at full throttle as it will be below 25" within 2 to 3 minutes most places i've flown. I bring the RPM back to around 2650 to allow for inaccuracy in the 20,000+ hours gauges on the things I am currently flying. It is generally hot, the aircraft is generally near MTOW and there are hills around and I wish to go UP.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With around a thousand hrs on 210/206/s have never, NEVER, got to the runway without temps in the green. Nor any other type. Would have to be a hell of a quick taxi to negate seeing 'greens'. I do concur however. Gunning the bad boy without proper temps is done at your peril.
A most excellent thread for those joining, or coming up, through the industry.
Tailwinds
D
A most excellent thread for those joining, or coming up, through the industry.
Tailwinds
D