Flying over square
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c;mon jab,
you should know me well enough by now that I don't write something that lengthy to be a wind up.
I keep an eye on the EGT/CHT to avoid shock cooling. i.e watching the cooling rates. if i think its cooling too quick, i'll make some adjustments to compensate.....a couple of options there, more power, less fuel, slow down. Though i rarely have a problem with it as i tend to make powered descents. turbulence probably generates the biggest problem when i am forced to run a lower power setting and slow down.
you should know me well enough by now that I don't write something that lengthy to be a wind up.
I keep an eye on the EGT/CHT to avoid shock cooling. i.e watching the cooling rates. if i think its cooling too quick, i'll make some adjustments to compensate.....a couple of options there, more power, less fuel, slow down. Though i rarely have a problem with it as i tend to make powered descents. turbulence probably generates the biggest problem when i am forced to run a lower power setting and slow down.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Paradise
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep an eye on the EGT/CHT to avoid shock cooling. i.e watching the cooling rates. if i think its cooling too quick, i'll make some adjustments to compensate.....a couple of options there, more power, less fuel, slow down. .
...and if you have flown the chog 6, then you would know the circuit setting is different to the cruise in both MAP and RPM.
BC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What’s happening?
The only way to get the drag down to (effectively) zero would be to feather it, but the single engine (piston) CSU does not have that ability.
When the mixture goes to ICO, the prop RPM will tend to decrease. The CSU, doing its job, will see the RPM drop and send the props more fine, in an effort to bring the RPM back up to "on-speed". The CSU doesn't know the engine has failed; all it knows is that the the prop is now in an "underspeed" condition.
But the props hit the fine pitch stops - and the RPM does not come back to on-speed (unless you are in a dive, with plenty of airspeed).
If the prop RPM is still within the governing range however, you can command a more coarse - and lower drag - setting by pulling back the RPM lever.
If however, your airspeed is too low, then the prop RPM will be below the governing range but on the fine pitch stops thus generating the high drag.
At high RPM (full fine) the propeller may have a negative angle of attack, and is acting as a big braking disc.
This is exactly what T28D then said - but note the different terminology he uses:
One must be really careful with any (geared) engine not to allow the propellor to drive the engine, i.e. maintain positive manifold pressure and enough blade angle to always load the engine ...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This discussion contains 3 of my 4 pet hates in piston engine management fairy tales
- power reduction on takeoff
- LoP fallacies
- Shock cooling, and
- running down the turbo after landing.
I was as ignorant as the next sprog product of a generic training program, until I hooked up with Chuckles & spent some time reading both Pelicans Perch and the POH / engine manual for the aircraft I was flying. I flew Chucks mighty Bonza and used the JPI and the LOP procedure under his tutelage. Then when I bought an aeroplane - before I even flew it the first time - I had a JPI installed so I knew for FACT what was going on under the cowls. Then I installed GAMI-jectors. I downloaded literally REAMS of data from the system and learned how to operate the engines properly, be it LOP or ROP. I would have thought with the profusion of engine data systems on piston-props these days, a lot of these would have been laid to rest. Apparently not.
Reducing power on initial climb:
All the normally aspirated flat aero engines, be they injected or carburetted, include in the design of the fuel system an enrichment device that adds extra fuel at full throttle, to reduce CHT and thus the risk of detonation in high power settings such as take-off. As soon as you pull the throttle back a little, like when you reduce to 2500rpm / 25" MAP, you shut off this feature and make the engine run hotter, just when you want it as cool as possible. LEAVE THE BLOODY THROTTLE ALONE! Once you level off set it per the power tables, and if that's above full throttle altitude pull it back just a bit to disable the enrichment. If you have decent engine instrumentation you can experiment and see the effects this stuff has.... like watching the EGT / CHT go UP when you pull the throttle back a little.
LOP / ROP:
Both are completely valid - if you take the time to learn how to do them correctly. The worst place to run an engine is 'a little rich' of peak EGT, or 'a little lean' of peak EGT. We use EGT for power setting because it responds almost instantly to changes and most aircraft have an EGT gauge. You need to be aware that the PURPOSE of EGT is to give an indication of CHT, which is what really matters. Of CRITICAL importance to understand is that peak CHT - where you absolutely DON'T want to be - is 50 or so degrees either side of peak EGT. Once you find the peak EGT with mixture adjustment you need to get well rich of it or well lean of it. You don't shag engines by 'running too lean' (bloody Whyalla) - you shag 'em by not running lean enough for LOP, or not running rich enough for ROP. Bear in mind also that the single point EGT gauge is only looking at one point in the 4/6/8 cylinder exhaust system, and not necessarily the hottest point at that. You REALLY need a multi-function all-cylinder digital engine monitor. I would not fly a piston-prop aircraft without one - well, not one I was paying the maintenance on anyway
Shock cooling:
Bloody BOLLOCKS. If the engine is running it's producing heat; nothing shocking about that. If it ain't running it's all cooling - no big shocks there (at least, not if the engine baffles are working). There are sound reasons to not yank the throttles closed at ToD, but shock cooling isn't one of them. Reverse-loading a drivetrain like a GTSIO gearbox is a bad idea, so slapping the throttle shut on a Titan in flight will not get you any brownie points with the boss. The greatest likelihood of a successful landing is in a stabilised approach, which precludes dirty great power alterations during the descent, which is best achieved by a planned steady power reduction throughout, not by pulling the levers to the back and sticking the nose down. All valid points, but shock cooling...
.... look to the JPI once again.
Running down the turbo:
starts when you reduce power during descent and by the time you're at low power on final the turbo is as cool as its gunna get. The longer the engine runs on the ground after landing, the hotter it gets (to a point) and sitting on the apron with the pax having a sauna while you 'run down the turbo' for 3 minutes is just silly. The JPI data proves it.
The test of an OWT or just plain ignorance is whether the other party can prove their position. All these points are eminently provable.
Rant over
- power reduction on takeoff
- LoP fallacies
- Shock cooling, and
- running down the turbo after landing.
I was as ignorant as the next sprog product of a generic training program, until I hooked up with Chuckles & spent some time reading both Pelicans Perch and the POH / engine manual for the aircraft I was flying. I flew Chucks mighty Bonza and used the JPI and the LOP procedure under his tutelage. Then when I bought an aeroplane - before I even flew it the first time - I had a JPI installed so I knew for FACT what was going on under the cowls. Then I installed GAMI-jectors. I downloaded literally REAMS of data from the system and learned how to operate the engines properly, be it LOP or ROP. I would have thought with the profusion of engine data systems on piston-props these days, a lot of these would have been laid to rest. Apparently not.
Reducing power on initial climb:
All the normally aspirated flat aero engines, be they injected or carburetted, include in the design of the fuel system an enrichment device that adds extra fuel at full throttle, to reduce CHT and thus the risk of detonation in high power settings such as take-off. As soon as you pull the throttle back a little, like when you reduce to 2500rpm / 25" MAP, you shut off this feature and make the engine run hotter, just when you want it as cool as possible. LEAVE THE BLOODY THROTTLE ALONE! Once you level off set it per the power tables, and if that's above full throttle altitude pull it back just a bit to disable the enrichment. If you have decent engine instrumentation you can experiment and see the effects this stuff has.... like watching the EGT / CHT go UP when you pull the throttle back a little.
LOP / ROP:
Both are completely valid - if you take the time to learn how to do them correctly. The worst place to run an engine is 'a little rich' of peak EGT, or 'a little lean' of peak EGT. We use EGT for power setting because it responds almost instantly to changes and most aircraft have an EGT gauge. You need to be aware that the PURPOSE of EGT is to give an indication of CHT, which is what really matters. Of CRITICAL importance to understand is that peak CHT - where you absolutely DON'T want to be - is 50 or so degrees either side of peak EGT. Once you find the peak EGT with mixture adjustment you need to get well rich of it or well lean of it. You don't shag engines by 'running too lean' (bloody Whyalla) - you shag 'em by not running lean enough for LOP, or not running rich enough for ROP. Bear in mind also that the single point EGT gauge is only looking at one point in the 4/6/8 cylinder exhaust system, and not necessarily the hottest point at that. You REALLY need a multi-function all-cylinder digital engine monitor. I would not fly a piston-prop aircraft without one - well, not one I was paying the maintenance on anyway
Shock cooling:
Bloody BOLLOCKS. If the engine is running it's producing heat; nothing shocking about that. If it ain't running it's all cooling - no big shocks there (at least, not if the engine baffles are working). There are sound reasons to not yank the throttles closed at ToD, but shock cooling isn't one of them. Reverse-loading a drivetrain like a GTSIO gearbox is a bad idea, so slapping the throttle shut on a Titan in flight will not get you any brownie points with the boss. The greatest likelihood of a successful landing is in a stabilised approach, which precludes dirty great power alterations during the descent, which is best achieved by a planned steady power reduction throughout, not by pulling the levers to the back and sticking the nose down. All valid points, but shock cooling...
.... look to the JPI once again.Running down the turbo:
starts when you reduce power during descent and by the time you're at low power on final the turbo is as cool as its gunna get. The longer the engine runs on the ground after landing, the hotter it gets (to a point) and sitting on the apron with the pax having a sauna while you 'run down the turbo' for 3 minutes is just silly. The JPI data proves it.
The test of an OWT or just plain ignorance is whether the other party can prove their position. All these points are eminently provable.
Rant over
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The JPI data proves it
That's what I love to hear. There's so much data avaliable from the good ol' days and from modern digital instruments that the OWTs and bad operating practices shouldn't stand a chance.
I'd love to get some more equipment hooked up to an aircraft, particually a rubbish little 152 or Tommy to test some of the things we're told by the flying schools. Carb heat use being one (how quickly does the exhaust manifold cool down in a glide? does it cool down? how much heat is needed from the source to provide reliable carb heat) etc.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
c;mon jab,
you should know me well enough by now that I don't write something that lengthy to be a wind up.
you should know me well enough by now that I don't write something that lengthy to be a wind up.
SHOCK COOLING.....you mean like this?
or this
So shock cooling, well short of diving into a lake, I think you have far more important things to worry about on descent, unless there is a lake in close proximity. Shock Heating is probably more severe than cooling as far as Delta T is concerned but nobody seems to worry about starting their engines (except in freezing places but they use sump heaters etc).
Carb heat use being one (how quickly does the exhaust manifold cool down in a glide? does it cool down? how much heat is needed from the source to provide reliable carb heat) etc.
I can't quote you numbers off the top of my head, but I have had the good fortune to be testing a beautiful RV-7A of late, it has an awesome Dynon Skyview panel and the owner put a carby temp sensor on the O-360 and has this displayed on the EMS page. It is quite interesting to watch the temp change with throttle on and off, but I have not paid particular attention to how quick the carby heat works after a long power off descent. Maybe this weekend I will have another play and see what it does. Download of data would be interesting too! If I find anything worthy of reporting I will do so next week.J
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most excellent.
It has direct safety implications, especially in the training environment where one often spends a lot of time at idle. We're taught the standard "engine warm" every 500-1000ft, which has been established to provide negligable CHT negligible, but maybe some useful benefit for the carb heat?
It has direct safety implications, especially in the training environment where one often spends a lot of time at idle. We're taught the standard "engine warm" every 500-1000ft, which has been established to provide negligable CHT negligible, but maybe some useful benefit for the carb heat?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jamair,
Great post. It should be recognised that you, Chimbu and Jaba have put in many many hours of posting time over the years correcting myths and OWTs that have been planted by ignorant instructors.
I sincerely believe that eventually, thanks largely to Pprune and the efforts of you three, these myths will be completely eradicated across Australia!
Great post. It should be recognised that you, Chimbu and Jaba have put in many many hours of posting time over the years correcting myths and OWTs that have been planted by ignorant instructors.
I sincerely believe that eventually, thanks largely to Pprune and the efforts of you three, these myths will be completely eradicated across Australia!
As AeroZ started to bring up, during long descents particularly practice forced landings, I was always taught to 'warm the engine'. Is this too an OWT as I was under the impression it was to keep everything heated and ready to go on go-around, but as mentioned above, if the engine is ticking over, it is warm.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It takes a lot more than a forced landing practise to cool the engine to a point where a go around is conducted with a critically cool engine.
Go try it with an engine monitor. If your oil temp is below the minimum recommended ...... Check your oil temp instrument/ sender
Think touch n goes..... No different. Missed approach? Yep no different.
Another OWT BUSTED!!!!
PS : I once believed this rubbish I was taught too.
Go try it with an engine monitor. If your oil temp is below the minimum recommended ...... Check your oil temp instrument/ sender
Think touch n goes..... No different. Missed approach? Yep no different.
Another OWT BUSTED!!!!
PS : I once believed this rubbish I was taught too.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another OWT BUSTED!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jas.......I am not sure how I am supposed to know you well enough, and if I do know you outside PPRuNe land, suggest that we get together for some airborne education as per Jamiars post above.
If you're ever in the YCEM area, i'll take you up on that
Your video's. The first. Isn't that simply extreme water washing of the blades? alternatively, on the Pilots incident report, didn't he write 'multiple water induced flameout' as his cause of accident?
The second.........thats simply the marine corp's method of helping the greens with man made reefs.
As for Jamair's post. A good read indeed.
Power Reduction on after take-off. Silly idea. It climbs better with more power anyway.
Most CSU types have a 5 min limit on take-off power. That doesn't say pull the power immediately. 5 mins gives you enough time to get clear of the circuit and your heading and cruise climb sorted. That got me thinking about driving twins, and the need/desire to get them props in sync. Looking at my BE95 docs, for ISA thats going to be 25.5/2450 to remain in the MCP envelope. I even perused the pic i have the panels of 2 of the travel airs I fly looking for a time limit placard...couldn't find it. Open to suggestions here, and will go chat to a baron owner i know who has done a couple of BPPP's and see what he has to say.
ROP/LOP.
when in doubt consult the bible 
Shock cooling. ok ok....blame my time hanging around glider ops where shock cooling presents a very real problem for the Tugs.
Turbo cooling. absolute drivel.....i just crack up at the ricer owners that fit turbo timers. They aren't pushing it hard enough to need it. If it needed it the factory would fit it...and damm likewise for aero engines. The only time a turbo timer really needs consideration is on a vehicle being used for towing, and even then you should consider what the vehicle was doing prior to your desired shutdown. if you have been moping around town, you're pretty safe to shut down, but if you have just worked it hard to climb a big hill and want to stop at the top for a cuppa tea and sticky bun, then sure let the turbo timer do its thing, coz the trans could probably use the help also. The only factory fitted 'turbo timer' i have seen is on my Fathers Mack. It has an electronic cummins turbo in it. Tho it doesn't time things, it actually checks turbo temperature, and prevents shut down until the temps come down to the right parameters.....sometimes as little as ten seconds at most 2 minutes.
Loving this thread.
Jas
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Up the road and around the corner
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early 58 Barons (3 blade props) have a T/O-MCP setting of Full Throttle/2700 RPM, no power reduction required. Max cruise power on the other hand is 24.5"/2500 RPM. The same practice is applicabe to the 402Cs. Only aircraft I flew witha 5 minute limit was C206/210, from what I was told, it was a heat related thing, but never been able to confirm that.
The company I worked for had a policy that ops at night or in IMC, aircraft was to be climbed at best rate and power left at T/O until through the MSA/LSALT, which was only a couple of minutes worst case.
The company I worked for had a policy that ops at night or in IMC, aircraft was to be climbed at best rate and power left at T/O until through the MSA/LSALT, which was only a couple of minutes worst case.
and the 210. Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine manufacturers spend a lot of money in the certification process determining how their product should be operated and when matched with an airframe where the green arcs on instruments should be placed and any do not operate ranges due to engine/airframe vibration issues.
So clearly it is OK to operate in the "green" all day without causing grief.
As a general rule running low compression slow revving engines at upper power settings is better for them than running them soft, less chance of cylinder glazing and better ring pressure on cylinder walls as most aircraft engines have Keystone Compression Rings.
Heat is not the enemy, if the engine is producing power it will be generating heat, there are more problems induced by rapid throttle moves particularly from low power to high power than will ever be induced by so called "shock cooling".
Rapid movements introduce lots of cool fuel/air mix without allowing the cylinders to heat up and at the same time the extra stress on the engine leads to cylinder head cracking particularly around the sparkplug area.
Rule of thumb with big radials is if you can see your hand moving the throttle you are moving it too fast !!!
The major scource of engine wear and low life is the number of times it is heated and cooled (thermal cycles) running the engine for long periods at proper power settings is good for the engine.
Another urban myth to expunge is the one that says a good engine does not use oil, Engines should use oil, lubricates the upper cylinder.
It is the useage pattern that is important, yet many owners/operators don't record oil use, if they did it is one of the best indicators of engine condition along with cylinder leak down tests.
So clearly it is OK to operate in the "green" all day without causing grief.
As a general rule running low compression slow revving engines at upper power settings is better for them than running them soft, less chance of cylinder glazing and better ring pressure on cylinder walls as most aircraft engines have Keystone Compression Rings.
Heat is not the enemy, if the engine is producing power it will be generating heat, there are more problems induced by rapid throttle moves particularly from low power to high power than will ever be induced by so called "shock cooling".
Rapid movements introduce lots of cool fuel/air mix without allowing the cylinders to heat up and at the same time the extra stress on the engine leads to cylinder head cracking particularly around the sparkplug area.
Rule of thumb with big radials is if you can see your hand moving the throttle you are moving it too fast !!!
The major scource of engine wear and low life is the number of times it is heated and cooled (thermal cycles) running the engine for long periods at proper power settings is good for the engine.
Another urban myth to expunge is the one that says a good engine does not use oil, Engines should use oil, lubricates the upper cylinder.
It is the useage pattern that is important, yet many owners/operators don't record oil use, if they did it is one of the best indicators of engine condition along with cylinder leak down tests.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ok folks, time for a small thread drift but a very educational one.
For the simple folk....remember this is just educational, just because you do not fly a Turbo Normalised SR22, does not mean there is nothing in this for you.
Why do many of us bang on here day after day about multi point EGT CHT engine monitors?
Why do we also harp on about actually having the education on how to understand what that EMS is telling you?
Well here is a SB from Tornado Alley Turbo....and for an SB about a problem they most likely did not create (plug choice), they really have to be commended for the quality of the SB.
I hope this is a good educational read for all.
http://www.taturbo.com/TATSR22-SB11-...023%202011.pdf
And as pilots we should all be taking a closer look at our plugs, oil and general maintenance, even if your LAME does all the work.
Cheers
J
For the simple folk....remember this is just educational, just because you do not fly a Turbo Normalised SR22, does not mean there is nothing in this for you.
Why do many of us bang on here day after day about multi point EGT CHT engine monitors?
Why do we also harp on about actually having the education on how to understand what that EMS is telling you?
Well here is a SB from Tornado Alley Turbo....and for an SB about a problem they most likely did not create (plug choice), they really have to be commended for the quality of the SB.
I hope this is a good educational read for all.
http://www.taturbo.com/TATSR22-SB11-...023%202011.pdf
And as pilots we should all be taking a closer look at our plugs, oil and general maintenance, even if your LAME does all the work.
Cheers
J
Jaba,
Your assumption that I need full fine to rectify my approaches is way off.
I have no problems with my students being shown this as a way to get their approach back to where it should be if required as long as they do it gently. Yeah, getting the approach right in the first place is preferable, but that doesn't always happen.
This is in addition to CAR 138;
The PIC of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, procedure, instruction or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
S8,
Same, definitely didn't "shove" my IGSO-480s into full fine, and definitely no argument that some aircraft flight manuals spec less than max pitch for landing.
If so, they will be operated in this way, but in clarification, I was against the apparent generalisation that all aircraft should be operated in this way (again, feel free to correct me if this is wrong). If a commercial operator has to use the flight manual, why should a private pilot be taught not to?
I'm sure everyone is aware of the liability implications involved with this mentality. I respect and am an avid fan of people like Deakin, but this one's a bit different.
Your assumption that I need full fine to rectify my approaches is way off.
I have no problems with my students being shown this as a way to get their approach back to where it should be if required as long as they do it gently. Yeah, getting the approach right in the first place is preferable, but that doesn't always happen.
This is in addition to CAR 138;
The PIC of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, procedure, instruction or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
S8,
Same, definitely didn't "shove" my IGSO-480s into full fine, and definitely no argument that some aircraft flight manuals spec less than max pitch for landing.
If so, they will be operated in this way, but in clarification, I was against the apparent generalisation that all aircraft should be operated in this way (again, feel free to correct me if this is wrong). If a commercial operator has to use the flight manual, why should a private pilot be taught not to?
I'm sure everyone is aware of the liability implications involved with this mentality. I respect and am an avid fan of people like Deakin, but this one's a bit different.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Horse Trailer
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You said
I said
Now lets examine this a little closer...........
Where does it say NOT to do what most are suggesting? Also Where does it say that you must do the full fine thing, i.e does it say on down wind or just over the fence ready for your feared GA?
What I and most others are saying is do not go blasting down final or earlier with 2700RPM, rather if you want it already in the fine position at some mystical point ob very short final, knock your socks off.
Now as for my assuming you need fine pitch to rectify your approaches I am sure you are skilled enough to get your profile right from 30 miles out, its not that hard if I can do it. But this is a common misuse of a big noise generator.
And re-read what I said, especially the first few words.
I am off out the door for more flight testing.....and I am really concerned about the approaches in this thing, how do I get full fine on late final.......its a fixed pitch cruise prop will I crash and burn in a GA, will I have no climb performance
. Ohhh dear once they put a CSU on a C172 they should have recalled all the others with fixed props for a change out.
Now yes I am taking the pi$$ a little here, and poking a bit of fun, but the point is........there is no danger in leaving the cruise rpm set, unless there is a LIMITATION saying otherwise. Remember RED/BLUE/BLACK
It does seem that some people here are advocating landing with the prop at the descent setting (correct me if I'm wrong).
If you don't slam the pitch into full fine while carrying Vref + say 30kts, you won't get the prop bouncing off the redline while it attempts to govern your hamfisted commands.
Pitch max will also provide a very useful source of drag to provide that last bit of deceleration over the fence and give you the best climb ability in the event of a go-around.
During a go-around, why wouldn't you maximise your RoC by using T/O power? Height is your friend. Get it ASAP! Once a a safe height, then use the max cont. pwr settings (which most likely are your baulked landing figures....coincidence?)
If you don't slam the pitch into full fine while carrying Vref + say 30kts, you won't get the prop bouncing off the redline while it attempts to govern your hamfisted commands.
Pitch max will also provide a very useful source of drag to provide that last bit of deceleration over the fence and give you the best climb ability in the event of a go-around.
During a go-around, why wouldn't you maximise your RoC by using T/O power? Height is your friend. Get it ASAP! Once a a safe height, then use the max cont. pwr settings (which most likely are your baulked landing figures....coincidence?)
I said
MIHC
I am not sure anyone said full fine on short final was an OWT of sorts, if I did say that well clearly I am losing the plot. What I did say..... Quote:
Why not land with the pitch control still set from the cruise. say 2300 RPM. Why not, in the event of a baulked landing, RED/BLUE/BLACK, in about the time you read that, or if you can do all at the same time, who cares. It will not make any difference. Now you are climbing away at full bore max rate.
So if it makes you feel better going full fine on final, well do so, just dont go boring downwind at 120 knots and back to 2700RPM making an almight noise that only winds up the people who leave near to the aerodrome. They get enough on takeoff so halve the number of 2700RPM events
Despite what your instructor once taught you, you can learn a whole new more neighbour friendly and sensible "checklist" that is not dangerous and is "better" in some ways.
I am not sure anyone said full fine on short final was an OWT of sorts, if I did say that well clearly I am losing the plot. What I did say..... Quote:
Why not land with the pitch control still set from the cruise. say 2300 RPM. Why not, in the event of a baulked landing, RED/BLUE/BLACK, in about the time you read that, or if you can do all at the same time, who cares. It will not make any difference. Now you are climbing away at full bore max rate.
So if it makes you feel better going full fine on final, well do so, just dont go boring downwind at 120 knots and back to 2700RPM making an almight noise that only winds up the people who leave near to the aerodrome. They get enough on takeoff so halve the number of 2700RPM events
Despite what your instructor once taught you, you can learn a whole new more neighbour friendly and sensible "checklist" that is not dangerous and is "better" in some ways.
Where does it say NOT to do what most are suggesting? Also Where does it say that you must do the full fine thing, i.e does it say on down wind or just over the fence ready for your feared GA?
What I and most others are saying is do not go blasting down final or earlier with 2700RPM, rather if you want it already in the fine position at some mystical point ob very short final, knock your socks off.
Now as for my assuming you need fine pitch to rectify your approaches I am sure you are skilled enough to get your profile right from 30 miles out, its not that hard if I can do it. But this is a common misuse of a big noise generator.
And re-read what I said, especially the first few words.
So if it makes you feel better going full fine on final, well do so, just dont go boring downwind at 120 knots and back to 2700RPM making an almight noise that only winds up the people who leave near to the aerodrome. They get enough on takeoff so halve the number of 2700RPM events
will I crash and burn in a GA, will I have no climb performance. Ohhh dear once they put a CSU on a C172 they should have recalled all the others with fixed props for a change out.Now yes I am taking the pi$$ a little here, and poking a bit of fun, but the point is........there is no danger in leaving the cruise rpm set, unless there is a LIMITATION saying otherwise. Remember RED/BLUE/BLACK
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My introduction to the oversquare world was in reading the book, "Charles Lindbergh's Wartime Diaries".
Lindbergh had been sent to the South Pacific as a representative of Lockheed and Consolidated aircraft companies to advise on the operation of their aircraft. He actually flew combat missions (as a civilian) and was surprised to hear so many of the other pilots declaring fuel emergencies when he still had plenty of fuel.
On investigation he found that none of the pilots had been instructed in long range cruise techniques (some things don't ever change) so his first job was to set up a lecture on the subject. He taught that you should set the lowest RPM with the highest MP (remember, most of these aircraft had automatic mixture control). It was only after his tour that the USAAF was able to undertake the mission to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto's aircraft.
I have to admit that when I first read the book I thought it was all wrong. It wasn't until I started reading John Deakin's articles (over and over until I understood them) and talked to Douggie Spriggs at Arkaroola (who has one of the most amazing libraries on all things aviation mechanical I have ever seen) that the light went on. As an aside it was Doug who arranged for George Braly to come to Australia to give evidence to the Coroner's Inquiry into the Whyalla Airlines crash (and didn't that put some noses out of joint).
Lindbergh had been sent to the South Pacific as a representative of Lockheed and Consolidated aircraft companies to advise on the operation of their aircraft. He actually flew combat missions (as a civilian) and was surprised to hear so many of the other pilots declaring fuel emergencies when he still had plenty of fuel.
On investigation he found that none of the pilots had been instructed in long range cruise techniques (some things don't ever change) so his first job was to set up a lecture on the subject. He taught that you should set the lowest RPM with the highest MP (remember, most of these aircraft had automatic mixture control). It was only after his tour that the USAAF was able to undertake the mission to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto's aircraft.
I have to admit that when I first read the book I thought it was all wrong. It wasn't until I started reading John Deakin's articles (over and over until I understood them) and talked to Douggie Spriggs at Arkaroola (who has one of the most amazing libraries on all things aviation mechanical I have ever seen) that the light went on. As an aside it was Doug who arranged for George Braly to come to Australia to give evidence to the Coroner's Inquiry into the Whyalla Airlines crash (and didn't that put some noses out of joint).