Downwind Checks ?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have yet to fly an aircraft that I could not apply full RPM and full throttle at the same time. I am with Chuck 100% on this.
In my aircraft I fly the circuit at 18" and 2400 RPM. On final if I have to go around I smoothly advance the throttloe and the RPM at the same time.
Yesterday doing a Complex conversion on a Lance I had the pilot fly the circuit on the same numbers, on the go around which he was not expecting at 50ft I had him advance the RPM and the throttle in a smooth motion, achieve the climb and clean the aircraft. His comment was that was so much easier and a damn site better than thrashing the balls of it at max RPM.
We could perhaps argue that anyone who finds a complex type so complex that they can't do as Chuck suggest's has a little more time with an Instructor.
In my aircraft I fly the circuit at 18" and 2400 RPM. On final if I have to go around I smoothly advance the throttloe and the RPM at the same time.
Yesterday doing a Complex conversion on a Lance I had the pilot fly the circuit on the same numbers, on the go around which he was not expecting at 50ft I had him advance the RPM and the throttle in a smooth motion, achieve the climb and clean the aircraft. His comment was that was so much easier and a damn site better than thrashing the balls of it at max RPM.
We could perhaps argue that anyone who finds a complex type so complex that they can't do as Chuck suggest's has a little more time with an Instructor.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking that last little bit as a bit of a dig I think this highlights that you will do what you have been trained to do, I have been taught to do it on finals after the gear is extended, whereas you do it your way, nobody is disputing whether each is right or wrong, I am saying that in my opinion that's not the time to be doing it, it doesn't mean I or anyone is incapable of doing it your way, but in my opinion (because of the way I have been taught) it's not an automatic hand movement.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deano777
Just an ordinary amateur me so this will never be a problem. But;
"use all checks as published by the official check list"
Now let me think, I built the aircraft, which has a unique layout, so I am the official expert, so I just decided that my way is the official one. How did I do? I suppose I will need to write it down some time, otherwise people with think I made it all up….
Bose, with an electric prop you would want to convince the computer to change to “climb mode” before you were down to 50ft. However, with a conventional set-up I agree with you that going fine too early is not good.
Rod1
Just an ordinary amateur me so this will never be a problem. But;
"use all checks as published by the official check list"
Now let me think, I built the aircraft, which has a unique layout, so I am the official expert, so I just decided that my way is the official one. How did I do? I suppose I will need to write it down some time, otherwise people with think I made it all up….
Bose, with an electric prop you would want to convince the computer to change to “climb mode” before you were down to 50ft. However, with a conventional set-up I agree with you that going fine too early is not good.
Rod1
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetically - you are flying a Seneca II, you get on to final with cruise power set, you check the gear etc and as has been mentioned you find the need for a sudden g/a. You now have 4 levers to move forward that arent all going to be going to the same position, the prop levers will be going further forward than the throttles due to the need not to over boost the engines. Therefore you are going to have to twist your hand to control the overboost. Whilst you are doing that, because of the greater inertia of a heavier a/c you are going to be sinking even further and you could end up touching down quite heavily before you get into the full g/a climb. Imagine if you realised you needed to go around because you didnt do the checks properly and didnt put the gear down, horrible scraping sound ensues!
The point im trying to make is that every a/c is different and some require a different set of checks to others. Personally, I think that for the small difference in RPM that you are going to get when going fine makes very little difference and its one less thing to think about when doing a go around!
C250
The point im trying to make is that every a/c is different and some require a different set of checks to others. Personally, I think that for the small difference in RPM that you are going to get when going fine makes very little difference and its one less thing to think about when doing a go around!
C250
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly a Seneca and have never experianced this scenario. Standard drill in an engine failure is all levers forward and I have never had a problem with this either.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not talking about engine failure. Talking about a g/a with both engines operating. In a real se approach you wouldnt really want to be doing a g/a below ACH if possible, but thats going off track a bit!
So you put the props to fully fine and the throttles to 39" MAP at the same time on a normal twin engine g/a? At 300ft I'd be happy trying it (trying being the operateive word) but at anything like 50ft (as in the sudden g/a situation that has been suggested) I wouldnt like to try it. Again I must stress thats my pov and im just going off what Ive been taught.
Again it boils down to the fact that if you've done it at some stage there's no big deal! But my view would be why stress yourself with it at 50ft when there is more chance of things going pear shaped when you could have done it at 500ft with less risk?
C250
So you put the props to fully fine and the throttles to 39" MAP at the same time on a normal twin engine g/a? At 300ft I'd be happy trying it (trying being the operateive word) but at anything like 50ft (as in the sudden g/a situation that has been suggested) I wouldnt like to try it. Again I must stress thats my pov and im just going off what Ive been taught.
Again it boils down to the fact that if you've done it at some stage there's no big deal! But my view would be why stress yourself with it at 50ft when there is more chance of things going pear shaped when you could have done it at 500ft with less risk?
C250
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deano77:
O.K. I will attempt to explain my methods of power control and why.
Remember I was responding to comments about moving the pitch control to full fine on the downwind.
" The bottom line is, why wait until you are in the flare before applying max RPM? the increase in RPM when you put it forward at a low MAP setting has a negligible effect on your aeroplane anyway, so why not include it in your "REDS BLUES 3 GREENS" check on finals, I just can't see any issues with doing it this way, but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not "
O.K. lets argue this your way.
You claim I am being pedantic when in fact I feel I am being exctly the opposite as my thoughts on how to fly come from decades of experience and learning from experience, and not from the myopic world of ab-inito training, teaching like one of Pavlovs dogs so as not to offend someone who checks everyone in the structured dummned down world of the puppy mill mentality of a lot of flight schools.
First lets use a senario where go arounds are 100% of our approaches when we are actually working the aircraft.
I was a heavy water bomber Captain for fifteen years and my method for approaching the fire for the retardent/ water drop on said fire was to leave the propellors in cruise RPM for the run in to the drop and if the ground was relatively flat for the exit from the fire....in other words the whole proceedure including the go around was done using cruise RPM unless there was an obstacle that required climb power to climb above said obstacle.
I would like to add that ocassionally the turbulence or the exit from the fire drop area was signifigant enough that I would need climb power to exit the drop zone and there was the odd time I would select climb RPM just prior to the drop....so please, please save me all the hand wringing about how turbulent the air can get approaching a runway.
Now for some more comments that are not meant to be pedantic.
Aircraft engines are subject to wear in direct porportion to the amount of heat generated and by friction caused by the number of RPM's over a given time frame.
When driving an airplane down hill I see no advantage in wearing out my engines by using unnecessary RPM when something as basic as pre planning the approach based on conditions will allow gravity to generate the velocity I require aided with a small bit of thrust from the engine/s.
Just to clear this up, if there was an extenuating circumstance where I felt I needed climb RPM, good airmanship will prevail and I would select the required RPM/ power just prior to needing same......I do not motor around the sky with the propellor driving me crazy with noise.
Oh, I almost forgot I flew as a Ag pilot for eight years and never used full RPM during all the many thousands of times I climbed from two feet above the ground to climb over trees and power lines....
" but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not "
We are all entitled to our own opinions.
O.K. I will attempt to explain my methods of power control and why.
Remember I was responding to comments about moving the pitch control to full fine on the downwind.
" The bottom line is, why wait until you are in the flare before applying max RPM? the increase in RPM when you put it forward at a low MAP setting has a negligible effect on your aeroplane anyway, so why not include it in your "REDS BLUES 3 GREENS" check on finals, I just can't see any issues with doing it this way, but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not "
O.K. lets argue this your way.
You claim I am being pedantic when in fact I feel I am being exctly the opposite as my thoughts on how to fly come from decades of experience and learning from experience, and not from the myopic world of ab-inito training, teaching like one of Pavlovs dogs so as not to offend someone who checks everyone in the structured dummned down world of the puppy mill mentality of a lot of flight schools.
First lets use a senario where go arounds are 100% of our approaches when we are actually working the aircraft.
I was a heavy water bomber Captain for fifteen years and my method for approaching the fire for the retardent/ water drop on said fire was to leave the propellors in cruise RPM for the run in to the drop and if the ground was relatively flat for the exit from the fire....in other words the whole proceedure including the go around was done using cruise RPM unless there was an obstacle that required climb power to climb above said obstacle.
I would like to add that ocassionally the turbulence or the exit from the fire drop area was signifigant enough that I would need climb power to exit the drop zone and there was the odd time I would select climb RPM just prior to the drop....so please, please save me all the hand wringing about how turbulent the air can get approaching a runway.
Now for some more comments that are not meant to be pedantic.
Aircraft engines are subject to wear in direct porportion to the amount of heat generated and by friction caused by the number of RPM's over a given time frame.
When driving an airplane down hill I see no advantage in wearing out my engines by using unnecessary RPM when something as basic as pre planning the approach based on conditions will allow gravity to generate the velocity I require aided with a small bit of thrust from the engine/s.
Just to clear this up, if there was an extenuating circumstance where I felt I needed climb RPM, good airmanship will prevail and I would select the required RPM/ power just prior to needing same......I do not motor around the sky with the propellor driving me crazy with noise.
Oh, I almost forgot I flew as a Ag pilot for eight years and never used full RPM during all the many thousands of times I climbed from two feet above the ground to climb over trees and power lines....
" but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not "
We are all entitled to our own opinions.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
I think the first problem here is that everyone is more comfortable with what they have always done, and were trained to do. The assumption is usually if I was taught to do it that way - it must be right. So getting people to accept there is another way is tough.
Personally I can see no disadvantages in what you suggest and one or two advantages. That would suggest your technique is better.
However, there may be one danger and that is in changing what you have always done. If you were taught to advance the prop during the approach, and change to doing so only in the event of and on a go around, in moments of stress there may be a risk of reverting to your earlier training and assuming you have already advanced the prop. In short it takes a while for a new technique to become second nature - clearly not a problem if you were taught the "Chuck" way from the start.
I think the first problem here is that everyone is more comfortable with what they have always done, and were trained to do. The assumption is usually if I was taught to do it that way - it must be right. So getting people to accept there is another way is tough.
Personally I can see no disadvantages in what you suggest and one or two advantages. That would suggest your technique is better.
However, there may be one danger and that is in changing what you have always done. If you were taught to advance the prop during the approach, and change to doing so only in the event of and on a go around, in moments of stress there may be a risk of reverting to your earlier training and assuming you have already advanced the prop. In short it takes a while for a new technique to become second nature - clearly not a problem if you were taught the "Chuck" way from the start.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes fuji but the reality is if someone reacted to a go around as stressful a momentary over boosting of the engine would be the least problem said pilot has.
What should be taught is the transition from the approach attitude to the climb attitude is not the equivalent of launching the space shuttle power requirement wise.....
...anyhow I've said my bit on this one....happy motoring to all of you and fly safe.
What should be taught is the transition from the approach attitude to the climb attitude is not the equivalent of launching the space shuttle power requirement wise.....
...anyhow I've said my bit on this one....happy motoring to all of you and fly safe.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah right so, its okay to overboost your engines but its not okay to have them running at 50rpm more than would otherwise be, set at cruise power on a 2 mile final! How silly of me not to realise. Its six of one and half a dozen of the other. You do it your way, I do it mine.
My words were "why stress yourself" NOT "the g/a is stressful" Subtle difference there but I shoud have made myself more clear, I agree the g/a is not stressful my point being why move 4 levers at the same time when you need only move 2? You do a RBG check on final everythings down, everything works and you have full power available to you when you advance the power for the g/a.
I too have said my piece on this one!
My words were "why stress yourself" NOT "the g/a is stressful" Subtle difference there but I shoud have made myself more clear, I agree the g/a is not stressful my point being why move 4 levers at the same time when you need only move 2? You do a RBG check on final everythings down, everything works and you have full power available to you when you advance the power for the g/a.
I too have said my piece on this one!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commanche 250:
I just can't let this pass......
You say:
" Ah right so, its okay to overboost your engines but its not okay to have them running at 50rpm more than would otherwise be, set at cruise power on a 2 mile final! How silly of me not to realise. Its six of one and half a dozen of the other. "
I don't know what you are flying, but I have never seen an airplane where the RPM change from cruise RPM the full fine pitch RPM is only a change of 50 RPM with an increase of manifold pressure sufficient to produce positive thrust.
If you can't figure out how to move your prop leavers and your power levers to produce the necessary go around power before you crash your airplane I can't help you here on Pprune.
Anyhow you and I are both correct about one thing, you can fly your airplane any way you want.
I just can't let this pass......
You say:
" Ah right so, its okay to overboost your engines but its not okay to have them running at 50rpm more than would otherwise be, set at cruise power on a 2 mile final! How silly of me not to realise. Its six of one and half a dozen of the other. "
I don't know what you are flying, but I have never seen an airplane where the RPM change from cruise RPM the full fine pitch RPM is only a change of 50 RPM with an increase of manifold pressure sufficient to produce positive thrust.
If you can't figure out how to move your prop leavers and your power levers to produce the necessary go around power before you crash your airplane I can't help you here on Pprune.
Anyhow you and I are both correct about one thing, you can fly your airplane any way you want.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes fuji but the reality is if someone reacted to a go around as stressful a momentary over boosting of the engine would be the least problem said pilot has.
I agree with your handling of the prop., I was simply suggesting that for those for whom it is engrained that the prop lever is advanced on the approach in a moment of stress on the go around they might just forget to advance the prop altogether but they are so accustom to it being done already. In other words if you change the way you do things worth making sure it comes naturally?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
By this I take it you mean that lower RPM means less wear on the engine and higher RPM means higher wear? This contradicts what Walter Atkinson, who runs the Advanced Pilot Seminars in the US, claims, namely that higher RPMs produce less wear on an engine.
Any comments?
Aircraft engines are subject to wear in direct porportion to the amount of heat generated and by friction caused by the number of RPM's over a given time frame.
When driving an airplane down hill I see no advantage in wearing out my engines by using unnecessary RPM when something as basic as pre planning the approach based on conditions will allow gravity to generate the velocity I require aided with a small bit of thrust from the engine/s.
When driving an airplane down hill I see no advantage in wearing out my engines by using unnecessary RPM when something as basic as pre planning the approach based on conditions will allow gravity to generate the velocity I require aided with a small bit of thrust from the engine/s.
Any comments?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right Chuck I cant let this lie either lol...approach configuration, gear down, flaps 40 degrees, 90 kts, prop levers set at cruise RPM which is 2300 and a MAP of between 15-17". Long final, short final - makes no difference. If you increase the RPM levers you will only get a small increase in RPM as the MAP is low and the props are only spinning at about 1500-1600 RPM. So where does the extra wear and tear come into it if you are only getting a small rise in RPM. Yes granted if you are at cruise power which is 24" 2300 in the a/c I fly and you then increase the RPM you will get a rise of 275 RPM.
So final is only going to last about 2-3 mins with the props fully fine which is a tiny fraction of the total time spent at a lower RPM so where is the problem? Anyway, we are right, I shall continue to fly my a/c as I always have because I have never had ANY problems doing it that way!
Nuff said
C250
So final is only going to last about 2-3 mins with the props fully fine which is a tiny fraction of the total time spent at a lower RPM so where is the problem? Anyway, we are right, I shall continue to fly my a/c as I always have because I have never had ANY problems doing it that way!
Nuff said
C250
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" I was simply suggesting that for those for whom it is engrained that the prop lever is advanced on the approach in a moment of stress on the go around they might just forget to advance the prop altogether but they are so accustom to it being done already. In other words if you change the way you do things worth making sure it comes naturally? "
You have a valid point about changing proceedures, but would it be out of the question to change the method of teaching the students that it is not necessary to move the prop pitch to full fine on the approach to teaching them to select the desired RPM when needed? Why would a pilot need full fine and full power to go around, wouldn't climb power and climb RPM be sufficient to conduct a go around?
" By this I take it you mean that lower RPM means less wear on the engine and higher RPM means higher wear? This contradicts what Walter Atkinson, who runs the Advanced Pilot Seminars in the US, claims, namely that higher RPMs produce less wear on an engine.
Any comments? "
drauk, I have not read the claims by W. Atkinson, my comments were based on known physics.....namely friction is a result of travel and rate of travel, in the case of a light four stroke engine such as being discussed here the higher the RPM the further travel you will have with all components.
I am basing my broad assumption on the basis of the less distance your comonents such as pistons travel the less chance of wear.
Lets have a look at large radial engines and read the engine manufactures recommandations regarding RPM and manifold pressures, I have yet to operate one that did not have limits on RPM and manifold pressures.
Anyhow it looks like once again I have managed to get myself into a situation where I will be fielding "what if's" forever.
So all you good people fly your airplanes any way you choose, and I shall fly mine the way that has worked for over half a century for me with no problems safety wise nor mechanically wise.
You have a valid point about changing proceedures, but would it be out of the question to change the method of teaching the students that it is not necessary to move the prop pitch to full fine on the approach to teaching them to select the desired RPM when needed? Why would a pilot need full fine and full power to go around, wouldn't climb power and climb RPM be sufficient to conduct a go around?
" By this I take it you mean that lower RPM means less wear on the engine and higher RPM means higher wear? This contradicts what Walter Atkinson, who runs the Advanced Pilot Seminars in the US, claims, namely that higher RPMs produce less wear on an engine.
Any comments? "
drauk, I have not read the claims by W. Atkinson, my comments were based on known physics.....namely friction is a result of travel and rate of travel, in the case of a light four stroke engine such as being discussed here the higher the RPM the further travel you will have with all components.
I am basing my broad assumption on the basis of the less distance your comonents such as pistons travel the less chance of wear.
Lets have a look at large radial engines and read the engine manufactures recommandations regarding RPM and manifold pressures, I have yet to operate one that did not have limits on RPM and manifold pressures.
Anyhow it looks like once again I have managed to get myself into a situation where I will be fielding "what if's" forever.
So all you good people fly your airplanes any way you choose, and I shall fly mine the way that has worked for over half a century for me with no problems safety wise nor mechanically wise.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyhow it looks like once again I have managed to get myself into a situation where I will be fielding "what if's" forever.
So all you good people fly your airplanes any way you choose, and I shall fly mine the way that has worked for over half a century for me with no problems safety wise nor mechanically wise.
So all you good people fly your airplanes any way you choose, and I shall fly mine the way that has worked for over half a century for me with no problems safety wise nor mechanically wise.
I have not read the claims by W. Atkinson, my comments were based on known physics.....namely friction is a result of travel and rate of travel, in the case of a light four stroke engine such as being discussed here the higher the RPM the further travel you will have with all components.
I am basing my broad assumption on the basis of the less distance your comonents such as pistons travel the less chance of wear.
I am basing my broad assumption on the basis of the less distance your comonents such as pistons travel the less chance of wear.
Lets have a look at large radial engines and read the engine manufactures recommandations regarding RPM and manifold pressures, I have yet to operate one that did not have limits on RPM and manifold pressures.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, can't be bothered to quote and paste, gets too personal.
Comanche,
You don't even get an RPM rise if the speed is below a certain value.
And Chuck,
I have flown an aircraft where it was not possible to move prop and power lever at the same time, an aircraft one could call local to Chuck. Apart from the fact that I almost never used anything more than idle at any time during the descent and approach, reverse wouldn't be available for the descent if the prop wasn't fully fine.
The missed approach obstacle clearance is different form the take-off but still both assume the engine out condition for multi. Fot training always full power for initiating a missed approach; one may however choose how long one wishes to maintain that setting (perhaps even before reaching it (Thinks: covered myself nicely there!)).
I wonder if anyone has actually gone as far as calculating the difference in power between take-off and climb for a typical VP single. I used to use Climb power for take-off for environmental reasons.
Whilst I feel that landing time is a time for landing not farting around with anything else, I reckon props should be the last item on the BEFORE landing checklist, not the downwind check.
As a matter of little or possibly no interest we would often use fully fine on the ATR-72 if it was gusty for a better response even though the aircraft had an automatic prop setting.
And I'd recommend to go with the flow any day because it works on all aircraft where the Bumpff thing will have you wasting time darting here and there looking for things which in some cases aren't even there.
Comanche,
You don't even get an RPM rise if the speed is below a certain value.
And Chuck,
I have flown an aircraft where it was not possible to move prop and power lever at the same time, an aircraft one could call local to Chuck. Apart from the fact that I almost never used anything more than idle at any time during the descent and approach, reverse wouldn't be available for the descent if the prop wasn't fully fine.
The missed approach obstacle clearance is different form the take-off but still both assume the engine out condition for multi. Fot training always full power for initiating a missed approach; one may however choose how long one wishes to maintain that setting (perhaps even before reaching it (Thinks: covered myself nicely there!)).
I wonder if anyone has actually gone as far as calculating the difference in power between take-off and climb for a typical VP single. I used to use Climb power for take-off for environmental reasons.
Whilst I feel that landing time is a time for landing not farting around with anything else, I reckon props should be the last item on the BEFORE landing checklist, not the downwind check.
As a matter of little or possibly no interest we would often use fully fine on the ATR-72 if it was gusty for a better response even though the aircraft had an automatic prop setting.
And I'd recommend to go with the flow any day because it works on all aircraft where the Bumpff thing will have you wasting time darting here and there looking for things which in some cases aren't even there.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" I am definitely no expert on this. However, as I understand it, your assumption is an over simplification which might seem sensible at first glance, but is actually wrong. Atkinson claims to have measured data which proves this. Apparently it is to do with higher RPMs resulting in lower internal cylinder pressure. "
Fair comment, I will grant you this discussion is about small engines.
Conversely all certified aircraft have guidelines as to power settings and RPM for given power settings.
There are basically three power settings with limits on RPM.
Full power for take off.
Climb power.
Cruise power.
This whole discussion started with checks on the down wind.
My comments started with saying that setting the props to full fine on the down wind portion of the circuit was not in my opinion good airmanship.
I then stated that I select full fine on the power reduction to land ( closing the throttle/s. )
I have also added the comments that should I for some reason have the need for go around power I will set go around RPM and climb power as I pitch up from the decending attitude to the climb attitude and there is sufficient time to do this without endangering the safety of the flight.
I also am of the opinion that a go around or the need to stop a uncommanded rate of descent does not constitute a stressful situation for me as I fly the approach and landing profiles with due care and attention to conditions.
When the propellor governor is set to full fine and the throttle/s are opened to produce enough power to compensate for a uncommanded loss of height/airspeed they will generally surge in RPM past climb RPM, I am of the opinion that this much RPM change is not needed under most every flight situation that you will encounter.......
.......or to put it another way, I do not recall ever having to use that much sudden power application in around thirty thousand hours of flying...and in some very critical situations I might add...
So I hope that better explains where I was coming from.
Fair comment, I will grant you this discussion is about small engines.
Conversely all certified aircraft have guidelines as to power settings and RPM for given power settings.
There are basically three power settings with limits on RPM.
Full power for take off.
Climb power.
Cruise power.
This whole discussion started with checks on the down wind.
My comments started with saying that setting the props to full fine on the down wind portion of the circuit was not in my opinion good airmanship.
I then stated that I select full fine on the power reduction to land ( closing the throttle/s. )
I have also added the comments that should I for some reason have the need for go around power I will set go around RPM and climb power as I pitch up from the decending attitude to the climb attitude and there is sufficient time to do this without endangering the safety of the flight.
I also am of the opinion that a go around or the need to stop a uncommanded rate of descent does not constitute a stressful situation for me as I fly the approach and landing profiles with due care and attention to conditions.
When the propellor governor is set to full fine and the throttle/s are opened to produce enough power to compensate for a uncommanded loss of height/airspeed they will generally surge in RPM past climb RPM, I am of the opinion that this much RPM change is not needed under most every flight situation that you will encounter.......
.......or to put it another way, I do not recall ever having to use that much sudden power application in around thirty thousand hours of flying...and in some very critical situations I might add...
So I hope that better explains where I was coming from.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EH?, what happens if you need to go around and you havn't got the prop fully fine? Happend in a Mooney once when I was not PIC and the prop wasnt fine and it didnt climb very well at all!
Sorry, just a late edit. I was also taught that it was not always necessary to have the props fully fine on a go around. Just sufficiently high to allow the required application of MAP without overboosting the engines and still maintaining a reasonably high positive Roc. So, when on a go around off on an ILS approach (normally conducted at 18"MAP 2400RPM 120KIAS), I just advance the power levers to 24" which gets me started on the go around and after I have cleaned up I may elect to go to 25"/2500 RPM to complete the climb if required. Works well for me and presents very little hassle.
Last edited by QSK?; 23rd Mar 2007 at 04:09.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miserlou, that was the point I was trying to make. In the a/c I fly, that figure is 1500 RPM and over that figure you will only get a small rise in RPM at a low MAP. And further to going fine on final its not really going to make a difference to engine wear.
"Whilst I feel that landing time is a time for landing not farting around with anything else, I reckon props should be the last item on the BEFORE landing checklist, not the downwind check."
Agree with you there, hence the check on final for the Red's Blue's Green's check. As has been mentioned what happens if you dont conform to a standard circuit pattern and forget gear mixure etc, just as easy to do a pre-landing check which encompasses what are possibly the 3 most important things before landing imo.
Chuck, "My comments started with saying that setting the props to full fine on the down wind portion of the circuit was not in my opinion good airmanship."
Something else we agree on
, which is why I do it on final, before landing.
C250
"Whilst I feel that landing time is a time for landing not farting around with anything else, I reckon props should be the last item on the BEFORE landing checklist, not the downwind check."
Agree with you there, hence the check on final for the Red's Blue's Green's check. As has been mentioned what happens if you dont conform to a standard circuit pattern and forget gear mixure etc, just as easy to do a pre-landing check which encompasses what are possibly the 3 most important things before landing imo.
Chuck, "My comments started with saying that setting the props to full fine on the down wind portion of the circuit was not in my opinion good airmanship."
Something else we agree on
, which is why I do it on final, before landing.C250