How far back can you pull your prop?

moparrob66

Pre-Flight
Joined
Mar 31, 2024
Messages
33
Display Name

Display name:
Moparrob
I've been thinking a lot about auto conversions and since most use a reduction gear, the torque is multiplied significantly. The last plane I flew was a 206 for my high performance endorsement with 300 hp. It was an impressive step up from the 172s Ive been flying for sure. It got me thinking, though, how far back could one pull back the rpms in cruise, and do geared engines like the GO-480 or Gtsio-520 (Cessna 421) do better than direct drive engines in this regard?


I know there are differences, but if there were enough torque applied to the propeller shaft and the engine wasnt pinging, could AN engine be throttled back and loaded down much more, like your car on the freeway in overdrive, yet doing 80+ at low rpms. Bigger propeller, wider chord etc.
 
I know there are differences, but if there were enough torque applied to the propeller shaft and the engine wasnt pinging, could AN engine be throttled back and loaded down much more, like your car on the freeway in overdrive, yet doing 80+ at low rpms. Bigger propeller, wider chord etc.
The cruise numbers in any constant-speed prop POH or AFM prohibit such operation. The reason is "pinging," as you call it, or more properly, detonation, and it will kill that engine in short order. These are NOT car engines, cruising at 25 or 30% power and at half or less of their redlines. Aircraft engines are running at 60-100% power, at already low RPMs. They have big cylinders. That combination of low RPM and large cylinders gives time for the fuel molecules to break down ahead of the flame front and become unstable, autoignitable molecules so that the flame front speed increases from maybe 100 feet per second to 5000 FPS or more, and the resultant pressure spike ("ping") blows the cylinders apart.
 
Yes...im sure theres a big difference due to the cylinder size vs total displacement. A 360" 4 cylinder will be very different from a 360" V-8. I should build a test stand to try my ideas before I take to the air.
 
Geared engines have never been popular in aircraft. There’s a reason for that.

Full disclosure, the engine I’m flying behind is geared. Lol
 
Unless you consider the Rotax to be popular. There are quite a few flying.
True, but ask 100 random pilots and I bet 51 or more are not rotax fans.
 
True, but ask 100 random pilots and I bet 51 or more are not rotax fans.
Do those 51 have Rotax experience? Everyone I’ve talked with who’s flown a Rotax four-stroke likes them. The only ones I’ve heard from who don’t like them (912/914/915) have never flown one, but say they don’t sound like a real airplane. So just an emtional reaction.
 
Do those 51 have Rotax experience? Everyone I’ve talked with who’s flown a Rotax four-stroke likes them. The only ones I’ve heard from who don’t like them (912/914/915) have never flown one, but say they don’t sound like a real airplane. So just an emtional reaction.
That doesn’t change the fact that many don’t like them.
 
That doesn’t change the fact that many don’t like them.
Not sure what relevance that has, to be honest. You could find a bunch of people who “don’t like” pretty much anything.
 
Not sure what relevance that has, to be honest. You could find a bunch of people who “don’t like” pretty much anything.
People not like something has no relevance to the fact that they aren’t popular? Ok.
 
I've been thinking a lot about auto conversions and since most use a reduction gear, the torque is multiplied significantly. The last plane I flew was a 206 for my high performance endorsement with 300 hp. It was an impressive step up from the 172s Ive been flying for sure. It got me thinking, though, how far back could one pull back the rpms in cruise, and do geared engines like the GO-480 or Gtsio-520 (Cessna 421) do better than direct drive engines in this regard?
The AFM or POH contains published limitations, prohibitions, and restrictions established for the engine and propeller. So long as you do not exceed a limitation and remain outside any restricted or prohibited RPM range, you could "pull back" the RPM to the mechanical limit of the propeller control, and in this regard there would be no difference between direct drive and geared engines. However, as Dan Thomas noted in post #3, operating outside of the envelope established by the manufacturer's published data could result in engine and/or gearbox damage. Unless specifically prohibited you are free to operate at any RPM up to the limit, but operating outside the range of published settings would put you in Test Pilot mode. Do ya feel lucky, punk?
I know there are differences, but if there were enough torque applied to the propeller shaft and the engine wasnt pinging, could AN engine be throttled back and loaded down much more, like your car on the freeway in overdrive, yet doing 80+ at low rpms. Bigger propeller, wider chord etc.
My question to you is, what exactly are you trying to achieve?
 
Last edited:
Im hoping to get a better understanding of alternative engines. Yes, an O-360 would be fine for my intended application. Is there a better engine out there? Is the O-360 good enough to justify the cost? Are the airboat guys crazy or would those engine and prop combos work in the air?
 
True, but ask 100 random pilots and I bet 51 or more are not rotax fans.
I think more would like it if rotax had a 235-300hp option. Until then it's useless to those that require that HP, so they're not going to like it.
 
Or the fact that virtually every turbine in use is geared, and that everyone from airlines to the military seem to have no issue with them ...
Isn’t it true that geared GA piston engines have a bad rep because of pilots who blew off the manual and operated them like direct-drive engines?
 
Isn’t it true that geared GA piston engines have a bad rep because of pilots who blew off the manual and operated them like direct-drive engines?
Not remotely the same thing.
 
Not remotely the same thing.
I was told that it was from letting the prop drive the engine (windmilling) and that MP/RPM combinations outside the charts beat up the gears. I need to learn more - what are the issues with gearboxes on Continentals?
 
People not like something has no relevance to the fact that they aren’t popular? Ok.
I can think of a lot of things that are quite popular, but lots of people still don’t like them. High wing airplanes. Low wing airplanes. Lycoming engines. Facebook. Teslas. Ford pickups. Plenty of things. Most of them are “popular”, in that they’re selling well and are in widespread use, but some who have never used them or for whom they don’t meet a particular need, or just have some bias whether based on facts or not, “don’t like” them.
 
Yes...im sure theres a big difference due to the cylinder size vs total displacement. A 360" 4 cylinder will be very different from a 360" V-8. I should build a test stand to try my ideas before I take to the air.
You don't have to. The engineers at Lycoming and Continental have done this stuff, blown up their engines, and come up with safe operating parameters that are published in POHs. Doing it yourself is reinventing the wheel. You're welcome to do it, but don't expect different results. Just expect expensive noises.

There are other factors. Octane level is one, and octane level indicates a resistance to detonation. When I learned to fly, we had 80 and 100. They were known then as 80/87 and 100/130. The higher number was at a rich mixture setting, the lower at a lean mixture. Rich mixtures run cooler. Lean mixtures burn more slowly and give more time for those molecules to break down and explode all at once.

Intake temperatures raise the likelihood of detonation. Carb heat at full power is therefore not that smart. A turboed engine, without an intercooler, will detonate more easily. Compressing the air heats it.

Air cooled engines are more prone to it. Their heads run a lot hotter, which heats the mixture and brings it closer
to molecular breakdown.

Fixed ignition timing, as found on aircraft engines, can lead to detonation. In modern cars, there are sensors for induction and engine temperatures, manifold pressure sensors, exhaust gas oxygen sensors, and knock sensors. The ECU takes all this stuff and figures out where the most economical and safe timing and air/fuel mixture should be, and does that. The knock sensors pick up the beginnings of detonation, and will retard the timing or enrich the mixture, or both, to stop it. Your Lycocont has none of that fancy stuff, and a large part of pilot training is to teach you how to safely operate that old engine. Some new students pilots resent having to learn that stuff, but that's too bad. If you don't learn it, you will not fly safely, and sooner or later it will cost you.

Lycoming has their "new" (what? 15 years old already, maybe?) iE2 engine that has electronic ignition and fuel injection, like your car, but it isn't cheap and so it isn't selling well. All that computer stuff has to have failsafe redundancies to keep it running if the electricity supply fails or if part of the computer gives up. It costs money to do that, and much more money to get it certified. They're not going to sell it at a loss.

In an airplane, you can't hear detonation, or "pinging." There is too much engine and propeller noise. By the time you realize something is wrong, it's too late.
 
Last edited:
Isn’t it true that geared GA piston engines have a bad rep because of pilots who blew off the manual and operated them like direct-drive engines?
For the GO-300 yes. Which in turn gave "geared engines" a bad rep that never really went away in the small aircraft market. When operated properly a GO-300 powered aircraft performed flawlessly and out-performed its contemporaries. A lot of the damage was caused by pilots running it at a lower RPM which set up internal vibrations/harmonics which caused the reduction gears excessively wear. Had they simply installed a dual tachometer that showed both engine and prop RPM it probably would have prevented their bad rep.
 
For the GO-300 yes. Which in turn gave "geared engines" a bad rep that never really went away in the small aircraft market. When operated properly a GO-300 powered aircraft performed flawlessly and out-performed its contemporaries. A lot of the damage was caused by pilots running it at a lower RPM which set up internal vibrations/harmonics which caused the reduction gears excessively wear. Had they simply installed a dual tachometer that showed both engine and prop RPM it probably would have prevented their bad rep.
You're assuming the average pilot would know how to use the dual tachs. Not sure that's a valid assumption.
 
You're assuming the average pilot would know how to use the dual tachs. Not sure that's a valid assumption.
Some people installed prop tachs in their 175s and all their problems went away. Cheap easy fix to push someone to follow the manual limits. Dual tachs were looked at as it made it simpler for an "average" pilot to follow "one" needle. Unfortunately the damage had been done and tribal knowledge ruled.
 
Do those 51 have Rotax experience? Everyone I’ve talked with who’s flown a Rotax four-stroke likes them. The only ones I’ve heard from who don’t like them (912/914/915) have never flown one, but say they don’t sound like a real airplane. So just an emtional reaction.
The 915 with a C/S prop does it all through the magic of FADEC.

No hard starts, super easy runup procedure and all the engine vitals are displayed on glass. And they're quieter than a 'real' aircraft engine.

The only thing to manage on cruise climb is the egts by pulling the throttle back a few percent to keep it out of the red.

As far as power, IIRC the 180hp 'real' aircraft engines reach parity somewhere around 5000' and lose ground to a 140hp flying lawnmower above that.
 
I know there are differences, but if there were enough torque applied to the propeller shaft...
Are you one of the guys that think torque is everything? This shows up once in a while.

Horsepower is torque times RPM. You cannot have torque alone unless you are using a torque wrench, let's say, and the wrench has stopped moving, so there is no horsepower being generated. None.

The airplane does not fly on torque alone. It flies on horsepower. The prop has to be rotating to generate thrust. Aircraft engines are designed specifically for the needs of propellers, which tend to be very fussy things. The prop's tip speed needs to be kept subsonic, but it has to be rotating fast enough to make useful thrust. The prop's diameter has to provide ground clearance. The propeller's pitch has to be low enough that it isn't stalled in its inboard sections until you're at cruise speeds.

A propeller at idle RPM, maybe 700, will hardly move the airplane at all. Double it to 1400, and we get a really fast taxi. Double it again and the airplane takes off and climbs well. It needs RPM, and the useful RPM takes its tips close to supersonic speeds.

The point there is that 700 RPM does not give you a quarter of the thrust that 2800 RPM does. It gives a much tinier fraction of it.

But if we "pull the prop back" to very low RPM, and then push the throttle in to "get the torque," we're throwing horsepower away, since we threw away RPM. Pushing the throttle in to get more torque with no speed increase does not increase HP much; it just trashes the engine.

I worked on the old Lockheed Electras used as fire bombers. Four 3750-HP Allison turboprops, swinging props about 12 feet in diameter at 1050 RPM. That low RPM was necessary to keep the tip speeds, at a forward speed of well over 300 knots, subsonic. That is typical of large engines turning large propellers at high cruise speeds. It doesn't fit with our little props. In cruise, those big props had a pitch, at the tips, of around 45 degrees, and much higher than that at the roots. That was to get the angle of attack necessary at those cruise speeds to still generate lift.

1712537806957.png
 
Last edited:
Do those 51 have Rotax experience? Everyone I’ve talked with who’s flown a Rotax four-stroke likes them. The only ones I’ve heard from who don’t like them (912/914/915) have never flown one, but say they don’t sound like a real airplane. So just an emtional reaction.
915/916 are excellent performers. I’d fly behind one
 
In what? Drones? There's no way there are 50,000 airplanes flying with Rotax's. Registered perhaps, but not flying.
 
Last edited:
Nine years ago there were 66k LSAs worldwide. https://bydanjohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Global-LSA-Chart.pdf

How many today? 75k? How many have Rotax engines?
That 50 k+ was the number Rotax gave back in 2015.

More than 50,000 engines of the Rotax 912 / 914 series were sold since 1989, resulting in more than 45 million flight hours of the fleet.

Rotax is simply mature and well tested engine - the only downside is their relatively low power offerings but they are working their way up there as well ..

 
Turbine engines being geared vs pistons are apples and oranges.
So true. That turbine doesn't lurch forward every time a cylinder fires and decelerate on every compression stroke. It's a Brayton-cycle engine, so it's rotation is smooth, and the gearing doesn't have to deal with massive torsional vibration as with the Otto-cycle piston engine.
 
Im hoping to get a better understanding of alternative engines. Yes, an O-360 would be fine for my intended application. Is there a better engine out there? Is the O-360 good enough to justify the cost? Are the airboat guys crazy or would those engine and prop combos work in the air?
Have you read Alternative Engines by Mick Myal? They are still around for about $5, Your inquiry is complex and the best answer to your question is Yes AND No.

If you are owning an airplane, would you prefer to spend your time flying it or working on it? If your engine breaks, would you like to fix it with readily available parts or custom make everything required to fix it? Unless someone or some company comes out with a mass produced alternative engine setup, a conventional aviation engine is hard to beat, especially if you are using a flat 4 like Lycoming IO-360 or similar engine with an established service history of high reliability.

One of the driving forces for alternative engines is better fuel economy, but having taken the advanced pilot engine management course and applying that information to run LOP safely and regularly, that is now a non-issue IMHO.

From an engine's point of view, the most efficient place to run for economy is Peak Torque RPM at or near Wide Open Throttle, with mixture pulled back to LOP with a small loss of power. That actually works pretty well for a naturally aspirated gasoline airplane engine cruising at 8000 - 10,000 feet. Add to that no added weight for components like waterpumps, radiator, hoses and coolant, reduction drive, and none of those items can fail or leak because they aren't there.

Could aviation engines be better? Of course. They could redesign the cumbustion chamber into a wedge shape and put both plugs on the same side for better combustion, power, and economy. They could build solid state contolled self contained magnetos that are direct replacements for breaker-point mags, similar technology is used in outboard engines all the time, but they haven't done that either. With current FAA rules it is not likely to redesign such things and doing so wouldn't be inexpensive. The upside? Maybe 3-5% better economy or power. The downside, more costly components and different operating characteristics. Is 3-5% worth all that? Probably not.

Read alternative engines then consider your options if you have a cylinder failure 400 miles from home. I did once. I called my home AI and he set me up with next day parts and I found an on- field aviation mechanic to swap out the bad cylinder in about a day. I was visiting family and it only delayed our return trip one day. It was almost a non event. Try that with a customized alternative engine!

One Miracle at a time!
 
Last edited:
Could aviation engines be better? Of course. They could redesign the cumbustion chamber into a wedge shape and put both plugs on the same side for better combustion, power, and economy. They could build solid state contolled self contained magnetos that are direct replacements for breaker-point mags, similar technology is used in outboard engines all the time, but they haven't done that either.
Lycoming's old O-145 had the plugs both up top. Didn't seem to work well at all. It was advertised as a 65 HP engine, but most users found it to be closer to 50 HP. Very smooth, though.
1712681867664.png

Surefly and P-Mag are both "breakerless" magnetos. They have been troublesome for many users. Lycoming has had its iE2 engines available for 12 or 15 years now, fully electronic ignition and fuel injection, with a dedicated alternator to keep them going if the airplane's systems fail. But it isn't cheap. Certification tends to do that.

1712682071493.png
 
Im hoping to get a better understanding of alternative engines. Yes, an O-360 would be fine for my intended application. Is there a better engine out there? Is the O-360 good enough to justify the cost? Are the airboat guys crazy or would those engine and prop combos work in the air?
The Lycoming O-360 series are generally considered to be reliable engines. Whether they are "good enough to justify the cost" depends on what you consider to be a justification, for your airplane and your intended use.

There are many alternative engine possibilities (I assume you use the term alternative to refer to engines that are not designed and certificated for aviation use). An experimental aircraft can be fitted with any engine that you have the ingenuity to adapt and the courage to fly behind. But I cannot think of ANY better option for an airframe designed to fly with an O-360 than an O-360, based on my own justification criteria which are heavily weighted by how much I value my life and the lives of my passengers.

As for the airboat guys, if their engine/prop fails it's just an inconvenience: the boat doesn't sink and they don't make the news. A pole and a sixpack will get them to a ramp or dock. It doesn't work quite that way with airplanes.

But I still don't see how any of the above relates to flying a 206 and wondering "how far back could one pull back the rpms in cruise."
 
Great points all and thanks for the input. I have more reading to do, but I think my next question will be how to build an O-360 for my EAB economically.
 
Great points all and thanks for the input. I have more reading to do, but I think my next question will be how to build an O-360 for my EAB economically.
The best you can hope for is more economically. Buy a used engine, have it inspected and repaired as necessary (IRAN) by someone highly experienced with Lycomings.

If you go to an A&P or Repair Station and tell them to overhaul it, the “O” word triggers a requirement to follow the manufacturer’s overhaul instructions. IRAN allows the mechanic the leeway of using his own judgement as to what gets replaced and has the potential to reduce your costs. But it also has the potential of needing more work sooner, because he might not replace parts that are still within limits but are going to be excessively worn within a few hundred hours.

A field overhaul/IRAN can be a great deal, as long as it’s done right and you’re not going to completely cheap out. While you’re at it, use certified, or certified-spec and quality parts for the hoses and such, and install it to high standards. A common source for engine failure in EABs is using Autozone parts tightened with pliers. The engine compartment is one place where everything else needs to be done right.
 
Back
Top