Last minute pattern adjustments- When?

Try punching 1.5 times 50 on your calculator and see if the answer is "80." Q.E.D.

I haven't been talking about his approach speeds, just the props. The only thing I had to say about his approach speed boiled down to saying that there is nothing wrong with the speed he was using for the plane he was flying. However he calculated it is up to him. The speed, however, provides a safe margin above stall and provides a benefit to him. Again, that is his preferred technique and one that works for him. I can't find any fault in that.

Bob
 
You want to start playing with specifics I have a redline of 2400 and often cruise at 2200-2300 so depending on how fast I was going...

But that is one specific airplane.

Not one specific airplane.... one pilot's settings. Book for the 206 says a high cruise is 18" and 2200 RPM, climb at 30" 2400 RPM for normal climb, max performance climb at 39" 2500 RPM. Redline is 2500 on that plane. So specifics for your plane would put a high cruise at 20" 2200, still 200 RPM above redline and not 100 like was stated earlier. Unless your POH has a high cruise setting for 2300 then my assertion that the difference between cruise and max is still greater than 100 rpm is correct (none have a max cruise of 100 below redline that I've seen).
 
Do you also leave the carb heat off in carbureted airplanes for the same reason? Personally, I teach my trainees to push on all the levers on go-arounds -- carb heat, throttle, prop, mixture, the works -- so there's no issue with forgetting anything which might interfere with max power generation on a balked landing.

Of course not, there's a reason carb heat is SOP for takeoff and landings with carburated engines.

I prefer not to foul plugs and lead up valves, since landing and after landing is when you pick up the worst fouling, but YMMV.

I disagree, I'd rather have full power available on landing. Haven't you ever seen a student forget to reconfigure properly on a go around? The tiny bit of fouling that "might" occur pales in comparison to hitting the trees because the mixture is too lean, but YMMV ;)
 
I wrote up my technique last night and suffered an iPhone battery failure right before hitting send.

Long story short, my technique doesn't differ much from anyone else's posted. Slow up before entering the pattern, prop is almost out of the governing range anyway.

Carb heat's on anytime I'm below the green arc on MP in the O-470 world. Pattern altitude at 90-100 knots is right on the edge depending on weight and power required to hold that altitude and speed.

Slightly different points in the pattern as my mental trigger points than some... I like to be fully prepped for landing and go-around including prop full-forward by midfield downwind unless I'm heavy and call "prop to go" at the power reduction abeam the intended landing point.

'Round here on a hot day, you want that prop full forward before you shove the throttle up for a go-around if you have to do it, and noise be damned. Climb is likely to be lethargic if you're heavy.

Prop fiddling is over with before the descent out of pattern altitude. Same with gear. Landing configuration COMPLETE or in progress by midfield downwind. No later than abeam the landing point. After that, hand's on the throttle, carb heat is on, and it only comes off for flap changes. Spring loaded for the go-around.

(I'll have to build a routine for instrument approaches if I ever get that done. On straight-ins VFR, I treat those as "non-standard" and get the aircraft fully configured at the pre-landing checklist, a few miles out. Again, noise be damned, after the pre-landing checklist other than flaps and carb heat, no more reconfigurations until the go-around or the landing. Just my habits. Not pushing them on anyone else.)

The only thing I haven't seen mentioned, as many aircraft don't have it, is that my prop control is a vernier and with proper planning there's plenty of time to twist it forward and not "shove" the prop up ever. Take it easy on the gear. It pays off at maintenance time. Only takes a few seconds.

Additionally my technique differs on mixture because even takeoffs around here aren't done full-rich. They're done a couple of half twists of the vernier richer than peak RPM during 1700 RPM run-up down here in Denver, and a couple of 1/2 twists richer than max power leaned peak run-up in the mountains. The engine would foul a plug at every taxi out or in if we taxied around full-rich. For prep for landing, one memorizes where the typical take-off setting was by looking at how far it's out and it goes back to there for approach and landing. Full-forward it'll blubber and carry on like a congested geezer who needs some Mucinex at idle. It'll tell you that you're too rich if you listen. (Especially since carb heat will make it worse.) It'll stay running but it won't like it.

(It's also one of those differences I have to mentally prep myself for when going lower to airports below 3000'-4000' MSL. ;) )

Out of towners you hear their engines blubbering and carrying on like sick babies while they taxi in. Once in a while you see a flatlander in a fuel injected bird with gas streaming out of the cowl onto the ramp trying to hot-start an engine, too. It'd be cheap entertainment if you weren't a nice guy and walk over waving both arms overhead to get their attention, doing the "cut" motion across your throat, and then walking up to the window to explain why their engine won't start. Non-fuel-injected folks sometimes get wild with the primer but it takes a lot more work to get puddles via that method. ;)

A good hot day with some vapor lock going on can be hours of entertainment from the upstairs windows above the Denver Jet Center ramp at Perfect Landing restaurant. We usually start counting seconds that the starter has been engaged wondering if the pilots flying aircraft with the new "compact"/"lightweight" starters even remember these have a timed cranking limit that's driven by the temperatures they'll reach internally. 30 seconds max, usually. And then a fairly long prescribed cool-down period.
 
No, I'm not ignoring it. I just said it was plausible and the reasoning behind it, much like shock cooling is plausible. I didn't, however, say that I agree with either theory but I can understand the basis behind the thinking of those who do. I haven't seen practical data for shock cooling other then some research papers done by individuals that both ended up contradicting themselves, yet because the rational for the theories is neither outlandish or far fetched then it becomes very believable to those who dont have an intrest in looking any further into it other than word of mouth.

Bob

Bob, is it appropriate to look at the front half of a horse and say it is plausible that a horse is a two legged critter? If we're gonna analyze a system I urge analyzing the entire system, not just half.
 
Of course not, there's a reason carb heat is SOP for takeoff and landings with carburated engines.
On what carbureted airplane is carb heat "SOP for takeoff"? I've flown pretty much all the carbureted engines out there, and I haven't seen one yet for which carb heat is anything but "OFF" for takeoff.

I disagree, I'd rather have full power available on landing. Haven't you ever seen a student forget to reconfigure properly on a go around? The tiny bit of fouling that "might" occur pales in comparison to hitting the trees because the mixture is too lean, but YMMV ;)
Sorry, but the fundamental conflict between your two statements is unresolvable in my mind. Either you set up the plane for best go-around or you set up the plane for best approach -- don't mix the two and then expect your trainees to remember to get them right. Since a landing is the result of an approach far more often than a go-around, and since you have to be pushing things forward on a go-around anyway, I'll stick with teaching it my way.
 
actually i have heard of an engine upgrade on perhaps a luscombe that required carb heat on for takeoff. reason was that if you had full power available on takeoff it was possible to unport the gas tank thanks to awesome acceleration. but yea...otherwise carb heat off for takeoff.

the natural answer to your question is that last minute pattern adjustments should be made at the last minute!
 
actually i have heard of an engine upgrade on perhaps a luscombe that required carb heat on for takeoff. reason was that if you had full power available on takeoff it was possible to unport the gas tank thanks to awesome acceleration. but yea...otherwise carb heat off for takeoff.

the natural answer to your question is that last minute pattern adjustments should be made at the last minute!


Some Aeronca owners with the Continental A-65 have even suggested running with carb heat during taxi.

The Lycoming design makes it less an ice-maker.
 
On what carbureted airplane is carb heat "SOP for takeoff"? I've flown pretty much all the carbureted engines out there, and I haven't seen one yet for which carb heat is anything but "OFF" for takeoff.

Sorry, but the fundamental conflict between your two statements is unresolvable in my mind. Either you set up the plane for best go-around or you set up the plane for best approach -- don't mix the two and then expect your trainees to remember to get them right. Since a landing is the result of an approach far more often than a go-around, and since you have to be pushing things forward on a go-around anyway, I'll stick with teaching it my way.

Ron,
Sorry, I meant landings not takeoffs and landings.

I checked some PoHs and they all say full rich mixture for landings, why is this?. In my mind there an obvious exception for high altitude environments but not near sea level.

I guess I'm trying to understand why you wouldn't want to be completely setup for the possible emergency procedure (go around).
I'm a firm believer of minimizing the workload during critical maneuvers. Probably from realizing how my brain doesn't function as well in extreme stress :eek:

I'm not trying to be difficult here, just learning like everyone else. :)
 
Not one specific airplane.... one pilot's settings. Book for the 206 says a high cruise is 18" and 2200 RPM, climb at 30" 2400 RPM for normal climb, max performance climb at 39" 2500 RPM. Redline is 2500 on that plane. So specifics for your plane would put a high cruise at 20" 2200, still 200 RPM above redline and not 100 like was stated earlier. Unless your POH has a high cruise setting for 2300 then my assertion that the difference between cruise and max is still greater than 100 rpm is correct (none have a max cruise of 100 below redline that I've seen).
Are you talking just 206's or aairplanes in general?

IIRC in the duchess, max cruise is 2700....redline is 2800.

I usually cruis at 2500.....FWIW climb power is FT/2600.
 
I checked some PoHs and they all say full rich mixture for landings, why is this?. In my mind there an obvious exception for high altitude environments but not near sea level.
All the "Mixture full rich for T.O. & Landings" mantra that we see in POHs are, first of all, based on a STANDARD DAY which is 59 degrees @Sea Level @29.92, etc., etc., etc., ...and the engine is running at brand new levels of efficiency, etc., etc., etc.,..and second of all, the POHs give legal liable advice when it comes to pilot based decisions, ...like operating your particular engine on this particular day. Your decisions may vary.


On my average hot day in the South, in my average not perfectly performing engine thinks it is about an average of 3500' at my actual MSL airport of 35'. I lean at run-up for optimum performance because I am routinely operating at an average of a half mile up just because it is hot. You don't have to be in Denver to mind your Density Altitude.
 
Not one specific airplane.... one pilot's settings. Book for the 206 says a high cruise is 18" and 2200 RPM, climb at 30" 2400 RPM for normal climb, max performance climb at 39" 2500 RPM. Redline is 2500 on that plane. So specifics for your plane would put a high cruise at 20" 2200, still 200 RPM above redline and not 100 like was stated earlier. Unless your POH has a high cruise setting for 2300 then my assertion that the difference between cruise and max is still greater than 100 rpm is correct (none have a max cruise of 100 below redline that I've seen).
Are you talking just 206's or aairplanes in general?

IIRC in the duchess, max cruise is 2700....redline is 2800.

I usually cruise at 2500.....FWIW climb power is FT/2600.
 
Not one specific airplane.... one pilot's settings. Book for the 206 says a high cruise is 18" and 2200 RPM, climb at 30" 2400 RPM for normal climb, max performance climb at 39" 2500 RPM. Redline is 2500 on that plane. So specifics for your plane would put a high cruise at 20" 2200, still 200 RPM above redline and not 100 like was stated earlier. Unless your POH has a high cruise setting for 2300 then my assertion that the difference between cruise and max is still greater than 100 rpm is correct (none have a max cruise of 100 below redline that I've seen).
It's all airplane specific - and there are plenty where somewhere around 2500 RPM makes a lot of sense. In that case you're talking 1 to 200 RPM until redline and there is a very marginal performance difference there.

Like I said. 1 was just a value. Replace it with whatever. Horsepower is still being thrown out at the lower prop speed. The prop is just a little less efficient for the second it takes you to increase the prop speed. Not even all that much less efficient.

I've done a fair amount of hauling around a bunch of fat guys with parachutes in 182s pushing it to max performance all day trying to inch every last bit of performance out.
 
Last edited:
Ron,
Sorry, I meant landings not takeoffs and landings.

I checked some PoHs and they all say full rich mixture for landings, why is this?. In my mind there an obvious exception for high altitude environments but not near sea level.

I guess I'm trying to understand why you wouldn't want to be completely setup for the possible emergency procedure (go around).
I'm a firm believer of minimizing the workload during critical maneuvers. Probably from realizing how my brain doesn't function as well in extreme stress :eek:

I'm not trying to be difficult here, just learning like everyone else. :)

FWIW, the Luscombe 8A is placarded to take off with carb heat "on".

And not for the reason one may think.
 
Operative word there is "should".

Hmm..les'see, "Life should not be an emergency".
What's your point?

It should not be a hairbrained maneuver where you need every single fpm (obstructions notwithstanding).
 
Luscombes:

Refer to TCDS ATC694 and service letter. It is required to reduce the power on an A-65 or -75 when using a fuselage tank. With low fuel, (1/2 tank or less) and a cool day, when the engine is making lots of power and you are in a steep(er) climb angle it is possible to get the engine fuel inlet ABOVE the fuel tank outlet, which causes fuel flow to cease (and the engine quits). Carb heat on was a simple and cheap fix to this as it reduced the power the engine could make and thus reduced the deck angle. It is also why wing tanks are required on higher HP engine conversions, and why wing tanks are strongly recommended for all Luscombes in general.
 
Back
Top