Prop to High RPM on downwind

[Mitty]

I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like this
very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on downwind,
I have to leave one item "open."

So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and Arrow)
It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I suppose there
is some small noise increase, but hardly much.

So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong with
doing it on downwind?

TIA

[Chris]

Nothing


"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like
> this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on
> downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and
> Arrow) It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I
> suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
> with doing it on downwind?
>
> TIA

[Stefan]

Mitty wrote:

> I suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.

There is a huge noise increase. Your neighbours will love you and your
airfield will have a couple of enemies more.

Stefan

[M.Lopresti]

I may be able to shed some light on the subject, Im not a Cherokee or Arrow pilot
but thats doens't really matter. Through out my training on a CSU type aircraft I
was tought to increase to full fine pitch on finals because of the event of a go
around.

Hope this helps, Michael

Mitty wrote:

> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like this
> very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on downwind,
> I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and Arrow)
> It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I suppose there
> is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong with
> doing it on downwind?
>
> TIA

[Bob Gardner]

The only reason for pushing the prop up is in case of a go-around. Let's say
you are on approach to a 10,000 foot runway and there are no airplanes in
the runup areas. Why prepare for a go-around at the expense of making a lot
of unnecessary noise? Approaching a 3000 foot strip, with a plane at the
hold line and a kid on a bicycle riding toward the runway...sure, push the
prop up. Don't do anything without a reason. "My instructor told me to" is
not a reason.

Bob Gardner

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like
> this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on
> downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and
> Arrow) It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I
> suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
> with doing it on downwind?
>
> TIA

[John]

Mitty wrote:

> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like this
> very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on downwind,
> I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and Arrow)
> It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I suppose there
> is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong with
> doing it on downwind?

You want to land with the prop forward so that it is ready in case of a go-around.
Pushing the prop lever forward on downwind won't hurt the airplane, but you will
create substantially more noise, which doesn't help GA at all in an era where more
and more people are pushing for airport restrictions and outright closures. So why
not be kind to the neighbors and delay full forward?

AOPA has a video called Flying Friendly; among the items it recommends is waiting
until final to push the prop level to highest RPM.

[Nathan Young]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:51:25 GMT, Mitty > wrote:


>So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong with
>doing it on downwind?

Noise abatement. On final, power is reduced low-enough that the prop
cannot turn 2700RPM anyway, so excess noise will not occur.

-nathan

[Andrew Gideon]

I understand the OP's dislike of leaving a checklist item "open", but think
of this a different way: It's good to be used to running through the full
checklist on final as well as downwind. That makes missing an important
item (ie. "gear" {8^) on a straight-in less likely.

More, it's not necessarily bad having to actually *think* about a checklist
(ie. deciding which GUMPS items to do now, and which to postpone). I
*think* (this is just an opinion) that this would make seeing green lights
when they're yellow a little less likely.

Finally, I want to add my voice to those that speak of friends and enemies
of aviation. We don't need to add to the latter, so we learn to "fly
friendly".

- Andrew

[Dan Luke]

"Chris" > wrote:
> Nothing

Noise.

[Brenor Brophy]

With my 182 on downwind at 90 KIAS and 15" MP, pushing the prop full forward
is not going to increase the RPM (or noise), the governer is already at its
stops. I too was taught to push it in on final (in case of a go around).
However, I frequently forgot (you have plenty of other things to worry about
on final) so now it get pushed forward along with all the other items on the
before landing checklist.

-Brenor

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like
> this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on
> downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and
> Arrow) It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I
> suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
> with doing it on downwind?
>
> TIA

[Stan Prevost]

I can't find it right now, but Lycoming had a publication in which they
advised against going to low prop pitch for deceleration of the airplane.
They said it caused detuning of the dynamic counterweights on the crankshaft
("harmonic balancers"?) and was the demonstrated cause of damage to certain
of their engine models. Although my engine was not listed in the affected
models, it seems that the same principle applies, and I have avoided going
to the high RPM setting until power is reduced on final, for engine
protection as well as noise. Supplement your printed checklist with GUMP
checks, including one on short final ALWAYS.

Stan

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like
> this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on
> downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and
> Arrow) It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I
> suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
> with doing it on downwind?
>
> TIA

[zatatime]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:51:25 GMT, Mitty > wrote:

>I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like this
>very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on downwind,
>I have to leave one item "open."
>
>So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and Arrow)
> It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I suppose there
>is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
>So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong with
>doing it on downwind?
>
>TIA


Full forward (high RPM) is in case of a go around. Going high pitch
mid-field will create a really loud racket on the ground. Waiting
until short final is too late in my opinion since we're human and can
forget things. To avoid this I go full forward (high RPM) when I make
my initial power reduction (generally abeam the numbers). This causes
no noise increase, and time for me to double check as I fly the
pattern.

Hope this helps.
z

[Andrew Sarangan]

Do you do a final gear check on final? If so, then how much extra work
is it to push the prop to forward on final? This will only become an
issue if you are performing a go-around *and* you forget to push the
prop forward. Even if you forget the prop on final, I don't see how you
can forget it again on a go-around. The go-around procedure calls for
everything forward, and you will catch it if the prop is out.

Going prop forward after the governor has hit the limit is a good
practice. It makes less noise, and it demonstrates that you are smooth
at the controls.




zatatime > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:51:25 GMT, Mitty > wrote:
>
>>I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't
>>like this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the
>>first time on downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
>>
>>So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or
>>and Arrow)
>> It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I
>> suppose there
>>is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>>
>>So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
>>with doing it on downwind?
>>
>>TIA
>
>
> Full forward (high RPM) is in case of a go around. Going high pitch
> mid-field will create a really loud racket on the ground. Waiting
> until short final is too late in my opinion since we're human and can
> forget things. To avoid this I go full forward (high RPM) when I make
> my initial power reduction (generally abeam the numbers). This causes
> no noise increase, and time for me to double check as I fly the
> pattern.
>
> Hope this helps.
> z
>

[John T Lowry]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't
> like this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the
> first time on downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or
> and Arrow) It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc.
> I suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
> with doing it on downwind?
>
> TIA

There's ALWAYS a problem if one learns to do something mechanical
without understanding the reason for it. Not recommended. Here are some
possibilities, pro and con:

If your engine quits, you want the propeller the prop already at low
rpm, to lower drag. On the other hand if you have to abort the landing
and go around, you want it on high rpm for added low-speed thrust.

Always ask WHY? (You may have to try several instructors until you get a
reasonable answer.) Don't just memorize checklists mindlessly.

John Lowry
Flight Physics

[Roger]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:51:25 GMT, Mitty > wrote:

>I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like this
>very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on downwind,
>I have to leave one item "open."
>
>So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and Arrow)
> It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I suppose there
>is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
>So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong with
>doing it on downwind?

It depends on the airplane and prop, but it increases noise and drag.
Drag isn't bad if you wish to slow up and it's not at all uncommon to
wish to do so on down wind. OTOH that is not a problem with either
the Arrow or Cherokee family.

If you go full RPM in a Bonanza or Cessna 210 with a 2 blade prop,
the neighbors will not like you. With those there is a big increase
in noise until the MP is back to the point where it's controlling the
RPM.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>TIA

[zatatime]

On 21 Nov 2004 20:04:44 -0600, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>Do you do a final gear check on final?
Yes
> If so, then how much extra work
>is it to push the prop to forward on final?
For my philosophy the final check, should be just that - only a check,
no work unless an error has occurred. Subtle I'm sure, but the less
"work" on short final the better IMO.

>This will only become an
>issue if you are performing a go-around *and* you forget to push the
>prop forward. Even if you forget the prop on final, I don't see how you
>can forget it again on a go-around. The go-around procedure calls for
>everything forward, and you will catch it if the prop is out.
If in your mind you think you pushed it forward you'll probably
realize it isn't only after the throttle has been pushed full forward.
(I know not an absolute, but more likely than not for an average
person). If it does happen you'll be way "over square" and
potentially do alot of engine damage. Not withstanding the damage
potential, you could get alarmed by the condition, fixate on
rectifying it, and relax the pitch control. In heavier airplanes you
could get enough of a pitch up that it's hard for a person to recover.
I'm not being sexist, but I had this happen to a woman I was flying
with, lets just say it was a good learning experience for her. <g>
This was in a 172RG so heavy is a relative term.

>
>Going prop forward after the governor has hit the limit is a good
>practice. It makes less noise, and it demonstrates that you are smooth
>at the controls.
Now i"m confused. It seems like we agree. I may not have been clear,
or may have missed something, but this is what I meant when I said to
go full forward after throttle reduction.

z

[Thomas Borchert]

Mitty,

> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong with
> doing it on downwind?
>

Yes, noise, noise. Just listen to a Bonanza turning on the chain saw on
downwind once, and you'll never again say it's only a "small noise increase".
The effect, while differing from type to type, is huge. If you want airports
to stay open, don't do it on downwind.

Also, in case of a go-around, it is probably anyway a good idea to think in
terms of "all levers go full forward" rather than just "throttle full
forward".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Mitty wrote:
> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like this
> very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time...

Simple - change your checklist. They aren't set in stone.

In any case, forgetting the prop (especially on a plane like an Arrow or
Cherokee 6) is hardly critical - in the case of a go-around it's easy
enough to grab all the controls and push them forward when they are
arranged like this.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[OtisWinslow]

Why even worry about it unless you're going to go around?


"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like
> this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on
> downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and
> Arrow) It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I
> suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
> with doing it on downwind?
>
> TIA

[Jay Honeck]

>> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
>> with
>> doing it on downwind?

1. Yes.
2. Rote procedure.
3. Noise.

I had this brought home to me during Mary's biennial. I was working in the
hangar while she was coming into (and going out of) the pattern, and, boy,
could you tell when she pushed the prop control forward on a fast downwind.
That Lycoming O-540 just growled.

Now, personally, I LIKE that sound -- but I understand there are those in
the flight path who don't. Since we have to live with those folks, it's a
good idea not to give them the ammo with which to shoot us down. Noise
abatement is serious stuff when your community is not 100% for having an
airport in the first place.

We now don't push the prop full forward until we're on final, when the
airspeed and MP is already so low that it makes no audible difference.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Mitty > wrote:
>So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why?

1) Yes

2) To have something to break up the monotony of "gear. gear?? gear!!
better check the gear... gear? ok, gear down. gear is down. still down.
not gonna land gear up."

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Andrew Sarangan]

zatatime > wrote in message >...
> On 21 Nov 2004 20:04:44 -0600, Andrew Sarangan
> > wrote:

> >
> >Going prop forward after the governor has hit the limit is a good
> >practice. It makes less noise, and it demonstrates that you are smooth
> >at the controls.
> Now i"m confused. It seems like we agree. I may not have been clear,
> or may have missed something, but this is what I meant when I said to
> go full forward after throttle reduction.
>


I was not specifically responding to your comment. It was in response
to the original poster who wanted to bring the prop forward on
downwind prior to power reduction. Whether the prop is brought forward
at downwind, base or final is not important as long as it is done
after power reduction. Earlier the better I suppose. On a VFR traffic
pattern, I bring the prop forward after power reduction just as I am
turning base. On an instrument approach, I would do that after the
power reduction at the final approach fix.

[Jim Weir]

I must be stupid or missing something. Does everybody in this ng come into the
pattern at cruise airspeed? I was taught, and teach, that you come into the
pattern about 10 knots above your desired airspeed on final. If you do that,
your power is already back for level flight to where the prop is in the stops
anyway.

With the 182, it is 80 knots turning from the 45 to downwind, 75 on base, and 70
on final. I don't understand why pushing the prop to full flat has any noise
effect whatsoever.

Jim



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Chris]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>I must be stupid or missing something. Does everybody in this ng come into
>the
> pattern at cruise airspeed? I was taught, and teach, that you come into
> the
> pattern about 10 knots above your desired airspeed on final. If you do
> that,
> your power is already back for level flight to where the prop is in the
> stops
> anyway.
>
> With the 182, it is 80 knots turning from the 45 to downwind, 75 on base,
> and 70
> on final. I don't understand why pushing the prop to full flat has any
> noise
> effect whatsoever.
>
> Jim

Exactly

[Brian Case]

zatatime > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:51:25 GMT, Mitty > wrote:
>
> >I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like this
> >very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time on downwind,
> >I have to leave one item "open."
> >
> >So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and Arrow)
> > It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I suppose there
> >is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
> >
> >So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong with
> >doing it on downwind?
> >
> >TIA
>
>
> Full forward (high RPM) is in case of a go around. Going high pitch
> mid-field will create a really loud racket on the ground. Waiting
> until short final is too late in my opinion since we're human and can
> forget things. To avoid this I go full forward (high RPM) when I make
> my initial power reduction (generally abeam the numbers). This causes
> no noise increase, and time for me to double check as I fly the
> pattern.
>
> Hope this helps.
> z


This one seems to work best for Me. Reduce Power, Increase RPM
setting. No Noise increase due to reduced power and it is already set
when I get to final.

Brian

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> With the 182, it is 80 knots turning from the 45 to downwind, 75 on base,
>> and 70
>> on final. I don't understand why pushing the prop to full flat has any
>> noise
>> effect whatsoever.
>
> Exactly

Exactly, except for those airplanes that cannot maintain level flight at
pattern speed with gear and flaps out at final descent power settings.

Which is, by the way, all airplanes with a constant speed prop. The power
setting for final descent is necessarily lower than that required for level
flight within the pattern, even if you slowed ALL the way to your final
approach speed. RPM will thus be higher, assuming the pitch is set to full
fine pitch (high RPM). Higher RPM means more noise.

If Jim's 182 flies along level in the pattern at the same airspeed and prop
RPM that he uses for final descent, I have no idea how he accomplishes a
final descent at all. A plane like that would be stuck up in the pattern
indefinitely.

Pete

[Icebound]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>I must be stupid or missing something. Does everybody in this ng come into
>the
> pattern at cruise airspeed? I was taught, and teach, that you come into
> the
> pattern about 10 knots above your desired airspeed on final.

Do not high-volume airports prefer "local procedures" that encourage cruise
or near-cruise for the small types until just about base turn, just to keep
the traffic from backing up???

[Mitty]

Whew! Glad I didn't ask anything political!

OK, things to clarify:

In the Arrow on downwind I've already pulled out a lot of power and flattening
the prop really does have minimal noise effect.

In the Six, which has a three-blade prop, I have to carry more power of course.
Next time I fly it, I am going to listen more carefully while flattening the
prop on downwind and see if there is much noise effect. I haven't been aware
that there is. That airplane, though, is quieter than anything else in our
fleet (Archers, Warriors, the Arrow) because of the prop. So maybe not an issue
there either, even with the O-540.

I like to run my checklist, really a "flow," on downwind, base and turning
final. And I like all three to be the same because the point of doing it
multiple times is that if I get distracted by ATC, traffic, or airplane
problems, any one of them will have gotten the job done. It's a matter of
style, I guess.

Things learned/confirmed:

The issue is only noise; no engine issues that I heard anyway.

I like Bob Gardner's suggestion that going full forward may not be necessary at
all unless the tactical situation demands it. One more thing to remember on
final, however.

I like the several suggestions that the go-around mantra be "everything forward"
-- in fact I wish I had been drilled on that one while training for my Private.

Thanks,
Mitty


On 11/21/04 5:51 PM, Mitty wrote the following:
> I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like
> this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time
> on downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
>
> So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and
> Arrow) It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I
> suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
>
> So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
> with doing it on downwind?
>
> TIA

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mitty > wrote:

> Whew! Glad I didn't ask anything political!
>
> OK, things to clarify:
>
> In the Arrow on downwind I've already pulled out a lot of power and
> flattening
> the prop really does have minimal noise effect.

Just monitor your tach when you do this. You should not go over about
2300 RPM, or you are pushing the prop forward at too high an airspeed.




> In the Six, which has a three-blade prop, I have to carry more power of
> course.
> Next time I fly it, I am going to listen more carefully while flattening
> the
> prop on downwind and see if there is much noise effect. I haven't been aware
> that there is. That airplane, though, is quieter than anything else in our
> fleet (Archers, Warriors, the Arrow) because of the prop. So maybe not an
> issue
> there either, even with the O-540.
>
> I like to run my checklist, really a "flow," on downwind, base and turning
> final. And I like all three to be the same because the point of doing it
> multiple times is that if I get distracted by ATC, traffic, or airplane
> problems, any one of them will have gotten the job done. It's a matter of
> style, I guess.
>
> Things learned/confirmed:
>
> The issue is only noise; no engine issues that I heard anyway.

No -- you CAN overspeed the engine if you push the prop full forward at
too high airspeed. Monitor the tach!



> I like Bob Gardner's suggestion that going full forward may not be necessary
> at
> all unless the tactical situation demands it. One more thing to remember on
> final, however.
>
> I like the several suggestions that the go-around mantra be "everything
> forward"
> -- in fact I wish I had been drilled on that one while training for my
> Private.


Too much drill, not enough reasons for the drill. I do not add full prop
until I am at gear speed.


>
> On 11/21/04 5:51 PM, Mitty wrote the following:
> > I've been taught to set the prop to high RPM on final, but I don't like
> > this very much because then, when I run my checklist for the first time
> > on downwind, I have to leave one item "open."
> >
> > So what's wrong with doing it on downwind? (This in a Cherokee 6 or and
> > Arrow) It seems to work fine, does not disarrange the engine, etc. I
> > suppose there is some small noise increase, but hardly much.
> >
> > So (1) is everyone taught to do it on final? (2) Why? (3) What's wrong
> > with doing it on downwind?
> >
> > TIA

[john smith]

Unless you have been assigned a lower altitude by ATC, try setting up
your pattern so you arrive 1500 feet above field elevation when abeam
the approach end of the runway.
If you are on speed (80kts for the C182), you can reduce power to idle
and bring in 30 degrees flaps. This will position you for a constant
rate, 180 degree turn to the runway. Slowing to 75 kts, 90 degrees
through the turn (base) and 70 kts, wings level, final. Bring in the
last 10 degrees of flaps and touch down with the airspeed decaying
through 55 kts.

Cherokee Six and the Arrow, bring in two notches of flaps (25 degrees),
airspeed 90 kts abeam the approach end of the runway, reduce power to
idle. Slow to 85kts at the 90 degree point. Roll level at 80 kts on
final. Bring in the last notch of flaps (40 degrees), slowing to 70 over
the threshhold.

If you fly "airline" (ie- wide) patterns, you will have to carry some
power to make the runway.
Wind dictates how wide and how far to extend the downwind.
Get used to flying a steep approach. The more comfortable you are with
it, the more fields will be available to you.

[David Rind]

Mitty wrote:
> I like the several suggestions that the go-around mantra be "everything
> forward" -- in fact I wish I had been drilled on that one while training
> for my Private.

It's an okay mantra, but you probably want to make sure that you don't
have it so drilled in that you push the mixture full forward on a go
around at a high altitude airport.

--
David Rind

[Morgans]

"Mitty" > wrote

> In the Six, which has a three-blade prop, I have to carry more power of
course.
> Next time I fly it, I am going to listen more carefully while flattening
the
> prop on downwind and see if there is much noise effect.


You, as a pilot, are in a bad place to observe prop noise, since 98% of the
extra noise comes off the prop, at high RPM, only in the plane of the prop,
or another way of saying it, is, right off the ends of the tips.

But you already knew that, didn't you? <g>
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

[Mitty]

>>try setting up your pattern so you arrive 1500 feet above field elevation
when abeam the approach end of the runway<<

No thanks. Especially not in a low wing airplane. I'll stick with the orthodox
pattern. I don't mind steep approaches, but I do mind descending onto someone
who is following the rules.

[Mitty]

>
> You, as a pilot, are in a bad place to observe prop noise, since 98% of the
> extra noise comes off the prop, at high RPM, only in the plane of the prop,
> or another way of saying it, is, right off the ends of the tips.
>
> But you already knew that, didn't you? <g>

Actually, no. But whatever the level to others, it is probably proportional to
the level I get, no? So I can still make the judgement call.

[Andrew Gideon]

David Rind wrote:

> Mitty wrote:
>> I like the several suggestions that the go-around mantra be "everything
>> forward" -- in fact I wish I had been drilled on that one while training
>> for my Private.
>
> It's an okay mantra, but you probably want to make sure that you don't
> have it so drilled in that you push the mixture full forward on a go
> around at a high altitude airport.

That's just another good reason why a "flow-check" involves thinking.
Letting it become too automatic is a Bad Thing. Oddly enough <grin>.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Icebound wrote:

> Do not high-volume airports prefer "local procedures" that encourage
> cruise or near-cruise for the small types until just about base turn, just
> to keep the traffic from backing up???

I don't know about it being as well-defined as a "local procedure", but I've
been told to keep the speed up on final at some airports in the past
(Teterboro comes to mind). That's not always the best choice, though, and
I'm sure ATC knows it. On approach into Albany last week, I was able to
turn off quite early. If I'd been told to keep my speed up, I'd have
floated much farther.

Keeping the speed up is actually fun at the airports where it happens, as
there's plenty of runway for a slow-motion flair.

- Andrew

[john smith]

Following what rules? Downwind, base and final? Everything I described,
just closer to the airport.
By flying the approach I described, you will always reach the runway.
Flying a wide pattern and pushing the power/prop up and hearing the
engine make a strange sound may not get you where you want to go.

Mitty wrote:
> >>try setting up your pattern so you arrive 1500 feet above field
> elevation when abeam the approach end of the runway<<
>
> No thanks. Especially not in a low wing airplane. I'll stick with the
> orthodox pattern. I don't mind steep approaches, but I do mind
> descending onto someone who is following the rules.

[Brenor Brophy]

>
> Exactly, except for those airplanes that cannot maintain level flight at
> pattern speed with gear and flaps out at final descent power settings.

I fly downwind at 90 KIAS, 15" MP nice and level. Its a bit faster than Jim,
but a nice easy number to remember and consistent with everything else in
the pattern for the most part.

>
> Which is, by the way, all airplanes with a constant speed prop. The power
> setting for final descent is necessarily lower than that required for
> level flight within the pattern, even if you slowed ALL the way to your
> final approach speed. RPM will thus be higher, assuming the pitch is set
> to full fine pitch (high RPM). Higher RPM means more noise.

Jim talked about speed not power. The point is that the power is already
reduced to the point where the Prop control does nothing (the prop is at its
stops) so pushing the prop control to fine pitch does nothing - the prop is
already at its finest pitch because the governor set it there trying to
maintain whatever RPM setting (say 2200) you had set for cruise - as you
reduce power it tried to keep the RPM up, until it couldn't make the pitch
any finer after which the RPM started to decline along with engine power.

>
> If Jim's 182 flies along level in the pattern at the same airspeed and
> prop RPM that he uses for final descent, I have no idea how he
> accomplishes a final descent at all. A plane like that would be stuck up
> in the pattern indefinitely.

No, he like everyone else reduces the power - sets the pitch to get the
airspeed he wants and the plane comes down - flaps help even more. The RPM
reduces along with the power (irrespective) of the position of the prop
control.

-Brenor

[Peter Duniho]

"Brenor Brophy" > wrote in message
. com...
> Jim talked about speed not power. The point is that the power is already
> reduced to the point where the Prop control does nothing (the prop is at
> its > stops) so pushing the prop control to fine pitch does nothing - the
> prop is already at its finest pitch because the governor set it there
> trying to maintain whatever RPM setting (say 2200) you had set for cruise

I'm talking about power though, which is the point here. In my airplane, if
I push the prop control to full fine pitch while in the pattern, I will
require a significantly high RPM to have enough power to maintain level
flight at my pattern speed (which is, coincidently, the same speed I fly my
approach). Many airplanes have this characteristic.

Similarly, even in an airplane where the required power setting is
relatively quiet, you can still be even quieter if you pull the prop back
further. Who cares if your cruise setting was 2200 RPM? If you're trying
to fly friendly, then fly a power setting that slows the prop down even
more. 2000, 1800 RPM, whatever it takes to get that prop back off the stops
at your current power setting.

Bottom line: from level flight in the pattern, it requires a power reduction
to descend to the runway. If the prop is at fine pitch during that level
flight segment, it doesn't need to be, and you could reduce prop RPM (and
noise) even further. By doing so, you'll fly quieter and more efficiently
(not that efficiency really matters so late in the flight).

I recognize that many people call it "good enough" and don't bother to try
to get their airplane any quieter. But IMHO, it's pretty hypocritical to
claim to be in favor of not pushing the prop control to max RPM until the
power is set low enough, but to not be willing to minimize one's noise
footprint by reducing RPM in the pattern as well.

Pete

[Morgans]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
.. .
> >
> > You, as a pilot, are in a bad place to observe prop noise, since 98% of
the
> > extra noise comes off the prop, at high RPM, only in the plane of the
prop,
> > or another way of saying it, is, right off the ends of the tips.
> >
> > But you already knew that, didn't you? <g>
>
> Actually, no. But whatever the level to others, it is probably
proportional to
> the level I get, no? So I can still make the judgement call.

Actually, no. You just don't get the "blat" from the tips when you are
sitting behind them.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/20/2004

[Stefan]

Mitty wrote:

> Actually, no. But whatever the level to others, it is probably
> proportional to the level I get, no? So I can still make the judgement
> call.

No.

We do such experiments at club meetings: E.g. the club pilots stay on
the ground while some pilot flyes a couple of circuits with a variety of
settings (with and without power reduction after take off, with and
without high rpm on downwind etc.). Such things are always very
educative and make a good starter for discussions.

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

>I must be stupid or missing something. Does everybody in this ng come into
>the
> pattern at cruise airspeed? I was taught, and teach, that you come into
> the
> pattern about 10 knots above your desired airspeed on final. If you do
> that,
> your power is already back for level flight to where the prop is in the
> stops
> anyway.

This is the standard procedure for entering a pattern.

Over the years, though, I've found that my pattern entry procedure varies
with conditions. If I'm alone in the pattern (as we often are, on a
Wednesday afternoon -- a day we typically fly), I'll zip around the pattern
at whatever speed works to get me down soonest.

This usually means a pattern entry speed of around 100 knots (or more), with
a gradual diminishing of speed down to 80 when we turn base, and another
gradual diminishing to 70 on final.

Earlier in my flying "career" I would not have been able to manage such a
thing, and religiously stuck to the 100% stabilized approach (which, at the
time, meant 80 mph from downwind all the way down). I had this drummed out
of me when I started flying into controlled airspace more often, where an 80
mph downwind leg would result in an exasperated controller having to
re-sequence the pattern.

Thus, long story short, yeah, we sometimes come into the pattern at such a
speed that pushing the prop full forward is going to result in a lot more
noise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Gideon]

Brenor Brophy wrote:

> I fly downwind at 90 KIAS, 15" MP nice and level. Its a bit faster than
> Jim, but a nice easy number to remember and consistent with everything
> else in the pattern for the most part.

In a 182 with the gear down? I can fly level at 15" with the gear up, but
with the gear down it'll need more power in my experience (and
recollection).

- Andrew

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:
>Unless you have been assigned a lower altitude by ATC, try setting up
>your pattern so you arrive 1500 feet above field elevation when abeam
>the approach end of the runway.

1500AGL?? I've done 180 degree desending turns to land and the optimum
altitude seems to be about 800AGL. If you start 1/2 mile away from the
runway (laterally, abeam the threshold) you're going to follow an arc
that's about 3/4 of a mile long. At around 70mph that will take only
about 40 seconds, and from 1500' that would require a >2000FPM average
descent.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[john smith]

40 degrees flaps and power to idle?

Ben Jackson wrote:
> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
>>Unless you have been assigned a lower altitude by ATC, try setting up
>>your pattern so you arrive 1500 feet above field elevation when abeam
>>the approach end of the runway.
>
>
> 1500AGL?? I've done 180 degree desending turns to land and the optimum
> altitude seems to be about 800AGL. If you start 1/2 mile away from the
> runway (laterally, abeam the threshold) you're going to follow an arc
> that's about 3/4 of a mile long. At around 70mph that will take only
> about 40 seconds, and from 1500' that would require a >2000FPM average
> descent.
>

[john smith]

I have flown two airplanes (Osprey II and an RV-6 with constant speed
prop) that would not make the runway from a 180 degree approach from a
downwind less than a 1/4-mile from the runway without carrying power.

Ben Jackson wrote:
> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
>>Unless you have been assigned a lower altitude by ATC, try setting up
>>your pattern so you arrive 1500 feet above field elevation when abeam
>>the approach end of the runway.
>
>
> 1500AGL?? I've done 180 degree desending turns to land and the optimum
> altitude seems to be about 800AGL. If you start 1/2 mile away from the
> runway (laterally, abeam the threshold) you're going to follow an arc
> that's about 3/4 of a mile long. At around 70mph that will take only
> about 40 seconds, and from 1500' that would require a >2000FPM average
> descent.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Nov 2004 20:04:44 -0600, Andrew Sarangan
> > wrote:
>
>>Do you do a final gear check on final?
> Yes
>> If so, then how much extra work
>>is it to push the prop to forward on final?
> For my philosophy the final check, should be just that - only a check,
> no work unless an error has occurred. Subtle I'm sure, but the less
> "work" on short final the better IMO.
>
>>This will only become an
>>issue if you are performing a go-around *and* you forget to push the
>>prop forward. Even if you forget the prop on final, I don't see how you
>>can forget it again on a go-around. The go-around procedure calls for
>>everything forward, and you will catch it if the prop is out.
> If in your mind you think you pushed it forward you'll probably
> realize it isn't only after the throttle has been pushed full forward.
> (I know not an absolute, but more likely than not for an average
> person). If it does happen you'll be way "over square" and
> potentially do alot of engine damage. Not withstanding the damage
> potential, you could get alarmed by the condition, fixate on
> rectifying it, and relax the pitch control. In heavier airplanes you
> could get enough of a pitch up that it's hard for a person to recover.
> I'm not being sexist, but I had this happen to a woman I was flying
> with, lets just say it was a good learning experience for her. <g>
> This was in a 172RG so heavy is a relative term.
>

Almost every turbocharged airplane engine ever built operates "over square"
on every takeoff and many operate "way over square". "Square" and
"oversquare" are myths that need to be buried alongside "the step". The
whole notion of "square" is simply an artifact of the units we choose for
MP. If we used inches of water or psi or anything besides the height of a
colum of a particular metal which conviently happens to be a liquid are room
temperature, the whole notion of "square" would never have come about. I'll
step down from my soapbox now.

Mike
MU-2
Helio Courier.

[zatatime]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:08:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Almost every turbocharged airplane engine ever built operates "over square"


We're not talking turbocharges airplanes for this one, however I do
understand the over square concept in takeoff, and other operations.
Aside from that, its a relationship that has been established. When
flying at 2200 RPM or so and going full power you run a greater risk
of breaking something than at full pitch (high RPM). This is all I
was trying to say.

z

[Jim Weir]

Then I hope you won't take my offer of a free biennial next July. I expect a
person to fly the same pattern from Anchorage to Dallas, no matter whether they
are the only person in the pattern or #25 to land.

Certainly we can make allowances for situations, but if you are saying that you
make different patterns when you are alone in the pattern, I'd suggest another
instructor. I certainly won't sign you off.

Jim




"Jay Honeck" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->This is the standard procedure for entering a pattern.
->
->Over the years, though, I've found that my pattern entry procedure varies
->with conditions. If I'm alone in the pattern (as we often are, on a
->Wednesday afternoon -- a day we typically fly), I'll zip around the pattern
->at whatever speed works to get me down soonest.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Bill Zaleski]

I'll sign you off, Jay. If it's safe and legal, no instructor has any
business telling you to "do it his way" or fail. Your only limitation
on speed is either 200 KIAS or 250KIAS, depending on the airspace you
are in. Sheesh!!


On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:52:06 -0800, Jim Weir > wrote:

>Then I hope you won't take my offer of a free biennial next July. I expect a
>person to fly the same pattern from Anchorage to Dallas, no matter whether they
>are the only person in the pattern or #25 to land.
>
>Certainly we can make allowances for situations, but if you are saying that you
>make different patterns when you are alone in the pattern, I'd suggest another
>instructor. I certainly won't sign you off.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>"Jay Honeck" >
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->
>->This is the standard procedure for entering a pattern.
>->
>->Over the years, though, I've found that my pattern entry procedure varies
>->with conditions. If I'm alone in the pattern (as we often are, on a
>->Wednesday afternoon -- a day we typically fly), I'll zip around the pattern
>->at whatever speed works to get me down soonest.
>
>
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>>> With the 182, it is 80 knots turning from the 45 to downwind, 75 on
>>> base, and 70
>>> on final. I don't understand why pushing the prop to full flat has any
>>> noise
>>> effect whatsoever.
>>
>> Exactly
>
> Exactly, except for those airplanes that cannot maintain level flight at
> pattern speed with gear and flaps out at final descent power settings.
>
> Which is, by the way, all airplanes with a constant speed prop. The power
> setting for final descent is necessarily lower than that required for
> level flight within the pattern, even if you slowed ALL the way to your
> final approach speed. RPM will thus be higher, assuming the pitch is set
> to full fine pitch (high RPM). Higher RPM means more noise.
>
> If Jim's 182 flies along level in the pattern at the same airspeed and
> prop RPM that he uses for final descent, I have no idea how he
> accomplishes a final descent at all. A plane like that would be stuck up
> in the pattern indefinitely.
>
> Pete

Why would anyone want to fly around the pattern at a constant altitude with
gear and flaps out except on a circling approach? I was leave the gear and
flaps up until I want to descend. I was under the impression that virtually
everyone did it this way.

Mike
MU-2

[Icebound]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Then I hope you won't take my offer of a free biennial next July. I
> expect a
> person to fly the same pattern from Anchorage to Dallas, no matter whether
> they
> are the only person in the pattern or #25 to land.
>
> Certainly we can make allowances for situations, but if you are saying
> that you
> make different patterns when you are alone in the pattern, I'd suggest
> another
> instructor. I certainly won't sign you off.
>

Surely different pattern *speeds* in different conditions, does not imply
different *patterns*, does it?

[Jay Honeck]

> Certainly we can make allowances for situations, but if you are saying
> that you
> make different patterns when you are alone in the pattern, I'd suggest
> another
> instructor. I certainly won't sign you off.

Dang -- and here I was all set to fly to California for my biennial...

Spoil sport...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Surely different pattern *speeds* in different conditions, does not imply
> different *patterns*, does it?

Personally, I like to make a "figure-8" on downwind, just to break the
monotony of it all...

;-)

Of course I fly the same pattern each time. We're talking approach speeds
here.

Quite frankly, most Spam Cans could fly the pattern at full throttle and no
one would care much, other than the noise Nazis on the ground. My maximum
forward speed is only about 10 knots over what King Airs *normally* fly
their approaches at...

There are two reasons we don't:

1. Because every other Spam Can in the pattern is usually doing 80 - 90.
2. Because inexperienced pilots have a terrible time landing if they don't
fly a traditional stabilized approach.

These are very good reasons, indeed, and I'm not arguing otherwise -- but to
say you must (or should) ALWAYS fly the pattern at 80 is a bit too stiff.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Why would anyone want to fly around the pattern at a constant altitude
> with gear and flaps out except on a circling approach? I was leave the
> gear and flaps up until I want to descend. I was under the impression
> that virtually > everyone did it this way.

Your impression is mistaken. In fact, I've never had a single instructor
comment on my habit of lowering the gear as I enter the downwind, and I see
plenty of retractable gear airplanes flying in the pattern with their gear
lowered.

Just as a "for example", in my airplane having the flaps and gear out do a
couple of things: they help stablize the aircraft, making flying in the
pattern easier, and the flaps ensure that even though I'm slowing to 80
knots in the pattern, I'm still comfortably above stall speed. Aircraft
handling is significantly better with the flaps and gear out.

When I was flying 182RGs, I found similar benefits, though the stabilizing
factor was the primary issue (stall speed wasn't as big of a problem, being
lower than in the airplane I fly now).

But, even if you prefer to fly with gear and flaps up until beginning your
descent, you still need less power during the descent than you needed during
level flight in the pattern. It doesn't change the fundamentals of what I
wrote.

Pete

[Ditch]

>Dang -- and here I was all set to fly to California for my biennial...
>

Come on out...I'll do your Flight Review for ya. I can even show you a Caravan
painted in Fed Ex colors....like that's exciting.




-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Why would anyone want to fly around the pattern at a constant altitude
>> with gear and flaps out except on a circling approach? I was leave the
>> gear and flaps up until I want to descend. I was under the impression
>> that virtually > everyone did it this way.
>
> Your impression is mistaken. In fact, I've never had a single instructor
> comment on my habit of lowering the gear as I enter the downwind, and I
> see plenty of retractable gear airplanes flying in the pattern with their
> gear lowered.
>
> Just as a "for example", in my airplane having the flaps and gear out do a
> couple of things: they help stablize the aircraft, making flying in the
> pattern easier, and the flaps ensure that even though I'm slowing to 80
> knots in the pattern, I'm still comfortably above stall speed. Aircraft
> handling is significantly better with the flaps and gear out.
>
> When I was flying 182RGs, I found similar benefits, though the stabilizing
> factor was the primary issue (stall speed wasn't as big of a problem,
> being lower than in the airplane I fly now).
>
> But, even if you prefer to fly with gear and flaps up until beginning your
> descent, you still need less power during the descent than you needed
> during level flight in the pattern. It doesn't change the fundamentals of
> what I wrote.
>
> Pete

Interesting

In the MU-2, I always lower the gear and 5deg flaps on downwind between
midfield and abeam the numbers depending on how much speed I need to lose..
I go to 20deg flaps on base and do nothing on final. Power is only changed
if I misjudged something. On an ILS it is the same drill without the turns,
flaps 5deg with gear up until one dot high then gear down, at 1/2 dot high
flaps 20deg. Again power isn't changed until landing unless there is a
large wind change between GS intercept and the runway.

It has been a few years but I remember my Turbo Lance being the same with
16.5"MP being the required power setting.

The Helio is different. The trick is to slow down as soon as possible
because the flap speed is only 70kts. Once full flaps are set then slow
down and ADD power to slow down some more. The better you get the more
lower the speed and more power will be required. The limit is about 30kts
and full power. I can't do that yet but I saw it demonstrated at OSH this
year.

Mike
MU-2


Mike
MU-2

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In the MU-2, I always lower the gear and 5deg flaps on downwind between
> midfield and abeam the numbers depending on how much speed I need to
> lose.. I go to 20deg flaps on base and do nothing on final. Power is only
> changed if I misjudged something. On an ILS it is the same drill without
> the turns, > flaps 5deg with gear up until one dot high then gear down, at
> 1/2 dot high flaps 20deg. Again power isn't changed until landing unless
> there is a large wind change between GS intercept and the runway.
>
> It has been a few years but I remember my Turbo Lance being the same with
> 16.5"MP being the required power setting.

I'm a bit amazed that you descended to the runway in your Turbo Lance with a
power setting of 16.5" MP (regardless of what RPM you also use/see at that
setting...it does matter though). I have a very draggy airplane (Lake
Renegade) even without the gear and flaps out, but my descent power setting
is generally in the 13-15" range, depending on weight, wind, etc. Never
having flown a Lance (turbo or otherwise), I don't know first-hand, but I'd
expect a descending pattern flown at 16.5" MP to be pretty wide.

As far as comparison with the MU-2 goes, I'm not convinced it's necessarily
a great comparison. If I recall, the MU-2 has relatively high wing loading,
which should make descents easier. Also, in a twin (a turbine no less) I
would certainly expect a wider pattern to be appropriate. That's ignoring
whether the differences between turbines and pistons, including prop
systems, have any effect (I'm not sure they do, but I'm not sure they don't
either).

In my single-engine piston airplane, I try to stay reasonably close to the
runway, probably not a priority for you in your turbine twin. Some people
even go so far as to fly power-off descents in the pattern. In that extreme
example, obviously descent power is less than level-flight power.

> The Helio is different. The trick is to slow down as soon as possible
> because the flap speed is only 70kts. Once full flaps are set then slow
> down and ADD power to slow down some more. The better you get the more
> lower the speed and more power will be required. The limit is about 30kts
> and full power. I can't do that yet but I saw it demonstrated at OSH this
> year.

Well, I suppose if you really want to practice the short-field stuff (and
with a Helio, why wouldn't you?) flying power-on "backside of the power
curve", that's fine. But it's hardly applicable to this discussion. All
airplanes can land much shorter with appropriate power-on, slow-flight
techniques, but we normally avoid that part of the flight envelope.

I certainly concede that in any airplane, if you want to steepen your
descent without reducing power, you can simply fly at an appropriate
airspeed slower than max L/D speed (to a point, of course). But that's not
a normal operation, and I don't think it applies here.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Come on out...I'll do your Flight Review for ya. I can even show you a
> Caravan
> painted in Fed Ex colors....like that's exciting.

If we get to actually *fly* it, you've got a deal!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Gideon]

One interesting side-effect of this thread:

It reminded me to remind the plane captain for our 182RG to have the gear
horn set to a slightly lower MP. It currently hoots intermittently at
about 15"...which is where the power needs to be to do about 80 or so
clean.

- Andrew

[Thomas Borchert]

Zatatime,

> If it does happen you'll be way "over square" and
> potentially do alot of engine damage.
>

Proof? Numbers? At least a working theory? "Oversquare" is a myth.
Operating out of allowed limits isn't, but "oversquare" is irrelevant.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Zatatime,

> When
> flying at 2200 RPM or so and going full power you run a greater risk
> of breaking something than at full pitch (high RPM).
>

How?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Thomas Borchert > writes:

> > When flying at 2200 RPM or so and going full power you run a
> > greater risk of breaking something than at full pitch (high RPM).
>
> How?

Some airplanes have limitations on the space of usable RPM-vs-MP
settings. For example, on the pair of IO-540s in mine, prohibit
operation at MP>25 with RPM<2300, or MP>20 with RPM<2000. (I believe
the reason relates to resonance.) That is I push the blue levers
forward from 2200RPM (cruise) to do approaches at 2400RPM: this allow
harsher throttle swings if needed.

- FChE

[Thomas Borchert]

Frank,

very interesting, thanks. Of course, as the first set of limitations
show, this has nothing to do with "oversquare", since the limit starts
at a "serious oversquare" condition.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[zatatime]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:23:13 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Frank,
>
>very interesting, thanks. Of course, as the first set of limitations
>show, this has nothing to do with "oversquare", since the limit starts
>at a "serious oversquare" condition.


Does this mean yo now understand my "way over square" comment, and why
I put over square in quotes?

z

[Thomas Borchert]

Zatatime,

> Does this mean yo now understand my "way over square" comment, and why
> I put over square in quotes?
>

I think the word oversquare should never be used in this context, ever.
Too much mischief has been wrought by doing that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:59:04 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>>> With the 182, it is 80 knots turning from the 45 to downwind, 75 on base,
>>> and 70
>>> on final. I don't understand why pushing the prop to full flat has any
>>> noise
>>> effect whatsoever.
>>
>> Exactly
>
>Exactly, except for those airplanes that cannot maintain level flight at
>pattern speed with gear and flaps out at final descent power settings.
>

You should hear me on a circle to land. Gear out, bout 20-25 deg of
flaps and go to cruise power until within about 30 degrees of the
landing runway heading. Then back to about 12" and full flaps. Turning
with everything hanging out while maintaining altitude takes about
22-23" of MP at 2400 RPM. At that power setting and low altitude
~500' AGL I try to keep it over the airport for the full circle to
land.

>Which is, by the way, all airplanes with a constant speed prop. The power
>setting for final descent is necessarily lower than that required for level
>flight within the pattern, even if you slowed ALL the way to your final
>approach speed. RPM will thus be higher, assuming the pitch is set to full
>fine pitch (high RPM). Higher RPM means more noise.

For a VFR pattern: On my old Debonair they taught; slow to 110-100 on
down wind, 90 on base and 80 minus 1 MPH for each 100# under gross on
final. This produces quite a steep final, but with the consequences
of a relatively short roll out.

I generally start the descent after gear down at the end of the runway
on down wind. Prior to that with the old 2-blade prop would have been
noisy.

Some airports want you to keep pattern altitude much longer. Some till
you start final.

I would add that I'm usually coming down hill just prior to the 45
entry (pattern alt one to two miles out) and the Deb takes its time
slowing down. I probably have the MP back to the point where the prop
is already turning slower prior to pattern entry.

Sooo... power is back (but a long way from idle) prior to pattern
entry, down wind is basically low power (16"-17")with the Deb slowing
down. Gear down at the end of the runway and a bit of flaps down to
about 100 MPH, MP about 12". Turn base, add flaps, retrim for the
slower speed of 90, Turn final, full flaps, speed ~75-80, prop full
in. Adjust MP to maintain aiming point.

Actually if I enter a bit on the fast side while slowing down I use
less power in the pattern than I would if I entered the pattern at 110
as I'd have to apply power on down wind while I'm normally reducing
power.

If I didn't put the gear down until I had the runway made it'd be one
mighty big pattern power off. Almost as big as some of the local
Cessnas and Cherokees fly. (sorry, I couldn't help it) <:-))
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>If Jim's 182 flies along level in the pattern at the same airspeed and prop
>RPM that he uses for final descent, I have no idea how he accomplishes a
>final descent at all. A plane like that would be stuck up in the pattern
>indefinitely.
>
>Pete
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Roger > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:59:04 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> [...]
> >>> With the 182, it is 80 knots turning from the 45 to downwind, 75 on base,
> >>> and 70
> >>> on final. I don't understand why pushing the prop to full flat has any
> >>> noise
> >>> effect whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Exactly
> >
> >Exactly, except for those airplanes that cannot maintain level flight at
> >pattern speed with gear and flaps out at final descent power settings.
> >
>
> You should hear me on a circle to land. Gear out, bout 20-25 deg of
> flaps and go to cruise power until within about 30 degrees of the
> landing runway heading. Then back to about 12" and full flaps. Turning
> with everything hanging out while maintaining altitude takes about
> 22-23" of MP at 2400 RPM. At that power setting and low altitude
> ~500' AGL I try to keep it over the airport for the full circle to
> land.

I much prefer the 360 overhead pattern:

1) flying at cruise down the runway at pattern altitude from about 2
miles out (Initial) to just past the threshold,

2) break to downwind (traffic permitting), pulling power as you break,

3) Keeping at least 45 deg bank, drop gear and flaps when appropriate
speed is reached (usually at the 180 deg point),

4) slow to approach speed, while turning and keeping TD point in sight,

5) touch down on full 3-point attitude on the numbers.

Properly done, you don't add power any time after the break -- it is a
continuous circle to touchdown. It is the easiest way to recover a
formation -- each plane breaks at 2 - 4 second intervals. I do this all
the time in my Johnson Rocket; I have done it in a Zlin 242 and a
friend's big-engined T-34. The whole "pattern is within a 1/4 to 1/2
mile of the runway.

Prop goes in when you reach approach speed.

[Roger]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:39:45 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Roger > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:59:04 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Chris" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> [...]
>> >>> With the 182, it is 80 knots turning from the 45 to downwind, 75 on base,
>> >>> and 70
>> >>> on final. I don't understand why pushing the prop to full flat has any
>> >>> noise
>> >>> effect whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly
>> >
>> >Exactly, except for those airplanes that cannot maintain level flight at
>> >pattern speed with gear and flaps out at final descent power settings.
>> >
>>
>> You should hear me on a circle to land. Gear out, bout 20-25 deg of
>> flaps and go to cruise power until within about 30 degrees of the
>> landing runway heading. Then back to about 12" and full flaps. Turning
>> with everything hanging out while maintaining altitude takes about
>> 22-23" of MP at 2400 RPM. At that power setting and low altitude
>> ~500' AGL I try to keep it over the airport for the full circle to
>> land.
>
>I much prefer the 360 overhead pattern:
Circle to land is an instrument procedure. 360 overhead is not an
option. I was commenting on the noise aspect. Also you are required
to maintain at or above MDA until within about 30 degrees of the
runway. (which can be about half the VFR pattern altitude.)

In the Deb the recommended approach speed is 120 while the VFR pattern
is *usually*: slow to 100-110 on down wind, gear down at the end of
the runway,. Flaps 10-15 degrees, MP about 12 to 14" until gear
down. base 90 with 20-25 degrees of flaps, final is 80 minus 1 MPH for
each 100# under gross which for me is normally around 75 -76 MPH. MP
is around 10" (give or take) and produces a steep descent "Prop on
final", Flaps go full usually just prior to the round out. There is
no trim change with flaps and by the time I reach the round out it's
usually full nose up trim.

>
>1) flying at cruise down the runway at pattern altitude from about 2
>miles out (Initial) to just past the threshold,
>
Doesn't that put you at odds with other traffic on cross wind or
departing? I hit pattern altitude right at the end of the runway on
climb out. (3800 ft runway) and we'd be in each others blind spots.

I almost took a plane head on at MOP while on an instrument approach
when he turned upwind over the runway at pattern altitude. I was
under the hood and all I heard from the instructor was, "Ohhhhh ****!
Pull up! Pull UP!". I hit the power and bout stood the old Deb on
end, bringing the nose down to hold Vx. He never would tell me how
close we were, but I did gather it was a matter of only a few feet.

I thought the 360 overhead with the break was done above pattern
altitude.

>2) break to downwind (traffic permitting), pulling power as you break,
>
>3) Keeping at least 45 deg bank, drop gear and flaps when appropriate
>speed is reached (usually at the 180 deg point),
>
>4) slow to approach speed, while turning and keeping TD point in sight,
>
>5) touch down on full 3-point attitude on the numbers.

In a nose dragger?<:-)) Albeit I usually touch down in the
appropriate attitude for a 3 point in a tail dragger. When I flew
with an AirSafety Foundation instructor he asked if I flew tail
draggers a lot after my first full stall landing.

Nor am I a proponent of touching down on the numbers unless it's a
short runway. Except on short runways I go for the touch down zone.
If it's a log way to the first turn off I ask to land long.
>
>Properly done, you don't add power any time after the break -- it is a
>continuous circle to touchdown. It is the easiest way to recover a
>formation -- each plane breaks at 2 - 4 second intervals. I do this all
>the time in my Johnson Rocket; I have done it in a Zlin 242 and a
>friend's big-engined T-34. The whole "pattern is within a 1/4 to 1/2

The Deb is just a streamlined T34 with a door instead of a sliding
canopy. (It doesn't get airstream separation over the vertical stab
due to the canopy like the T-34) However a typical final takes a bit
of power. Power off is faster and uses quite a bit more runway. To
quote the POH, the extra speed when power off is to add enough energy
to flare. Power off is 90 to 95 while power on is 80 minus the one MPH
for each 100# under gross which makes for a much steeper descent and
shorter roll out. That extra 10 to 15 MPH will pretty much double the
required runway.

>mile of the runway.
>
>Prop goes in when you reach approach speed.

As most of my VFR pattern is decelerating I have no need to add power
and as the MP is low enough the prop control is no longer controlling
the RPM... Unless you pull it way out . I also fly a very tight
pattern, but try to keep it conventional due to a lot of students in
the pattern. They get a big enough surprise with instrument
approaches that come in at half their altitude.

OTOH I do not do the tight, steep approaches when carrying passengers.
Those are the gentle turns with gentle descents.

I do fly the occasional, stabilized pattern, but prefer to vary each
time which helps to know the airplane. If I do a stabilized pattern I
will have to add power as in the circle to land.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Roger > wrote:
>The Deb is just a streamlined T34 with a door instead of a sliding
>canopy.

Yeah, but that canopy makes all the difference in terms of coolness.
Is there an STC to put a canopy on the Deb? ;-)

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Roger > wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:39:45 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote:
>

> >> >
> >> >Exactly, except for those airplanes that cannot maintain level flight at
> >> >pattern speed with gear and flaps out at final descent power settings.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You should hear me on a circle to land. Gear out, bout 20-25 deg of
> >> flaps and go to cruise power until within about 30 degrees of the
> >> landing runway heading. Then back to about 12" and full flaps. Turning
> >> with everything hanging out while maintaining altitude takes about
> >> 22-23" of MP at 2400 RPM. At that power setting and low altitude
> >> ~500' AGL I try to keep it over the airport for the full circle to
> >> land.
> >
> >I much prefer the 360 overhead pattern:
> Circle to land is an instrument procedure. 360 overhead is not an
> option. I was commenting on the noise aspect. Also you are required
> to maintain at or above MDA until within about 30 degrees of the
> runway. (which can be about half the VFR pattern altitude.)


A properly done 360 overhead is quiet, as power is reduced over the
runway.



> In the Deb the recommended approach speed is 120 while the VFR pattern
> is *usually*: slow to 100-110 on down wind, gear down at the end of
> the runway,. Flaps 10-15 degrees, MP about 12 to 14" until gear
> down. base 90 with 20-25 degrees of flaps, final is 80 minus 1 MPH for
> each 100# under gross which for me is normally around 75 -76 MPH. MP
> is around 10" (give or take) and produces a steep descent "Prop on
> final", Flaps go full usually just prior to the round out. There is
> no trim change with flaps and by the time I reach the round out it's
> usually full nose up trim.
>
> >
> >1) flying at cruise down the runway at pattern altitude from about 2
> >miles out (Initial) to just past the threshold,
> >
> Doesn't that put you at odds with other traffic on cross wind or
> departing? I hit pattern altitude right at the end of the runway on
> climb out. (3800 ft runway) and we'd be in each others blind spots.

Nope -- headon traffic is on downwind -- away from the runway. You are
able to monitor downwind traffic as you approach the airport. If any is
there, you either break behind them or carry through and re-enter. Break
is preferable over the threshold.


> I almost took a plane head on at MOP while on an instrument approach
> when he turned upwind over the runway at pattern altitude. I was
> under the hood and all I heard from the instructor was, "Ohhhhh ****!
> Pull up! Pull UP!". I hit the power and bout stood the old Deb on
> end, bringing the nose down to hold Vx. He never would tell me how
> close we were, but I did gather it was a matter of only a few feet.

You were doing a downind approach?



> I thought the 360 overhead with the break was done above pattern
> altitude.

Nope. Pattern altitude or "popup" to exchange altitude for speed. It is
also easier to see traffic from below, rather than picking through
ground clutter.


> >2) break to downwind (traffic permitting), pulling power as you break,
> >
> >3) Keeping at least 45 deg bank, drop gear and flaps when appropriate
> >speed is reached (usually at the 180 deg point),
> >
> >4) slow to approach speed, while turning and keeping TD point in sight,
> >
> >5) touch down on full 3-point attitude on the numbers.
>
> In a nose dragger?<:-)) Albeit I usually touch down in the
> appropriate attitude for a 3 point in a tail dragger. When I flew
> with an AirSafety Foundation instructor he asked if I flew tail
> draggers a lot after my first full stall landing.
>
> Nor am I a proponent of touching down on the numbers unless it's a
> short runway. Except on short runways I go for the touch down zone.
> If it's a log way to the first turn off I ask to land long.

It's a matter of choice. The old chestnut about "runway behind you, blue
sky above you, ...etc."


> >Properly done, you don't add power any time after the break -- it is a
> >continuous circle to touchdown. It is the easiest way to recover a
> >formation -- each plane breaks at 2 - 4 second intervals. I do this all
> >the time in my Johnson Rocket; I have done it in a Zlin 242 and a
> >friend's big-engined T-34. The whole "pattern is within a 1/4 to 1/2
>
> The Deb is just a streamlined T34 with a door instead of a sliding
> canopy. (It doesn't get airstream separation over the vertical stab
> due to the canopy like the T-34) However a typical final takes a bit
> of power. Power off is faster and uses quite a bit more runway. To
> quote the POH, the extra speed when power off is to add enough energy
> to flare. Power off is 90 to 95 while power on is 80 minus the one MPH
> for each 100# under gross which makes for a much steeper descent and
> shorter roll out. That extra 10 to 15 MPH will pretty much double the
> required runway.
>
> >mile of the runway.
> >
> >Prop goes in when you reach approach speed.
>
> As most of my VFR pattern is decelerating I have no need to add power
> and as the MP is low enough the prop control is no longer controlling
> the RPM... Unless you pull it way out . I also fly a very tight
> pattern, but try to keep it conventional due to a lot of students in
> the pattern. They get a big enough surprise with instrument
> approaches that come in at half their altitude.

Procedures vary according to traffic conditions.

> OTOH I do not do the tight, steep approaches when carrying passengers.
> Those are the gentle turns with gentle descents.
>
> I do fly the occasional, stabilized pattern, but prefer to vary each
> time which helps to know the airplane. If I do a stabilized pattern I
> will have to add power as in the circle to land.


True -- that is one of the problems with the "stabilized approach."
Pilots trained with that procedure would be in a heap o' hurt if the
engine fails. Around here there are several flight schools (including
ERAU) that fly 747-type patterns in C172s. Net result is extended
patterns and noise complaints from neighbors.