Throttle or Prop control first after takeoff

[cyberflyrg]

We are having a argument about what is better to do after takeoff. Some mechanics say pull power back first after takeoff and then adjust prop speed after, my mechanic says prop speed back first and then manifold pressure after that.
What the "right" thing to do that will not damage the prop governor and motor??? You opinion is greatly appreciated..
PS: this is in reference to my 1965 210.

thanks rg

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 6, 11:37*am, cyberflyrg >
wrote:
> We are having a argument about what is better to do after takeoff. Some
> mechanics say pull power back first after takeoff and then adjust prop
> speed after, my mechanic says prop speed back first and then manifold
> pressure after that.
> What the "right" thing to do that will not damage the prop governor and
> motor??? You opinion is greatly appreciated..
> PS: this is in reference to my 1965 210.

Refer to your POH when in doubt. However, the rule of thumb most of us
fly under is that when reducing power you work left to right
(throttle, then prop, then mixture). When increasing power you work
the other way (mixture, prop, then throttle). This sequence ensures
you don't lug the engine. If your airframe POH or engine manual says
otherwise, go for it.

-Robert, CFII

[Mark Hansen]

On 03/06/09 12:48, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:37�am, cyberflyrg >
> wrote:
>> We are having a argument about what is better to do after takeoff. Some
>> mechanics say pull power back first after takeoff and then adjust prop
>> speed after, my mechanic says prop speed back first and then manifold
>> pressure after that.
>> What the "right" thing to do that will not damage the prop governor and
>> motor??? You opinion is greatly appreciated..
>> PS: this is in reference to my 1965 210.
>
> Refer to your POH when in doubt. However, the rule of thumb most of us
> fly under is that when reducing power you work left to right
> (throttle, then prop, then mixture). When increasing power you work
> the other way (mixture, prop, then throttle). This sequence ensures
> you don't lug the engine. If your airframe POH or engine manual says
> otherwise, go for it.
>
> -Robert, CFII
>

Yes but right after take off, don't people reduce the rpm just a bit
(to 2500 in the Archer I flew) to reduce noise?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 6, 12:52*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 03/06/09 12:48, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Yes but right after take off, don't people reduce the rpm just a bit
> (to 2500 in the Archer I flew) to reduce noise?

I don't because I personally don't believe in touching power below
1000 feet. However, a lot of aircraft require a power reduction for
sustained climb or noise. For instance in the C-182T you pull power
and fuel flow back to the top of the green, etc. However, I still
don't touch anything below 1000 feet, even coming out of SMO in my
Mooney (where the noise nazi's live)

-Robert

[dave]

cyberflyrg wrote:
> We are having a argument about what is better to do after takeoff. Some
> mechanics say pull power back first after takeoff and then adjust prop
> speed after, my mechanic says prop speed back first and then manifold
> pressure after that.
> What the "right" thing to do that will not damage the prop governor and
> motor??? You opinion is greatly appreciated..
> PS: this is in reference to my 1965 210.
>
> thanks rg

On my bonanza, I keep full throttle then pull back the prop as per the
manual. Keep the throttle in until I reach my enroute altitude.

Dave

[BT]

The Seneca II take off is 40in MP and full RPM for takeoff.
"Stabilized in the climb".. you pick when you think that is time to do that.
Reduce to "Climb Power" 30in MP and 2500RPM.
Cruise Power "as required" normally between 28-30in MP 2300-2400RPM and
about 13gph per side.

Some one already mentioned the take off procedure for the C-182T (Turbo).
Reduce the MP and the Fuel Flow to the Top of the Green.

Arrow, 25square works, MP first then Prop.

The thing about "older" POH, like your 1965 C-210.. they were not that
explict.

Dependent on the engine, some say keep RPM higher than MP, some don't.

"cyberflyrg" > wrote in message
...
>
> We are having a argument about what is better to do after takeoff. Some
> mechanics say pull power back first after takeoff and then adjust prop
> speed after, my mechanic says prop speed back first and then manifold
> pressure after that.
> What the "right" thing to do that will not damage the prop governor and
> motor??? You opinion is greatly appreciated..
> PS: this is in reference to my 1965 210.
>
> thanks rg
>
>
>
>
> --
> cyberflyrg

[Danny Deger[_2_]]

BT wrote:

> The thing about "older" POH, like your 1965 C-210.. they were not that
> explict.
>

The POH on my 1941 Taylorcraft doesn't say a thing about when to adjust
the prop :-)

Danny Deger

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "BT" > wrote:

> The thing about "older" POH, like your 1965 C-210.. they were not that
> explict.
>
> Dependent on the engine, some say keep RPM higher than MP, some don't.

But moving the controls in the wrong order can put the engine
outside its operational limitations. For instance, if the POH allows
24" and 2200 RPM, that setting isn't within the old "square" rule-of-
thumb but it won't hurt the engine. Now, if you pull the prop back to
2200 with the throttle wide open, you're going to get may 25 or 26" MP
and 2200 RPM, well outside the limits set by the manufacturer. The
risk with large-bore, slow-turning engines is detonation, and the POH
tables are designed with avoiding detonation and the awesome damage it
causes.
So that's why we teach people to avoid high cylinder pressures
by reding MP first, then setting RPM. If increasing power, get the RPM
up first and then increase MP.
It's no different than upshifting or downshifting your car; you
don't just mash the throttle to the floor when you come to a steep
hill; you downshift first and then apply the power, and when you get
to the top of the hill you don't upshift until the car's speed is such
that the engine won't have to drop to some very low RPM when you let
the clutch out and apply the power again.
We older guys can remember a time when cars would "ping" or
"knock" when the engine was driven at a low RPM and too much throttle.
That was detonation and it would break rings and knock holes in
pistons and trash the bearings and sometimes heads and cylinder walls
would crack. It was considered very poor driving technique. Now we
have cars with computers and knock sensors and all sorts of electronic
wizardry that keeps the driver from breaking stuff, but it also dumbs
down young drivers and they can't grasp the RPM/MP thing quite so
easily. And automatic transmissions and ABS brakes have made driving
habits even worse, IMHO.

Dan

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> The POH on my 1941 Taylorcraft doesn't say a thing about when to adjust
> the prop :-)

Yeah, there's nothing in my '48 Ercoupe's POH (er, "pamphlet") about that,
either. Nuthin' about flaps or rudders, either!

:-)

The Pathfinder we always work left-to-right, as someone else stated.
Throttle, prop, mixture.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 6, 7:31*pm, "BT" > wrote:

> Some one already mentioned the take off procedure for the C-182T (Turbo).
> Reduce the MP and the Fuel Flow to the Top of the Green.

That is true but the C-182T is *not* turbo.

-Robert

[BT]

How about Cessna T182T NAV III
BT

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "BT" > wrote:

> Some one already mentioned the take off procedure for the C-182T (Turbo).
> Reduce the MP and the Fuel Flow to the Top of the Green.

That is true but the C-182T is *not* turbo.

-Robert

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "BT" > wrote:

>> Some one already mentioned the take off procedure for the C-182T (Turbo).
>> Reduce the MP and the Fuel Flow to the Top of the Green.

> That is true but the C-182T is *not* turbo.

Can be. Mine is.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:23:28 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "BT" > wrote:
>
>>> Some one already mentioned the take off procedure for the C-182T (Turbo).
>>> Reduce the MP and the Fuel Flow to the Top of the Green.
>
>> That is true but the C-182T is *not* turbo.
>
>Can be. Mine is.

I do believe that unless filing a flight plan, technically, that's a
T182T, not a C182T.

A bit pedantic, yes, but still.

[BT]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:23:28 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>>On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "BT" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Some one already mentioned the take off procedure for the C-182T
>>>> (Turbo).
>>>> Reduce the MP and the Fuel Flow to the Top of the Green.
>>
>>> That is true but the C-182T is *not* turbo.
>>
>>Can be. Mine is.
>
> I do believe that unless filing a flight plan, technically, that's a
> T182T, not a C182T.
>
> A bit pedantic, yes, but still.

And if filing a flight plan.. it is neither.. but most likely a C-182/G
(with NAV III package)
and ATC does not care if it is turbo or not.


BT

[-b-]

In article
>,
says...
>

> We older guys can remember a time when cars would "ping" or
>"knock" when the engine was driven at a low RPM and too much throttle.
>That was detonation and it would break rings and knock holes in
>pistons and trash the bearings and sometimes heads and cylinder walls
>would crack.



Careening wildly off course here, but in truth the evidence is not that
clear-cut about the damage done to automobile engines from "knocking".
Recalling my UofM courses on the subject, the text even reproduced a study
of tear-down examination of engines after many hours of heavy knocking in
a laboratory controlled environment, and the results were inconclusive as
concerns damage to engine components.

The main concern with knocking, in car engines, is that once IMEP exceeds
KLIMEP the power starts to fall off rapidly; therefore this represents an
absolute performance limitation for any engine.

I am willing to accept that things are different in the world of aircraft
engines, where slow rotational speeds and turbocharging may lead to
extreme detonation conditions, if mismanaged.


Sources:
http://www.me.umn.edu/education/courses/me5461/

Internal Combustion Engines, by Richard Stone, 3rd Edition, SAE 1999

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 14, 9:23*am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
> On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "BT" > wrote:
>
> >> Some one already mentioned the take off procedure for the C-182T (Turbo).
> >> Reduce the MP and the Fuel Flow to the Top of the Green.
> > That is true but the C-182T is *not* turbo.
>
> Can be. Mine is.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> T182T at 4R4

No, yours is a C-T182T.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 15, 10:15*am, "BT" > wrote:

> And if filing a flight plan.. it is neither.. but most likely a C-182/G
> (with NAV III package)
> and ATC does not care if it is turbo or not.
>

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/acdesig.html
Filing a filght plane a C182 is non-turbo. A C82R is turbo. Generally
ATC does care about turbo. Just like there are two common Mooneys,
M20P and M20T. All M20's that are non-turbo are M20P (there is no
M20E, M20F, M20J, etc in a flight plan).

-Robert

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Mar 14, 9:23*am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
..
..
>> On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "BT" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Some one already mentioned the take off procedure for the C-182T (Turbo).
>> >> Reduce the MP and the Fuel Flow to the Top of the Green.
>> > That is true but the C-182T is *not* turbo.
>>
>> Can be. Mine is.
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>>
>> T182T at 4R4
>
>No, yours is a C-T182T.
>
>-Robert

Yes, now that Skylanes have reached the "T" designation it gets confusing.
They should have avoided it - like numbering conventions that avoid I's that
can be taken for 1's and O's that can be taken for 0's. They should have gone
directly to "U". The question becomes, for these models that remain in
production for the better part of a century, what happens after "Z"?
C-T182-AA"? With that we're set for a good long time!

[dcd]

On Saturday, March 7, 2009 9:41:21 AM UTC-8, Danny Deger wrote:

>
> The POH on my 1941 Taylorcraft doesn't say a thing about when to adjust
> the prop :-)
>
> Danny Deger

I didn't think the 1941 Taylorcraft came with a POH? Do you still have it?

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article >,
(dcd) writes:

> On Saturday, March 7, 2009 9:41:21 AM UTC-8, Danny Deger wrote:
>
>> The POH on my 1941 Taylorcraft doesn't say a thing about when to
>> adjust the prop :-)
>
> I didn't think the 1941 Taylorcraft came with a POH? Do you still
> have it?

I once managed to purchase a new POH for my 1961 172B. But it
doesn't say anything about when to adjust the prop either.

As for planes with constant-speed props, my rule on takeoff is to
bring back the power first - although this shouldn't be necessary
if the airport is at 5000 feet. :-)

--
/~\ (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Charlie Gibbs" > wrote:

> In article >,
> (dcd) writes:
>
> > On Saturday, March 7, 2009 9:41:21 AM UTC-8, Danny Deger wrote:
> >
> >> The POH on my 1941 Taylorcraft doesn't say a thing about when to
> >> adjust the prop :-)
> >
> > I didn't think the 1941 Taylorcraft came with a POH? Do you still
> > have it?
>
> I once managed to purchase a new POH for my 1961 172B. But it
> doesn't say anything about when to adjust the prop either.
>
> As for planes with constant-speed props, my rule on takeoff is to
> bring back the power first - although this shouldn't be necessary
> if the airport is at 5000 feet. :-)

I have a controllable Hartzell (no governor), so I have to adjust the
RPM so as not to overspeed the prop, leaving full throttle on takeoff.

The "throttle before prop" is a holdover from military days, when those
airplanes had superchargers, which would allow for overboosting the
cylinders, sometimes with disastrous outcomes.

Normally-aspirated engines are quite tolerant of reasonable RPM
reductions, while maintaining full throttle. Just look at those planes
with fixed-pitch cruise props -- the only control you have is the
throttle, and they allow full throttle on takeoff.