Throttle or Prop control first after takeoff

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

"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

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.

"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

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

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

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

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!

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?

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. :-)

--
/~\ lid (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!