Reduce RPM to "coast" in long descent?

"Stuart Grant" wrote in message
om...
[...]
I think I DID find the answer in my pilot handbook. The range curves
show significant increase in range with the same MP and lower RPM.
Manifold pressure 22" and 1800 RPM for example.

Your handbook is telling you something different. That is, that the engine
is generally more efficient for a given percentage horsepower when the lower
RPM is selected.

That will always be true, but it doesn't mean there's a reduction in
airframe drag, which is what you asked about. As Dale said, if the engine
is driving the prop rather than the other way around, reducing prop pitch
isn't going to change the drag of the prop.

Now, if you have an engine failure, or are gliding with the power completely
reduced, that's a different story and reducing prop RPM will increase your
glide range. But that's not what you asked.

In descent the reduced
power would be made up for by gravity for a more constant airspeed. I
think I will try this.

I don't understand "more constant airspeed". In a stabilized descent, the
airspeed should always be constant. You are certainly right that in a
descent, gravity adds thrust (equivalent to adding power), so you can reduce
power and maintain the same airspeed.

This is, in fact, a technique that is usually taught to every pilot during
their initial training: to descend while maintaining your current airspeed,
simply reduce power. The airplane will remain at (or near) its trimmed
airspeed, and will descend at that airspeed.

Pete

William W. Plummer wrote:

You should not linger between altitudes. Everybody, other pilots and
ATC, expect you to be at the correct altitude. Safety, not economy,
demands this.

Yeah, you need to get down smartly to an altitude where everybody else is. It's so much
safer.


Jack

William W. Plummer wrote:

You should not linger between altitudes. Everybody, other pilots and
ATC, expect you to be at the correct altitude.

Uh, no we don't. You are where you are.

From: (Robert M. Gary)

In my Mooney I'll often begin my
let down 40-50 miles out (although I'm flying a bit higher than you
mention here in this post). In the Mooney its fun because you can keep
up with the biz jets as long as you don't level off.

-Robert

Those Mooneys must really be fast

On 29 Aug 2004 04:14:44 GMT, (WIACapt) wrote:

From: (Robert M. Gary)

In my Mooney I'll often begin my
let down 40-50 miles out (although I'm flying a bit higher than you
mention here in this post). In the Mooney its fun because you can keep

I was lined up on the glide slope at Port Columbus. The instructor
told me to take the foggles off and look to my left. There off our
wind was a 737 and it was staying in position, that is until we hit
the outer marker and I lowered the gear. :-))

up with the biz jets as long as you don't level off.

-Robert

Those Mooneys must really be fast

Figure 200 MPH. That is 3.33 miles per minute. At a 500 fpm rate of
descent you need 3.33 miles for each 500 foot, so IF you want to
descend from 7000 to 3000 it will take 4000/500 = 8*3.33, or 26.64
miles. From 9000 to 3000 is 6000/500 = 12*3.33, or basically 40
miles. BUT you also have to slow down. I have to slow from 200 MPH to
120 MPH and that takes a good mile in level flight. A lot more while
coming down hill. OTOH leveling off AND a power reduction will get me
there in 2 miles, but 3 gives a comfortable margin.

The FAF for the VOR - A into 3BS is 5.5 NM out and figuring I need to
be down and slowed down comfortably before the FAF I'd figure a
minimum of 3 miles. So 5.5 + 3 + 40 would mean I'd have to start down
48.5 miles out. OTOH 180 is 3 miles per minute so from 9000 to 3000 =
12 * 3 = 36 miles to get down and 5.5 + 3 or 44.5 miles.

Figuring 120 MPH and 2 miles per minute would change that to 12 * 2 =
24 miles to get down and 3 + 5.5 or 32.5 miles including the
approach.

At 200 MPH I'd still have to start down soon enough to be at pattern
altitude and slowed to pattern entry speed to safely enter the
pattern. That would only let me nock off 3 or 4 miles compared to the
instrument approach.

The Mooney OTOH has to slow even more to get the gear down so although
he can go like a bat coming down hill it's going to take him longer to
get that slippery airplane slowed to gear down speed. So he is going
to need to start down even farther out than I do.

They aren't kidding when they say you have to learn to think much
farther ahead when flying a high performance retract.

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

emove (AJW) wrote in message ...

Is it better to reduce MP and leave RPM at
2200?

In my Mooney I like VFR decents at whatever speed I had been cruising. It's my
habit in cruise to keep the RPM low, almost always going a little 'oversquare'
(MP in inches a bit higher than RPM in hundreds). I don't like speeding up in
the decent, and consider the altitude energy in the bank, I spend it on haaving
the MP lower.

But your giving up all the speed you should have gotten back from the
climb. You fly slower in the climb but get it back when you start
down. Pulling power back just gives it all up.

Newps wrote in message ...
Stuart Grant wrote:
In my 182 I always fly balls to the wall on a cross country. WOT
minus
a little to tickle the needle and 2450 RPM. When it comes time to
descend I do not touch power and just roll in a turn of trim, that gets
me 500 fpm down and an extra 15-20 knots.

I pull the throttle back just enough to maintain the same MP as I come
down (adjusting every 2000 feet or so). If you forget to roll the
throttle back, you'll end up pulling 30" in the pattern.

-Robert

Is it better to reduce MP and leave RPM at
2200?

In my Mooney I like VFR decents at whatever speed I had been cruising. It's
my
habit in cruise to keep the RPM low, almost always going a little
'oversquare'
(MP in inches a bit higher than RPM in hundreds). I don't like speeding up
in
the decent, and consider the altitude energy in the bank, I spend it on
haaving
the MP lower.

But your giving up all the speed you should have gotten back from the
climb. You fly slower in the climb but get it back when you start
down. Pulling power back just gives it all up

I admit to not running the numbers on that. I figured I chose an airspeed that
made sense, save a little fuel on the decent, and even if I come down from
11500 at 500 fpm it's what -- 21 minutes to pattern altitude. At 150 kts +
wind, that means I start down about 50 miles out. If I come down at an average
of say 165 ktsI'd be starting down maybe 8 miles sooner. Maybe it's as much
this as anything -- I mostly do XC under IFR, and like to keep whatever is the
filed airspeed.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
But your giving up all the speed you should have gotten back from the
climb. You fly slower in the climb but get it back when you start
down. Pulling power back just gives it all up.

It's just a matter of what you want to get back. You are right, you are
sacrificing speed (energy banked during the climb), but you get in return
fuel efficiency (energy banked during the climb).

Which is, essentially, what AJW wrote in the first place.

You don't lose the energy. You just use it differently, depending on your
power setting. Thermodynamically speaking, the lower power setting also
produces the more efficient use of the energy, but of course flying isn't
always about what's most efficient.

Pete