Methods for altitude changes

On Apr 8, 8:20 am, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

...

TheSmokingGnu writes:

Only one of these is correct, and none of the situations you explicitly
described are correct.

Which one is correct, and why?

All of the above, because it's free country and just a simulated event.


He -could- always fiddle with QFE to get from 4000 to 6000 :-)

On Apr 7, 9:11 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Suppose you're in your small aircraft and you want to climb from 4000 to 6000,
or descend from 6000 to 4000. What method do you use? I can think of
several, but I don't know which is best/recommended.

For example, to climb from 4000 to 6000, I can just ease the yoke back and
climb. When I get to 6000, I can adjust power and retrim. Another way is to
just add some nose-up trim, then retrim and adjust power when I'm at 6000.
Still another way is to increase power, and wait until I drift up to 6000,
then adjust power and retrim. Various other combinations are possible, such
as adjusting power and/or pitch and/or trim simultaneously, and so on.

Which method do you normally use? Is there a recommended method?

I make a distinction here between initial climbs/descents and extended
climbs/descents and small altitude changes. I presume it's not necessary to
worry too much about constant adjustment of mixture or things like that in a
change of only 2000 feet or so--it can always be adjusted after the target
altitude is reached. Similarly, although power must ultimately be adjusted
for any new altitude, it doesn't seem that it's really necessary during the
altitude change; a slight change in airspeed isn't that big a deal. This
would seem to leave a lot of room for personal preferences, which is why I ask
which methods are the most popular, and why.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

It depends on the situation, but for your specific example, of a 4 to
6 kft climb, I would increase power to max, then pitch (and trim) for
about 90 kts. If I had the mixture leaned, I would go to full rich
first (above 75% power, full rich is required for proper engine
cooling). 90 kts is faster than Vy for my Cherokee (about 72-74 kts),
but is recommended for cruise climb since it results in a lower nose
and better forward visibility, and also better engine cooling.

Normally, for a 6 to 4 kft descent, I slightly reduce power and
slightly trim nose down to achieve about a 500 fpm descent at a
slightly higher airspeed. I don't reduce power substantially to
prevent too much engine cooling, and I don't trim nose down too much
to keep airspeed in the green. If the mixture was leaned, I would
enrichen before descending (otherwise mixture could become too lean
for proper engine operation as air density increases during the
descent)

It would be better to not think of altitude changes as "drifting"
around; it's more formal. A climb or descent is a specific maneuver
that follows a defined procedure involving the flight controls and
engine controls. That procedure will be specific to the airplane and
the circumstances.

However, for small altitude corrections (e.g. 100 ft or so), I just
move the yoke, and then nudge the trim a bit to correct for the
altitude drift rate.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Which one is correct, and why?

The hypothetical, because it lists the required combination of commands.

TheSmokingGnu

Edit: crossposted, corrected.

It depends on the situation, but for your specific example, of a 4 to
6 kft climb, I would increase power to max, then pitch (and trim) for
about 90 kts. If I had the mixture leaned, I would go to full rich
first (above 75% power, full rich is required for proper engine
cooling). 90 kts is faster than Vy for my Cherokee (about 72-74 kts),
but is recommended for cruise climb since it results in a lower nose
and better forward visibility, and also better engine cooling.


For Mr Fly Cherokee.

A full rich climb at those altitudes can result in lower performance. If
your POH engine manual dictates full rich above 75% power.. then I cannot
recommend against following that procedure.

However, At 5Kft MSL, on a hot day at full throttle are you really getting
75% power? The Density Altitude.. ohh.. that bugger we live with in the
west.. could be well above 8Kft MSL. 5K Pressure Altitude, 30C, = 7779
Density Altitude

If you find that climbing through 5Kft MSL your RPMs are dropping off, then
lean to max RPM for max performance of the engine and then bump it rich just
a tad.

BT

writes:

It depends on the situation, but for your specific example, of a 4 to
6 kft climb, I would increase power to max, then pitch (and trim) for
about 90 kts. If I had the mixture leaned, I would go to full rich
first (above 75% power, full rich is required for proper engine
cooling). 90 kts is faster than Vy for my Cherokee (about 72-74 kts),
but is recommended for cruise climb since it results in a lower nose
and better forward visibility, and also better engine cooling.

Normally, for a 6 to 4 kft descent, I slightly reduce power and
slightly trim nose down to achieve about a 500 fpm descent at a
slightly higher airspeed. I don't reduce power substantially to
prevent too much engine cooling, and I don't trim nose down too much
to keep airspeed in the green. If the mixture was leaned, I would
enrichen before descending (otherwise mixture could become too lean
for proper engine operation as air density increases during the
descent)

It would be better to not think of altitude changes as "drifting"
around; it's more formal. A climb or descent is a specific maneuver
that follows a defined procedure involving the flight controls and
engine controls. That procedure will be specific to the airplane and
the circumstances.

However, for small altitude corrections (e.g. 100 ft or so), I just
move the yoke, and then nudge the trim a bit to correct for the
altitude drift rate.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I mentioned "drifting" because I was thinking of VFR flight, during which you
might want to move a little higher or lower, for example, while sightseeing.
In that case it wouldn't necessarily be a formal procedure (as far as I know).
If you are under ATC control, of course, you might want to do things a bit
more formally in order to match ATC's expectations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

It depends on the situation, but for your specific example...

As a real student pilot (real as in, my feet leave the ground) I would
like to thank FlyCherokee and BT for their informative posts.

Guys, I do appreciate the frustration with Mxsmaniac, but I sometimes
think (having lurked in this group for a while) that you are all a
little too quick to show-off your razor-sharp wit in response to his/
her posts. If you are going to respond, why not do it productively?
Believe me, there are some of us here that do appreciate your
experience and insight. It is even interesting to see how the
experience of real flight conflicts with a simulated experience (the
obvious, of course, being the severity of a 'crash' ))

I am certain that anyone with the brain power to safely operate an
aircraft, has the ability to keep on topic without being drawn into a
flamewar.... despite Mxsmaniacs 'crosswind' effect.

Thanks.

Well stated!

Of all the above, 2 knew the answer and posted proper replies....

Others could not wait to trumpet their attitude... (sigh)

...a lot of noise on this NG, and it is not from MX...

Dave





On 8 Apr 2007 06:16:12 -0700, wrote:


It depends on the situation, but for your specific example...

As a real student pilot (real as in, my feet leave the ground) I would
like to thank FlyCherokee and BT for their informative posts.

Guys, I do appreciate the frustration with Mxsmaniac, but I sometimes
think (having lurked in this group for a while) that you are all a
little too quick to show-off your razor-sharp wit in response to his/
her posts. If you are going to respond, why not do it productively?
Believe me, there are some of us here that do appreciate your
experience and insight. It is even interesting to see how the
experience of real flight conflicts with a simulated experience (the
obvious, of course, being the severity of a 'crash' ))

I am certain that anyone with the brain power to safely operate an
aircraft, has the ability to keep on topic without being drawn into a
flamewar.... despite Mxsmaniacs 'crosswind' effect.

Thanks.

On Apr 8, 8:36 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

I mentioned "drifting" because I was thinking of VFR flight, during which you
might want to move a little higher or lower, for example, while sightseeing.
In that case it wouldn't necessarily be a formal procedure (as far as I know).
If you are under ATC control, of course, you might want to do things a bit
more formally in order to match ATC's expectations.

Ok, I see. "Formal" was probably not a good word choice by me, I
didn't mean formal in the regulatory, or ATC sense, but rather in the
sense of the somewhat abstract concept of "good airmanship".
Changing altitude during cruise is a deliberate maneuver with a
defined procedure and checklist. Exercising good airmanship means you
would follow that procedure.

Even when VFR sightseeing, or otherwise just noodling around in the
local area, following the POH procedure for extended climbs is
important for the health of the engine.

I merely wanted to speak about full rich full power climbs mentioned by Mr
Cherokee... many POH suggest leaning for max power take offs at high DA
airports... why should the DA airport make any difference than climbing at
high DA altitudes... you still want performance from the engine.. while
keeping the engine safe from overheating

I did not intend to answer MX

BT

wrote in message
oups.com...

It depends on the situation, but for your specific example...

As a real student pilot (real as in, my feet leave the ground) I would
like to thank FlyCherokee and BT for their informative posts.

Guys, I do appreciate the frustration with Mxsmaniac, but I sometimes
think (having lurked in this group for a while) that you are all a
little too quick to show-off your razor-sharp wit in response to his/
her posts. If you are going to respond, why not do it productively?
Believe me, there are some of us here that do appreciate your
experience and insight. It is even interesting to see how the
experience of real flight conflicts with a simulated experience (the
obvious, of course, being the severity of a 'crash' ))

I am certain that anyone with the brain power to safely operate an
aircraft, has the ability to keep on topic without being drawn into a
flamewar.... despite Mxsmaniacs 'crosswind' effect.

Thanks.

Thanx Dave... now we wait for MXs inevitable counter replies.. I made the
error and got into many debates, if he does not get "his" answer.. he keeps
pushing and not accepting the advice of many with 30+yrs experience. I will
comment on other inputs.. but I will not answer MX.

It seems he is a walking... wait.. sitting wikepedia... on so many topics...
remember that wikepedia is written by less than average people with
something to say... yes there is knowledge there... not to discount
wikepedia.. but it is un moderated.

BT

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Well stated!

Of all the above, 2 knew the answer and posted proper replies....

Others could not wait to trumpet their attitude... (sigh)

..a lot of noise on this NG, and it is not from MX...

Dave





On 8 Apr 2007 06:16:12 -0700, wrote:


It depends on the situation, but for your specific example...

As a real student pilot (real as in, my feet leave the ground) I would
like to thank FlyCherokee and BT for their informative posts.

Guys, I do appreciate the frustration with Mxsmaniac, but I sometimes
think (having lurked in this group for a while) that you are all a
little too quick to show-off your razor-sharp wit in response to his/
her posts. If you are going to respond, why not do it productively?
Believe me, there are some of us here that do appreciate your
experience and insight. It is even interesting to see how the
experience of real flight conflicts with a simulated experience (the
obvious, of course, being the severity of a 'crash' ))

I am certain that anyone with the brain power to safely operate an
aircraft, has the ability to keep on topic without being drawn into a
flamewar.... despite Mxsmaniacs 'crosswind' effect.

Thanks.