Methods for altitude changes

The really ironic thing here is that the people complaining about Mx are the
ones that are actually guilty of what they are accusing Mx of. And they're
too freakin' stupid to realize it.

Do a message count and see just where the noise is coming from.

mike

"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:indiacharlieecho-0E36E4.20490808042007@shawnews...
In article ,
MXMORON wrote:

From what you've shown here, your attitude cannot be changed.


You all think that you are funny - God knows why
Can we please, please, please give it a rest,
You are most definitely not funny or entertaining - or even original!
Mxsmanic is actually more interesting than your pathetic responses.
Can't you see that?

Can we please have a rest from this absolute crap?

Thanks in advance.

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

Peter Dohm wrote:

Inasmuch as the rpm might decrease in a full throttle climbe at best rate of
climb airspeed, it is possible that the recommended minimum altitude for
leaning to peak rpm might be different, and this *may* have been addressed
as well. Basically, it is usually based on 75% power; but I just don't know
enough to assert that both both altitudes are really one and the same.


You hit the nail on the head. Leaning at wide open throttle will be done
at a lower altitude for a climb than for cruise. That's due to the lower rpm
you'll get while climbing. In level flight, the engine (assuming normally
aspirated, fixed pitch) will produce 75% up to 7.5K - 8K ft. In a climb, you
can lean at a lower DA because the prop load will keep the engine from
turning as fast as it would in a level cruise altitude.

The manual for my '68 Cherokee includes the recommendation to lean for max
rpm on a climbout from 5K ft. DA or higher. The Power vs. Density altitude
chart provides guidance for cruise settings at altitude.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1

"Danny Deger" wrote

Good policy. Respond once and only once. And don't participate in the
massive MX flaming that is the real source of this group getting plugged
up with garbage. To you MX flammers out there -- please stop.

Once is once too much.

With the number of active posters in this group, if only half of them post,
that is too much ammunition to give him to argue with. Why answer at all,
when you know eventually, he will twist it and discount it _and_ the poster
is some manner. You KNOW he will. It is his constant.
--
Jim in NC

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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.

For small climbs, I usually add power and trim to a slightly lower airspeed.
For small decents, I usually just reduce power and leave the trim/airspeed
alone.

Danny Deger

"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.


I agree 100%. I have no problems reading his posts or ligit responses. It
is the contant flaming of MX that is clogging up this newsgroup. Let me
repeat this. It is the flaming of MX that is the problem here!!!

Danny Deger

"BT" wrote in message
...
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

snip

If you are confused by when to lean, do what I did -- buy a 40's plane that
has no mixture control :-)

Danny Deger

"Blanche" wrote in message
...
As a rule, I respond only once to MX, never to other obvious trolls.
Why? Because the initial question from MX is often reasonable. So he
gets a reasonable answer - when I think I'm qualified to answer it.
I do not respond to him again.

This way, I think I offer legitimate information to others with
the same question without having to participate in the troll-bashing.


Good policy. Respond once and only once. And don't participate in the
massive MX flaming that is the real source of this group getting plugged up
with garbage. To you MX flammers out there -- please stop.

Danny Deger

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Blanche" wrote in message
...
As a rule, I respond only once to MX, never to other obvious trolls.
Why? Because the initial question from MX is often reasonable. So he
gets a reasonable answer - when I think I'm qualified to answer it.
I do not respond to him again.

This way, I think I offer legitimate information to others with
the same question without having to participate in the troll-bashing.

(ref. Jeppesen discussion - I offered explanation of the internal
workings of Jepp, then quit, merely watching the ensuing stupidity)

Problem is, if there are 50 people like you who feel he can get a
reasonable answer from you, you get 50 posts, to someone who will (with
out a doubt, proven time after time) turn the discussion to stupidity.

IF nobody were to answer, reasonable answer or not, after a time he would
leave, and take his stupidity with him.

By the way, you cast your pearls among swine, when you give him an answer.
He really does not want to know.


I disagree. I find his questions very reasonable and I believe he wants to
know. I also believe many that read his posts and the replies will learn
something about flying.

I do agree that I don't like the fact he will argue with a senior pilot of a
747 about how to fly a 747 and recommend not arguing online with him. But I
also have NEVER read a post from him where he insults the poster. I must
say I am amazed he has not considering the nature of insults we have thrown
at him.

One thing I am certain of thing, flaming him will not make him go away. I
suspect he has visited the warez groups (i.e. competer hackers) where
flaming is an art form. Where ever he gets it, he is like I am -- flaming
does not bother us in the least.

Danny Deger

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
The really ironic thing here is that the people complaining about Mx are
the ones that are actually guilty of what they are accusing Mx of. And
they're too freakin' stupid to realize it.

Do a message count and see just where the noise is coming from.

mike

"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:indiacharlieecho-0E36E4.20490808042007@shawnews...
In article ,
MXMORON wrote:

From what you've shown here, your attitude cannot be changed.


You all think that you are funny - God knows why
Can we please, please, please give it a rest,
You are most definitely not funny or entertaining - or even original!
Mxsmanic is actually more interesting than your pathetic responses.
Can't you see that?

Can we please have a rest from this absolute crap?

Thanks in advance.

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE



I agree with Tony and Mike. I don't mind MX. I do mind the countless
emails written to flame him. I have NEVER read an email from MX flaming
anyone. Yes, I have read where he tells a senior 747 pilot how to fly a
747, but never an insult to a person.

Danny Deger

On 9 Apr, 23:10, Mxsmanic wrote:
EridanMan writes:
I suggest you read through:
www.av8n.com

a very good discussion of energy management in aircraft.

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.h...ontrols-energy

Thanks. I've visited that site before; the author becomes very abstract at
times, but it is useful information.

The short answer to your question is that pitch climbing is fast,
imprecise, and tends to throw the aircraft way out of trim.

By pitch climbing do you mean with the yoke, or with trim adjustments?

Power adjustments on the other hand are rather slow, tremendously precise,
and allow the aircraft to remain stabilized in the same configuration.

If I have nose-down trim applied to go fast at my low altitude,

You don't have "altitude" you don't fly, fjukkwit.



Bertie