When to pull power back on takeoff.

[Rally]

Why is it that everyone I talk to get its a nitch to pull back power at 500 agl. Whats wrong with doing it at 1000 agl as long as there is'nt a time limitation (like a C-210, 2-3 minutes)? I don't see the big deal, for me it buys altitude reduces the risk of doing stuff that could induce engine problems allow you to concentrate on other stuff. Where am I wrong? To my knowledge there is no AC, Manual, Supplement that specifies that you need to pull the power back at a certain point.

 

[minitour]

If it doesn't specify to pull power back, why are you pulling the power back?


For example: I was taught in the Duchess that at 500', power goes to 25"/2500RPM...if you look in the manual, it says "climb power" is Full Throttle and 2600RPM.

Why do it if ya don't need to?

 

[340drvr]

If this is a poll, I use 1000 except for time-limited engines or maybe special-case noise abatement.

 

[nosehair]

Training. That's why. Training on control manipulation. In the normal routine of flying traffic patterns, you would be leveling off at pattern altitude with the first power back, so you would skip the initial climb power setting.

Like bringing the gear up and putting it back down. For normal operations, it would be better to leave the gear down, or climb at full power to 1000', but for power change training, we do it that way.

Of course, the problem is that nobody explains that to students, so they leave the school world thinking that this is normal, and they do stuff "because they were taught that way".

 

[avbug]

When and if you pull power really depends on what it is that you're doing. If you're just using breakawy thrust for the takeoff, just to get you off the ground, then you can pull it back whenever. Typically, below 400-500' isn't the time to be pulling anything.

Sometimes I use maximum continuous power up until I reduce it when leveling off. Other times I retard power just as soon as the wheels are off the ground. In other cases, I leave the power be and back the propeller off the stops, in a propeller driven airplanes...sometimes to keep it off the stops, sometimes for noise.

Sometimes in a turbojet with the performance, I pull power rather than pitching steeply, to keep speed in check. Others because I won't be climbing far. In other cases, I hold the maximum takeoff power setting for the maximum time before reducing to max continuous...or to a precalcualted power setting.

Reduce power when and if it's appropraite, according to your needs.

On a checkride once in a sabreliner, I reduced power during a single engine missed approach, as I was turning out on to the missed course. The examiner had a fit. He wanted to know why I'd reduce power on the good engine. Quite simple, really We had too much performance, and we didn't need the extra thrust.

Reducing power may be necessary as the ram rise increases performance toward a limitation during the takeoff. The propeller that was just below redline might creep to redline, and need to be retarded. The manifold pressure that was at it's limit might need to be pulled back as the aircraft gains airspeed. The EPR that was might be creeping up with ram effect, it may need to be pulled back. The concientious operator who knows that a 10% reduction in operating temperature extends component life by 10% and more may elect to make an early reduction to save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You decide what you need when you need it, and don't worry about it after that.

 

[svcta]

Think about things in terms of the end: You want as much distance between you and mother earth as soon as you can get it, especially in a single-engine pistion thingy, so why would you reduce the power before, say, 1000'? I also agree and used to teach to just leave the power alone until you're ready to level off in the pattern. Now, in certain airplanes, like the Aero Commanders I used to fly with geared powerplants I might pull it off a little earlier for noise and easing off the 3450 RPM just to be kind, but those things had performance like crazy, I can't say I'd do the same in something like a Duchess because, well, they do not.

Think of it this way, jets got climb performance in spades and I don't know of anyone who touches the power levers below 1000' any more(barring a short climb or something), so why would you want to reduce your climb capability in a piston single(or some light twins)when you don't have that much to begin with?

 

[Metro752]

I am gonna guess the question was in the context of lighter planes, and the only reason I believe, especially with light twins, that they want you to pull the power back, they being the company instructors and business people, is to reduce wear on the engines.

I too have been chewed out, for pulling the power back on climb out, by a DE, since it wasn't in the POH, but just a silly flight school policy. It's true we do pay good money, usually, to rent these planes, why pull the power back if you really don't have to and are still pretty damn low.

 

[Huggyu2]

WRT piston aircraft, John Deakin has written a bunch of very good articles on this issue. He also goes into the "Old Wives Tales " (OWT) that permeate our flying culture when it comes to engine management. avweb.com has these articles in their archive (you have to register).
Here's link to one of them:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182045-1.html

He generally doesn't pull the throttle off at all in the climb, but instead he leans the engine (and reduces RPM if noise abatement is a factor).
I think some folks consider him a heretic, but he backs up all of his techniques with solid data.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I've always reduced to 25/25 at 1,000'. Why mess with power adjustments so close to the ground especially when there's already a lot going on during a departure. From what I understand, most power failures occur during power changes especially ones from full power during a takeoff where you're asking the engine to do a lot from holding short to climbing an aircraft several thousand feet. Besides, it doesn't take much longer to go that additional 500'.

 

[svcta]

The myth about engine problems being related to changes in power settings in untrue. I thought I had read this somewhere, but then I read from Lycoming that it is not the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some of the newer aircraft even tell you that full power is "okay" all the time. I seem to remember a new mooney that had that in the books. Not that I agree with the principle.

Regarding powerplant management and leaning: Lycoming says that it is not possible to over lean one of their engines at anything less than takeoff power. I've flown a bunch of big continentals, too, and we leaned them failrly hard(with only 3 failures in 20,000 hours). Got to keep these engines hot--until you're ready to shut them down. I could go on for hours, but make one power change at a time(after initial climb power change), and none within 60 seconds of each other(M.P., R.P.M, Mixture) especially in a descent. Maybe we should start a new thread for this.

 

[Tonala2k]

Nosehair hit it on the head. It's for training purposes. Any yahoo can keep it full throtle. It requires a pilot to be in positive control and well ahead of the aircraft to perform this technique. If your are learning in a complex aircraft you are no longer an amature pilot. Avbug, as always, shared some great examples of needing to do it in "real life." Also as nose hiar said, the CFI needs to imress these ideas on the student. My biggest fear is training students who cannot fly the plane to its limits and how to stay away from the limits. Few people have told me I am going to get myself or someone else killed. The reason I do not have casualities is because even when bushing the limits I always have a safe way out. That is what students need to know, the safe way out.

 

[svcta]

Nosehair hit it on the head. It's for training purposes. Any yahoo can keep it full throtle. It requires a pilot to be in positive control and well ahead of the aircraft to perform this technique. If your are learning in a complex aircraft you are no longer an amature pilot. Avbug, as always, shared some great examples of needing to do it in "real life." Also as nose hiar said, the CFI needs to imress these ideas on the student. My biggest fear is training students who cannot fly the plane to its limits and how to stay away from the limits. Few people have told me I am going to get myself or someone else killed. The reason I do not have casualities is because even when bushing the limits I always have a safe way out. That is what students need to know, the safe way out.

I've read this several times now and cannot make any sense of it. I know it's 5 o'clock somewhere, but it's only just now 11:36 where I am.

And teaching something just to get a point across when you know it's not safe in the real world is the worst idea of the day(it's still early). Climb to 1000', level off. What is a part of any level off in any airplane? Power adjustment! Pattern work or not. So there's your "control manipulation" Retracts, too. It's a rental...mostly used for training. Cycles on the gear are the cost of doing business. "Positive climb......gear up" Just saying it doesn't count, make em do it.

 

[Tonala2k]

That really did not make any sense, did it? I am clearly too ill to keep my mind straight so let me make it short and sweet. As a good neighbor (I always fly into or out from residential areas) I pull the props back to two thousand five hundred and often beat the landing gear on their way up. Not that I am rushed, but because I know the plane that well. I do it on almost every flight and make a cruise climb departure. I expect my students to do the same, not because it is good procedure, but sometimes it is best practice. I feel many such decisions are like authorizing a new drug. It is important to weigh the benefits against probability and severity of risk. If I needed to pick someone up and was confident that the WX would remain VFR, an INOP DG would not keep me from going.

Also concerning the comment about 'it's a rental.' Personally when I eat out, I make it a habit to not spill my meal on the table or floor. I do not stick gum to the plate or stiff the server on a tip. Even though the restaurant is making good money from my wife and me, I feel obliged to flush the toilet, wipe the counter after washing my hands and deposit the paper towel in the wastebasket. These would all fall upon the owner/operator under the category of 'operational expenses.' However, as people we need to learn to respect other people, even if they are making money from us.

 

[Metro752]

That really did not make any sense, did it? I am clearly too ill to keep my mind straight so let me make it short and sweet. As a good neighbor (I always fly into or out from residential areas) I pull the props back to two thousand five hundred and often beat the landing gear on their way up. Not that I am rushed, but because I know the plane that well. I do it on almost every flight and make a cruise climb departure. I expect my students to do the same, not because it is good procedure, but sometimes it is best practice. I feel many such decisions are like authorizing a new drug. It is important to weigh the benefits against probability and severity of risk. If I needed to pick someone up and was confident that the WX would remain VFR, an INOP DG would not keep me from going.

Also concerning the comment about 'it's a rental.' Personally when I eat out, I make it a habit to not spill my meal on the table or floor. I do not stick gum to the plate or stiff the server on a tip. Even though the restaurant is making good money from my wife and me, I feel obliged to flush the toilet, wipe the counter after washing my hands and deposit the paper towel in the wastebasket. These would all fall upon the owner/operator under the category of 'operational expenses.' However, as people we need to learn to respect other people, even if they are making money from us.

Yeah so comparing flushing a toilet to not operating the engines as recommended in the POH makes sense how?

 

[timeoff]

Yeah so comparing flushing a toilet to not operating the engines as recommended in the POH makes sense how?

What recommended action in a POH are you referencing? I have never seen an alt reference as to when to set climb power in any piston POH. That is entirely at the pilot's discretion.

Now, pulling power back before the gear comes up (<200agl) is silly. I don't care what the airport neighbors think. They live with it and hear it all day, every day. What is 15 seconds of "tolerating" my little IO-360 gonna matter, when a 757 departed just three minutes prior?

 

[svcta]

I never care what the neighbors think. They bought a house next to an airport. Screw them until an official abtement procedure tells me otherwise, and even still that will almost always be a max percormance climb to a certain altitude or a lateral procedure.....NEVER A POWER REDUCTION AT LOWER THAN NORMAL ALTITUDE.

The point with the rental comment was that people who choose to operate more in the interest of noise and cost considerations will end up in a smoking hole. These things can be considered, of course, but "positive climb; gear up; power back" is not safe IMO. To modify an old joke, if it's being a good neighbor you're interested in: Have you ever heard the noise made by a small airplane crashing in to a house?

Sometimes the neighbors don't know what's best for them.

 

[USMCmech]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some of the newer aircraft even tell you that full power is "okay" all the time. I seem to remember a new mooney that had that in the books. Not that I agree with the principle.

At full throttle the "power enrichment valve" is opened making your mixture supper rich to aid cooling. Back it off to 25" and that valve closes creating hotter temps. Nowere in a Cessna 182 POH does it sugest partial power climbs. I leave it wide open to altitude.

Fast foward to 8,000ft, full throttle won't create full power anyway because of the thinner air. Check your cruise performence chart in the POH

Lean it back to proper EGT, and enjoy the ride at 65% power and the advertised perforance numbers.


You are a pilot not an engineer, fly the plane the way the POH says to. Don't change procedures because somebody on the internet said so.

 

[svcta]

You are a pilot not an engineer, fly the plane the way the POH says to. Don't change procedures because somebody on the internet said so.

Sounds like a throw back to the presssure carb days. Still one of the best methods around when properly set up.

As far as the engineer crack, first of all I was making a point with the new airplane's manuals. I think someone's got their hand in the till with an overhaul company(kidding, sort of).

You would be correct if the powerplant maufacturers were not constantly tweaking their own suggested procedures. And I once worked for a cargo operator that had a TBO extension waiver from our FSDO on big continentals. As a matter of fact I think the thought that he put in to his powerplant management program(which allowed us an extra 500 hours on a 1500 hour engine). In certain cases I think that a full and proper understanding of what exactly is going on with your engines, especially recips, can allow one to generate very effective way of taking them on their own. Of course, not with disregard to what the manual says, but above and beyond it in most cases. I think our numbers were impressive, 3 failures/shutdowns in a little over 20,000 hours is a FINE record for a piston operator.

Besides, I don't think I made any radical suggestions to anyone about changing the way they operate, did I? Excepting the advice on flying an airplane as safely as possible given the circumstances of the question asked.

Rant over.

 

[USMCmech]

As far as the engineer crack, first of all I was making a point with the new airplane's manuals. I think someone's got their hand in the till with an overhaul company(kidding, sort of).

Sorry I really didn't mean to dirrect that crack at you.

More oriented toward the "hanger engineers" that have no clue, yet continue to spread rumors and old wives tales as though they were scripture.

 

[svcta]

Sorry I really didn't mean to dirrect that crack at you.

More oriented toward the "hanger engineers" that have no clue, yet continue to spread rumors and old wives tales as though they were scripture.

cool, then I totally understand and tend to agree. I only spread rumors about my friends' wives.