Reduced power setting on take off

cmill

cmill

Cold Ass Honky
I figured with all the flame bait floating around, i would throw my own into the mix...

Until a few days ago, i had never even thought of the idea of using a reduced power setting for "training for heavy load purposes."

Basically my boss took me out in a 185, had me top it off, loaded 3 big ass dudes in the back, and set my take off power to about 27".

I think it was the best experience one could ever have in a float, and i think it could easily carry over to land planes, ive never had to work as hard as i did the other day to get a plane in the air, and even though all the techniques are meant to be used only on floats, it seems like im starting to carry them over into my land plane flying also, which has made me a better aviator all around.

All in all i would say it was a great experience to have, in case you ever "miscalculate" you load.


EDIT: I also flew a baron for the first time today... AND landed it below blue line!!! GASP!!!!
 
When empty in our 207's it's not uncommon for us to do a 25 square takeoff. It's more than enough power to get a lightly loaded 207 off the ground and reduces noise a crap-ton.

I was just thinking all the places where I've done it but with the exception of AOH I've done the reduced power takeoff at all our airports.

I've heard of instructors using reduced power takeoffs to simulate taking off at higher altitudes but I've never tried it. Then again, a lot of my instruction took place with obscenely high density altitudes.
 
esa17 said:
When empty in our 207's it's not uncommon for us to do a 25 square takeoff. It's more than enough power to get a lightly loaded 207 off the ground and reduces noise a crap-ton.
Click to expand...

You're dangerous, and a puss for not using it for heavy loads. ;)
 
esa17 said:
When empty in our 207's it's not uncommon for us to do a 25 square takeoff. It's more than enough power to get a lightly loaded 207 off the ground and reduces noise a crap-ton.

I was just thinking all the places where I've done it but with the exception of AOH I've done the reduced power takeoff at all our airports.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm a jerk then, in a piston single I'd say screw all y'all and take all the power I can get. Shouldn'ta moved near an airport and all. But hey, whatever works.
 
Roger said:
I guess I'm a jerk then, in a piston single I'd say screw all y'all and take all the power I can get. Shouldn'ta moved near an airport and all. But hey, whatever works.
Click to expand...


+1. Chances are the airport was there before the house. And when they bought the house, they are required to be told about it. I guess they should read the fine print. Everyone is entitled to peace and quite, but during normal buisness hours (i.e. 6am to 10pm), shut up and deal with it!
 
mshunter said:
+1. Chances are the airport was there before the house. And when they bought the house, they are required to be told about it. I guess they should read the fine print. Everyone is entitled to peace and quite, but during normal buisness hours (i.e. 6am to 10pm), shut up and deal with it!
Click to expand...
Granted, at the places where esa is reducing noise, buildable land is pretty limited, so it's entirely possible that there WAS no other choice, or even that the houses predate the airport. Still, I'm a selfish jerk and a piston single (even the mighty Sled) doesn't really seem like the place to jack around with a partial-power takeoff.
 
Roger said:
I guess I'm a jerk then, in a piston single I'd say screw all y'all and take all the power I can get. Shouldn'ta moved near an airport and all. But hey, whatever works.
Click to expand...

mshunter said:
+1. Chances are the airport was there before the house. And when they bought the house, they are required to be told about it. I guess they should read the fine print. Everyone is entitled to peace and quite, but during normal buisness hours (i.e. 6am to 10pm), shut up and deal with it!
Click to expand...
Another not quite so black and white issue. I give you PAGY.

A small town in a canyon where my wife lives, heaven forbid I wake her up. Besides that, I've been to the principals office too much this year already to deal with noise complaints.

Now, if I've got more than one passenger in the plane I'm full throttle until the wheels break earth.
 
esa17 said:
Another not quite so black and white issue. I give you PAGY.

A small town in a canyon where my wife lives, heaven forbid I wake her up. Besides that, I've been to the principals office too much this year already to deal with noise complaints.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I figured the unique landscape around here had something to do with it.
 
When I was the renter, I did it for fun. I guess I'm dangerous.

The longer roll, the slow lumber into the air, the shallow turn out to an hour of low slow country flying. Gasp.

Now I just use it to simulate high DA to my students.

I also have them take off with a tailwinds just to see how much extra runway they will eat. Oh No!

You never say never when it comes to techniques.

Somebody should tell the guys in Leadville who rent out an old C-172 that they are dangerous.
 
cmill said:
EDIT: I also flew a baron for the first time today... AND landed it below blue line!!! GASP!!!!
Click to expand...

you craZY....:insane:

actually landing below blue line is cool, it's if you had to go around and popped an engine, that would get dicey real quick!

I enjoyed flying the baron...
 
Bumblebee said:
you craZY....:insane:

actually landing below blue line is cool, it's if you had to go around and popped an engine, that would get dicey real quick!

I enjoyed flying the baron...
Click to expand...

yeah, i just remember my DPE telling me on my ME checkride its never good to have the plane anywhere below blue line until landing is assured.

Our strip is 3000ft, and we fly a baron and a navajo out of here, so things are kinda dicey anyway.
 
cmill said:
yeah, i just remember my DPE telling me on my ME checkride its never good to have the plane anywhere below blue line until landing is assured.

Our strip is 3000ft, and we fly a baron and a navajo out of here, so things are kinda dicey anyway.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is just a twin otter thing, but our ref can get down to 67 with full flaps and just 10,500 on board. With flaps 20, which is our usual landing config, it is 73. Blue line is 82, so apparently it is close enough to not be a big issue. We do use 90kts for instrument approaches with flaps 10 though.

We also do reduced power take-offs if we are light. We do 45 torque instead of 50. If the plane is light, 50 can be overkill. There isn't much of a reason to climb at close to 2,000fpm down here. But some still do torque 50 no matter what. Either way is ok.
 
esa17 said:
Another not quite so black and white issue. I give you PAGY.

A small town in a canyon where my wife lives, heaven forbid I wake her up. Besides that, I've been to the principals office too much this year already to deal with noise complaints.

Now, if I've got more than one passenger in the plane I'm full throttle until the wheels break earth.
Click to expand...
Why would one choose to live there?:dunno::D

My uncle liked watching the passengers expressions when departing PAGY in the Chieftain.:bandit:
 
ASpilot2be said:
Why would one choose to live there?:dunno::D

My uncle liked watching the passengers expressions when departing PAGY in the Chieftain.:bandit:
Click to expand...
We didn't choose it, it was assigned as part of the gig. Had I to do this over again I'd stay at PAJN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top