Reduced power setting on take off

IMO, It's a legitimate training technique, so long as it's carefully planned and you have a means to compute takeoff and landing data. Pilots who fly nothing but sea level need to have an understanding of what to expect in high density altitude conditions.

Besides, in jet aircraft, reduced power settings are standard operating procedure when takeoff rated thrust isn't required due to reduction on engine wear & tear and noise abatement.
 
cmill said:
EDIT: I also flew a baron for the first time today... AND landed it below blue line!!! GASP!!!!
Click to expand...

Gross wt Vref is 96. Vyse 100. Sounds like normal ops. ;)

germb747 said:
IMO, It's a legitimate training technique, so long as it's carefully planned and you have a means to compute takeoff and landing data. Pilots who fly nothing but sea level need to have an understanding of what to expect in high density altitude conditions.

Besides, in jet aircraft, reduced power settings are standard operating procedure when takeoff rated thrust isn't required due to reduction on engine wear & tear and noise abatement.
Click to expand...


I agree that it can be a good training tool under the proper conditions. In a single, you need altitude ASAP for safety. I've seen a lot of Bonanzas break ground, go gear up, and cross the departure end at 140 kts and 5 ft. I'd say you need to be at an airport with a very long runway so you are making this reduced-performance climb over the property with some "outs" if something goes wrong.

As for the jet comment I agree -- in a multiengine, jet airplane. If you bang one you're still going to climb.
 
germb747 said:
IMO, It's a legitimate training technique, so long as it's carefully planned and you have a means to compute takeoff and landing data. Pilots who fly nothing but sea level need to have an understanding of what to expect in high density altitude conditions.

Besides, in jet aircraft, reduced power settings are standard operating procedure when takeoff rated thrust isn't required due to reduction on engine wear & tear and noise abatement.
Click to expand...

There are two problems that exist here, though I think you're already well aware of them.

First, it's doubtful that you'll have performance charts for a flex takeoff in a small, piston engine aircraft, thereby you have no way to calculate the performance data.

Second, jets aren't small piston engine aircraft. The performance differences, regarding certification, between a piston engine aircraft and a jet aircraft are astronomical. So simply put, don't apply jet techniques and operating procedures to piston aircraft.
 
germb747 said:
Besides, in jet aircraft, reduced power settings are standard operating procedure when takeoff rated thrust isn't required due to reduction on engine wear & tear and noise abatement.
Click to expand...

Not in all jet aircraft. Most of the corporate fleet powered by Garrett/Honeywell engines do not have flex data. It's full thrust for every take off.
 
I used to give rides in a Stearman with a 450hp P&W out front. I would routinely limit MP to (IIRC) 30" or so on takeoff because at full throttle you were burning 36gph and with all those ponies up front it will still leap off the runway just fine at the reduced power.
 
I personally think that demonstrating a high density altitude takeoff (by using the reduced power takeoff procedure) is a good idea. As an instructor you talk, talk, and talk about certain things, but it really won't hit home until it is demonstrated for a student to see. It's just apart of good instruction.
 
I don't like to push the envelope. Its not good to drive your car with the gas pedal to the max, so why would it be good in an airplane? I'll stick to 3/4 power takeoffs, thank you very much.
 
mojo6911 said:
I don't like to push the envelope. Its not good to drive your car with the gas pedal to the max, so why would it be good in an airplane? I'll stick to 3/4 power takeoffs, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Automotive engines are not designed to be operated at max RPM. Aircraft engines are. Therefore taking off at max RPM is not pushing the envelope. Its doing exactly what the engine was designed from the ground up to do. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using reduced power for takeoff if you've got the runway for it. But your logic simply doesn't hold water.
 
mojo6911 said:
I'll stick to 3/4 power takeoffs, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

As a routine procedure, partial power takeoffs are discouraged by Lycoming and probably Continental as well. The reason is the same: the reduced throttle setting deactives the power enrichment system on the engine, a result which decreases engine cooling.
 
mojo6911 said:
I don't like to push the envelope. Its not good to drive your car with the gas pedal to the max, so why would it be good in an airplane? I'll stick to 3/4 power takeoffs, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Haha everyone is so wound up with all this technique arguing they can't even spot a good joke :D
 
Joe Gremlin said:
Automotive engines are not designed to be operated at max RPM. Aircraft engines are. Therefore taking off at max RPM is not pushing the envelope. Its doing exactly what the engine was designed from the ground up to do. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using reduced power for takeoff if you've got the runway for it. But your logic simply doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

Like an old retired F-4 and 737 driver once told me; you've got a 500something cubic inch engine producing around 300 hp. You're NOT over working it.
 
Yep. I mean if you're going to use automotive engines as the benchmark for how you operate airplane engines then you'd still be pushing way beyond the intended design envelope even using 3/4 power for takeoff. Car engines rarely have to produce more than 1/2 rated power. Its logic that seems conservative and safe on the surface, but doesn't really hold water once the facts are understood. Especially when it comes to the full throttle mixture enrichment feature built into most aircraft carbs.
 
TXTBOOK said:
Haha everyone is so wound up with all this technique arguing they can't even spot a good joke :D
Click to expand...
It might be a joke, I'll give you that. But I'll have disagree with you on it being a good joke. If it were a good joke, it would have been obvious that it was a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top