Static RPM and Density altitude

GlenA

Senior Chicken Counter
So, anyone know how density altitude affects the static rpm of an aircraft? I aborted a flight the other day because the static rpm was 70 rpm lower than the listing in the aircraft POH which also stated there was no tolerance for readings below the parameters set.

My guess later was that since the density altitude was nearly 2,000' that the static rpm would drop due to less air getting into the engine and decreasing power. But I have also heard that some engines can actually increase their rpm due to there being less air resistance on the propeller blades. We looked though the service binders but there wasn't any graph or table that really took altitude into account, only air temperature. Any help or insight would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Did you try leaning it for max RPM?
No airplane that I know of publishes static RPM corrected for DA, so you just have to know your aircraft. Is it usual for this airplane to run 70 RPM low on static runup at 2000' DA?
 
hmm, didn't think to lean it for that, since we are sea-level most take-offs are done with full rich. didn't cross my mind until later about the density altitude thing. Wasn't that hot or humid so I guess it didn't seem that having to lean it out a bit might have been necessary. Oh well, instruct and learn :)
 
Try leaning it for max RPM (at full power, static runup) before takeoff. Do other similar aircraft in the fleet behave the same?

If what you have going on really is out of the ordinary, a mechanic might need to look at it.
 
My guess later was that since the density altitude was nearly 2,000'

Crazy, how did the plane get off the ground...j/k:D

I would recommend *almost* always leaning it out during runup. Our checklist calls for a full lean if the density altitude is over 3000'. Our field elevation is 2100'. I usually lean it out any time the temp gets above 45-50 degrees, although I will typically give it around 2-3 turns to rich and relean at altitude. Mostly to reduce the chance of fouling a plug. Try leaning it out next time. Good luck.
 
I didn't try leaning for max rpm during the run-up as our checklists call for full mixture rich, same for take-off unless over 3,000' DA. We did talk to the mechanic he said there is a possibility of the tach not reading right after it has quite a few hours on it. As far as the rest of the fleet goes, they all read at or above the minimum for static rpm, which is why this one concerned me a bit. figured I'd rather be a little paranoid about it on the ground and find out I was wrong, than finding out for sure in the air...

thanks for the replies!
 
So, anyone know how density altitude affects the static rpm of an aircraft? I aborted a flight the other day because the static rpm was 70 rpm lower than the listing in the aircraft POH which also stated there was no tolerance for readings below the parameters set.

Let me clarify...

You were doing your run up. You applied full power and attempted to reach the max RPM that the manufacturer has published. When that number was 70 RPM lower than such numbers, you decided to abort the mission.

Correcto?
 
Let me clarify...

You were doing your run up. You applied full power and attempted to reach the max RPM that the manufacturer has published. When that number was 70 RPM lower than such numbers, you decided to abort the mission.

Correcto?
I think he was aiming for the manufacturer's published static RPM. For example:

C172R AFM says you should get 2060-2160 RPM when running full throttle and sitting static. Redline on this engine is 2400 RPM. If the OP was running a 172R, he was looking at 1990 RPM.

Is this correct?

BTW there are some fairly serious engine problems that first show up as an inability to reach static RPM.
 
Let me clarify...

You were doing your run up. You applied full power and attempted to reach the max RPM that the manufacturer has published. When that number was 70 RPM lower than such numbers, you decided to abort the mission.

Correcto?


Not during the run-up, just as my student applied full power for take-off. I had a problem with that plane before, which was fixed but has got me paying more attention to whether or not the plane is producing full power on the beginning of the roll.
 
Not during the run-up, just as my student applied full power for take-off. I had a problem with that plane before, which was fixed but has got me paying more attention to whether or not the plane is producing full power on the beginning of the roll.

Only way to find out would be to lean her out for max static.
Note that number and do another runup for unleaned max static.
If she reaches book values when leaned, mixture adjustment may be out of whack, or you may have some 'standard fouling' or bad plugs turning to mush... I've had this once so far but it was a DA problem.
 
Though not yet a CFI, I am a flight test guy, and I have a question... What were the winds during your static test? Consequently, what was the aircraft's alignment relative to the wind? We do static runs 90 degrees to the wind, (both directions). Example, winds 180 @ 10kt. We do static checks at 090 and 270 and average the 2... @ MAX RPM... (leaned for max rpm)....

Just a thought.

G
 
You are asking the wrong people, no offense to the CFIs here, but we are not mechanics. In every aircraft I have flown (which is not many since I am still a new CFI) the leaning procedure is only for (edit: added DENSITY ALTITUDE) above 3000'. That being said, by leaning at an elevation of 2000' you are now a test pilot because you are operating outside of strict aircraft performance limitations. While it may give you the RPM you desire it may also give you an engine out at 200 feet, I am not a brilliant guy but I would say ask a mechanic and if they can't give you an accurate answer call your aircraft manufacturer. Don't be a test pilot, good luck.
 
Some of us are.

My apologies then I retract the previous statement. I would listen to roger than since he would have the background for the question your looking to answer.
 
You are asking the wrong people, no offense to the CFIs here, but we are not mechanics. In every aircraft I have flown (which is not many since I am still a new CFI) the leaning procedure is only for (edit: added DENSITY ALTITUDE) above 3000'. That being said, by leaning at an elevation of 2000' you are now a test pilot because you are operating outside of strict aircraft performance limitations. While it may give you the RPM you desire it may also give you an engine out at 200 feet, I am not a brilliant guy but I would say ask a mechanic and if they can't give you an accurate answer call your aircraft manufacturer. Don't be a test pilot, good luck.

Care to elaborate. I'd like to know more.
 
As I believe you know engines are specifically run at richer than best power mixtures when the mixture is full in (below 3000 feet). The altitude is of no importance, 200 feet was just an arbitrary number. As you climb the air gets thinner and the mixture gets richer and richer. Below 3000 feet this degraded performance is not enough to warrant running at a leaner mixture.

So we start are engine and decide at 2000 feet density altitude we should lean are mixture. We lean for best power and start to accelerate the engine RPM increases and therefore the power increases even more (for some reason unknown to me, maybe Roger has some insight?) as power increases the engine needs a slightly richer mixture. So now you depart with too lean a mixture and there is what can (not will) cause that engine failure I was speaking of. This ignores the fact that the engine will also be running excessively hot. The checklists say below 3000 feet density altitude to leave the mixture rich, there is a reason for that. :)

Hope this helps and hopefully Roger can verify the accuracy of this or if not let me know if I was just told this to scare the crap out of me from leaning at lower density altitudes.

"as power increases the engine needs a slightly richer mixture" You probably won't believe this so next time your in your aircraft let it run at 1000 RPM and lean for best power. At this point gradually advance your throttle and watch the degraded full power (if you can get there without the engine dieing) performance from the overly lean mixture.
 
As I believe you know engines are specifically run at richer than best power mixtures when the mixture is full in (below 3000 feet).
Yes. The reason for this is not for actual smooth running, but rather for cooling. In fact, when you run full throttle and full rich, you actually reduce your power available. How? Well, you are dumping extra fuel into the cylinders. That extra fuel cannot burn, because there is not enough oxygen for it to combine with. However, the heat of combustion causes this liquid fuel to evaporate. The process of evaporation absorbs heat from the burning mixture in the engine, helping keep the engine cool. Heat, and the accompanying expansion of gases in the cylinder, is what makes our engine go. Less heat=less power. The decrease in power by running very rich is considered an acceptable tradeoff for not melting our flimsy aluminum cylinder heads.

So we start are engine and decide at 2000 feet density altitude we should lean are mixture. We lean for best power and start to accelerate the engine RPM increases and therefore the power increases even more (for some reason unknown to me, maybe Roger has some insight?)
Power is a function of two things-torque and RPM. By opening the throttle, you are burning more fuel/air mixture, which increases torque. You are also increasing the number of power strokes in a given period of time (by increasing RPM).

as power increases the engine needs a slightly richer mixture. So now you depart with too lean a mixture and there is what can (not will) cause that engine failure I was speaking of. This ignores the fact that the engine will also be running excessively hot. The checklists say below 3000 feet density altitude to leave the mixture rich, there is a reason for that. :)
It really depends on HOW lean you are running it. Like you said, the engine will (likely) be running excessively hot. However, if you have leaned far enough that you are getting reduced power (now because there is not enough fuel for all the air going into the engine), you are probably not going to have a problem with temps. You will, however have a problem getting over the trees off the departure end of the runway. The reason checklists say to leave full rich below 3000' is because that will definitely provide plenty of extra fuel to keep the engine cool. Can leaning for best power before takeoff be done below 3000'? Sure! However, I'd personally want to have a way to watch cylinder head temps during the climb (preferably probes on each cylinder, not just on one). Also, as you move to more powerful engines (especially turbocharged ones), the likelihood of overtemping a cylinder head if you don't run it rich enough on takeoff will skyrocket.

Hope this helps and hopefully Roger can verify the accuracy of this or if not let me know if I was just told this to scare the crap out of me from leaning at lower density altitudes.
I think it comes because many pilots (and many mechanics!) have a poor understanding of what is REALLY happening inside their engine with regards to mixture, power, and cooling.

"as power increases the engine needs a slightly richer mixture" You probably won't believe this so next time your in your aircraft let it run at 1000 RPM and lean for best power. At this point gradually advance your throttle and watch the degraded full power (if you can get there without the engine dieing) performance from the overly lean mixture.
If you are leaning for best takeoff power, you must do it at full throttle. Lets assume a fuel-injected engine.

There are (among various other valves, bellowses, and gadgetry) two valves inside your fuel servo. One is attached to your mixture control. When you push the mixture lever forward, this valve opens, increasing fuel flow. When you pull it all the way back, this valve closes all the way, cutting off fuel flow to the injectors. The second valve is attached to the throttle, and moves along with the throttle plate. As you push the throttle forward, this valve opens, providing more fuel to accompany the increasing airflow. Now, if the valve was purely linear, the fuel:air ratio would stay the same as the opens. However, because engine designers know that an engine needs a richer mixture at full power, the valve is not linear. In other words, if it provides 6 gph at half throttle, it might provide 14 gph at full throttle.

What does all this mean about leaning at full power? Well, because of the non-linear nature of the throttle fuel valve, if you lean for best power at 1000 RPM, you really have no idea if that is going to be best power at full throttle.

I hope this has been somewhat educational. Engine science (and the topic of aircraft systems in general) fascinates me. For further reading, consult John Deakin's columns on AvWeb.
 
Roger, when I said this:
We lean for best power and start to accelerate the engine RPM increases and therefore the power increases even more

I was referring to the same thing as that leaning at 1000 RPM and going to full power. You lean for best RPM when power is at full of course for this procedure but we do it at a stand still, however as you accelerate airflow increases our RPM and therefore power goes up. Now in my experience the higher power settings tend to need a slightly richer mixture. Negligible usually but I am unsure of this effect below 3000 feet and was told this was one of the reasons we don't lean at such low altitudes (aside from the fact that like you said it is determined that we have sufficient power and don't have to lean). That is what sparked the comment about leaning at 1000 RPM and seeing that at full power (if you can even get there) the aircraft will be at an excessively lean mixture.

In short I am saying that the slight increase in power during the acceleration causes the engine to run even leaner than the pilot intended which at low altitudes with denser air it can become problematic putting excess stress on the engine which could cause a failure. (Edit: Is this in any way right Roger? PS thanks again)

Also thanks allot for the further insight I actually own and have read the AP book for engines just because I wanted to know more. But it still doesn't seem to ever help to fully understand the way it works :(
 
Random Epiphany to the original post after reading Rogers big post there. Glen, was the engine cold? A cold engine won't produce as much power as an engine that has warmed up (though I doubt this would account for 70 RPM decrease it could contribute).

Is it usual for this airplane to run 70 RPM low on static runup at 2000' DA?

Also as long as your under 3000' in every non turbo GA aircraft I have flown (unless otherwise published in your aircrafts POH) you should still be able to attain the published static RPM.
 
In short I am saying that the slight increase in power during the acceleration causes the engine to run even leaner than the pilot intended which at low altitudes with denser air it can become problematic putting excess stress on the engine which could cause a failure. (Edit: Is this in any way right Roger? PS thanks again)
You know, you could be right. I don't know how big a difference it would make. Theoretically, if you don't move the throttle or mixture control, and the engine RPM speeds up, you could end up with a slightly leaner mixture. There are a lot of other things at work as well that might balance out this effect. For example, a faster-spinning engine will tend to increase the output pressure of the pump. Also, the RSA FI system (used on your lycoming injected engines) has a bellows system that senses the speed of the airflow through the intake, and will help with bringing fuel flow up as the engine accelerates. As previously stated, I don't know what the net effect of all these factors would be.

I do know that it would be inapplicable in anything with a constant speed prop, but yeah.
 
Back
Top