PA-31-310 climp power setting

[andy_mtl]

Good day folks,

Just a simple question, for all of you that fly or have flown the navajo 310hp, what power settings do you use?

At work we do 36.5in-2400 rpms,

a guy told me 35in-2500rpms,

i ve even heard 41 inches... thats a bit high...

So what are your inputs on this, what do you suggest?

Thanks for any positive feed back!

Andy

[Sidebar]

What does your AFM/POH say? SOPs?

[andy_mtl]

Like i stated in the post we go by 36.5 inches and 2400 rpms

However, im just trying to see what other companies use, cause i was reading the poh, and we should have a way better rate of climb that what we have now, so maybe its cause its old bird, or cause it could be the power settings.

Just to have some opinions

[BverLuver]

andy_mtl,

Read through this thread viewtopic.php?f=27&t=79172, it may give some insight into your airplanes performance or lack of.

BL

[Mostly Harmless]

It's been a while now but, 37 inches, 2400 RPM was what I always used for the cruise climb power setting. I'm pretty sure that was right out of the manual and we never had an engine problem.

As for the rate of climb, that could be a factor of weight, density altitude or even the speed at which you are climbing.

[Mostly Harmless]

Upon reading some of the other posts... I presume you are using maximum power until at least 1000' AAE before reducing power to the cruise climb setting. Since there are no numbers for reduced thrust take-off for Navajos, doing anything different makes you a test pilot and would put you in a very uncomfortable place trying to explain the deviation from the AFM to Transport Canada.

[Northern Flyer]

Upon reading some of the other posts... I presume you are using maximum power until at least 1000' AAE before reducing power to the cruise climb setting. Since there are no numbers for reduced thrust take-off for Navajos, doing anything different makes you a test pilot and would put you in a very uncomfortable place trying to explain the deviation from the AFM to Transport Canada.

You must work for Transport......

[seniorpumpkin]

Are you raising your cowl flaps halfway up in your after take off checks? On the 310 those things stick down like a parachute and will definitely have an effect on performance.

[Mostly Harmless]

You must work for Transport......

No, I try to avoid entanglements with the empire... I mean Transport... as much as possible.

However, I do know how they think.

[andy_mtl]

to be clear,
no reduced power take off

Max power is kept until 1000 feet

cowflaps are always open cause its for skydiving ops, so we like to try to get rid of has much heat as we can, and close them again on descent after jump run.

We get about 750-850 fpm but the POH shows some crazy 1400 fpm thats why i am asking

[trey kule]

1. the climb rate used in the AFN assumes new engines, properly calibrated engine and airspeed instruments, and ISA temps. Also, proper loading... Change these and you will change the R of c.

Now as to the cowl flaps....They reduce your rate of climb by about 100 fpm....but you knew that didnt you?...Why do I know you knew that? Becasue if you lose an engine in an initial climb, one of the IAs is to close the cowl flaps on BOTH engines. I assume this was part of your basic checkout.
(My hint for the need for proper training on this type..they have killed alot of inexperienced pilots who think they can fly anything without proper training)

In any event, as long as the temps are within limits you should be using the cowl flaps, not just leaving them open as a genreal procedure..That is why the they put CHT and oil temp guages in the plane.

And, to get around to your original question...Use the AFM numbers.. If they are not working as you think they should, and it is not a load or envirormental factor, have all your instruments checked.
EGT guages on Navajos are notoriously unreliable and if you are not leaning properly in the climb you could lose 200 fpm easily...Now with another 100 for cowl flaps open, a bit above standard temps, and a bit of rearward loading and an older plane that is doing many longer hot climbs and little time in cruise, and you could easily lose 50% of the book climb rate. Kind of like the swiss cheese model for performance.

[Doc]

Upon reading some of the other posts... I presume you are using maximum power until at least 1000' AAE before reducing power to the cruise climb setting. Since there are no numbers for reduced thrust take-off for Navajos, doing anything different makes you a test pilot and would put you in a very uncomfortable place trying to explain the deviation from the AFM to Transport Canada.

Why would you use max power to 1000 feet? A power reduction has nothing to do with with maintaining takeoff power to 1000 feet. A power reduction to climb out of 400 feet is pretty "normal". That's you segment climb altitude, why leave your engines thrashing away at take off thrust/noise/fuel burn? As soon as she's cleaned up, reduce power.
Thoughts?

[Cat Driver]

I think the same as Doc, must be our age and the way we were trained.

[trey kule]

Ah, us old guys... We do care about the engines dont we? Unfortunately too many of the new generation, in the interest of "safety" do not give a rats butt about reducing the TBO by 30%.
I, for one, welcome their attitude...Power to the max for the whole climb, I say...On to the next job and let the next guy worry about the engine failure because of misuse.

[Cat Driver]

I shudder to think how they would operate the big radial engine airplanes......

Thought processes seem to be a foreign concept to a lot of pilots in aviation these days.

[Doc]

I don't particularly enjoy the performance of medium piston twins on one engine. My thoughts are simple. Reduce the abuse on the engines, and maybe they'll reward you with never having to "learn" how poorly they fly on one. It's a good thing modern piston engines don't "go south" very often, because I fear the skill level of the average low time twin driver out there would make a routine engine out experience pretty frikken frightening. Keep this in mind.....only HALF of you are above average.....the rest of you are below average. Okay, one of you is average.

[navajo_jay]

When I used to fly the Pa31-310, we used 35"-2400RPM in the climb and 30"-2200RPM in cruise. I was making power reduction 2"/min in summer and 1"/min in winter. It was driving me nuts when others diddn't care about reductions. I always treated my engines like my best friends because it was them who kept me in the air safe. I never had an engine failure flying twin pistons, but I was anal about being careful to my engine. I always waited to have oil temps in green before doing run-ups. In winter specially, after starting-up, it was 1"/min until I was reaching my oil temp. Where I used to work, they used to crack cylinders almost every week, and than I came and briefed the pilots to be more cautious with engines and after that, none of them cracked.

[andy_mtl]

So much for saying :

THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSITIVE FEED BACK!

This post is to compare different procedures,and see different opinions from different pilots and companies.

It would be nice, if, not everypost that are made on this site do not turn unto a new episode of:
The real housewives of AVcanada.

Remember, all of you most senior pilots on here were low timer once! and i 'm sure you would have much rather have some conversation instead than :
Lets see who i can put down tonight!

Thanks tho to all the ones that shared their experiences!
Andy

[Doc]

So much for saying :

THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSITIVE FEED BACK!

This post is to compare different procedures,and see different opinions from different pilots and companies.

It would be nice, if, not everypost that are made on this site do not turn unto a new episode of:
The real housewives of AVcanada.

Remember, all of you most senior pilots on here were low timer once! and i 'm sure you would have much rather have some conversation instead than :
Lets see who i can put down tonight!

Thanks tho to all the ones that shared their experiences!
Andy

Too bad you feel that way. You could learn something from the "housewives of AVcanada" Nobody has put you down. We're suggesting ways to be easier on your engines. It's you lose if you don't take it to heart. A few of us have been there, done that. You're the ONLY one on this thread putting anybody down. I'm putting you down now, because you called upon me to do so.

[Cat Driver]

If you don't want answers Andy, don't ask questions.

Soon you won't have to worry about the comments us old guys make because looking at the history of Avcanada most of the older pilots got tired of the same attitudes when they answered questions.

By the way I remember the first time I flew a Navajo.....it was in 1971 and it was just another basic light twin ....not the space shuttle.

[Doc]

Well Cat, I flew a PA31-310 for a while and I really enjoyed the airplane. Much nicer habits than the 350. Better roll rate. Crisper controls. Never had to cage one.

[andy_mtl]

DOC,

this wasn t directly to you, and the idea of putting less wear on the engine is great, thats the idea behind the post.

when however, it starts by having to underlining the inexperience of the pilot .. well come on, give us a break, we re all trying to learn and get better, and improve, ( well most of us i think we do)

CAT,

Of course i will keep asking questions, and making discussion, but there should be no need to constantly , on most posts, put down younger, or less experienced pilots.

Andy

[Cat Driver]

Andy, you can solve your problem with me by just putting me on your no read list.

[andy_mtl]

Touchy!

[Doc]

when however, it starts by having to underlining the inexperience of the pilot .. well come on, give us a break, we re all trying to learn and get better, and improve, ( well most of us i think we do)

Nothing wrong with being inexperienced. Recognizing that fact can go a long way to remaining safe.
Cheers