I've been getting ready for the delivery of my first plane, a 1957 Cessna 182A. Fellow BCP member Bill Reid (182 STOL Driver) will be going out this coming weekend to do the pre-buy and ferry it back to Arizona, where I will go pick it up to bring home to San Jose. In preparation I got my High Power sign off and checked out in a 182 at my home airstrip which is 3,100 ft long, and pretty much at sea level (135 ft). Through all my training in the 182, we always use full power when taking off (as well as every plane I have ever flown). I ordered the owners manual for the 1957-58 Cessna 182 to study in prep for flying my new ride (can I just tell you how stoked (sorry I'm from California) I am about being a plane owner) and I was reading a section in the 'operating details' page 3-2 (if you have the manual too) and in section 4 - take off, it has the following;

Most engine wear occurs from improper operation before the engine is up to normal operating temperatures, and operating at high power and RPM's. For this reason the use of maximum power for take-off should be limited to that absolutely necessary for safety, Whenever possible, reduce take-off power to normal climb power

Are they saying if you can safely take-off without using full power, and instead using normal climb power of 2450 rpm, you should do so as it reduces engine wear? In all of my training it has all ways been full power in all conditions. Do any of you regularly use less then full power if you can safely do so (for instance on a 3100 ft runway at sea level)?

They don't want take off at reduced power. I think what they were getting at is not to climb to cruise altitude before reducing power.
I feel like I want a safe turn back altitude before I reduce power. At least 500ft- 800ft.
Most of us will wear out engines from lack of use/ corrosion not an extra minute of take off power once a flight.

Congratulations! Way to go!

Just take the time to warm the engine at the run-up area before taking off, then go like hell. I recently watched a Mooney driver pull his airplane out of the hangar, taxi about 500 feet, do a mag check and then take off. I'm no expert but I would not be surprised that he'll need an overhaul well before TBO.

Congrats!

Don't believe all of what's in the POH. Lots has been learned about how these engines operate and hold up since 1957. Get on Savvys website as well as Avweb and start watching/reading Mike Busch's stuff, as well as John Deakin to really see how to operate these engines. Their articles have been posted in several posts here on BCP too.

Here is some to get you started.

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184350-1.html?redirected=1

This one addresses partial power takeoffs.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182045-1.html?redirected=1

http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_59_egt_cht_and_leaning_198162-1.html

There's lots of good reading from both of these guys on these sites.

In answer to your question, full power takeoff every time. Remember when you reduce throttle, you also reduce cooling fuel to the engine. As per the recommendations from the above two people, my throttle stays all the way in until top of cruise. Fuel flow and optimal power is controlled with the mixture.

Welcome to aircraft ownership. Ultimately it will be up to you to decide how you want to run your engine. The good news is, there is a lot of good information out there if you're willing to read it, get your head wrapped around it, and probably have to let go of some of the incorrect things that were taught to you. Good luck! It's fun figuring it all out!

Grassstrippilot wrote:In answer to your question, full power takeoff every time. Remember when you reduce throttle, you also reduce cooling fuel to the engine. As per the recommendations from the above two people, my throttle stays all the way in until top of cruise. Fuel flow and optimal power is controlled with the mixture.

Welcome to aircraft ownership. Ultimately it will be up to you to decide how you want to run your engine. The good news is, there is a lot of good information out there if you're willing to read it, get your head wrapped around it, and probably have to let go of some of the incorrect things that were taught to you. Good luck! It's fun figuring it all out!

While I agree that full power takeoffs are to be used at all times, simply to give you the best margin over the trees, or in the event of an engine failure after takeoff, I think you have to be very careful in making statements like this without discussing propeller rpm management. And, actually READING the POH and engine manufacturer's recommendations is often a GREAT idea, as Deakin notes regarding the big Lycoming engines, which is precisely why Lyc recommends against his procedures......

In other words, don't believe everything you read on an internet forum or AvWeb either.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with Deaken.....his point of old wives tales is quite accurate and good advice.

But, you're taking that to the next level, suggesting that all POH information is BS just because some guy posts contrary information on an internet site. I've found in many cases that the OWTs out there most often in fact are specifically recommended AGAINST in many POHs. We had problems with pilots running the new IO 550s, because they didn't read the engine recommendations from Continental (and, no, we're not talking about LOP here....Continental specifically recommends LOP ops in this engine). This was largely because these folks were used to IO 520s, which have very different power settings for a given percent power. Once folks got trained to operate the 550s, no more problems.

Learn about YOUR engine, avoid the OWTs, but READ that POH, and the engine operating manual.

MTV

Ditto full power for takeoff and all the way up. A lot more damage comes from shock cooling on descent with that engine. Pipeline 182s, that make few climbs or descents, go much longer between overhauls than 182s that climb above 500' on most flights. Jump plane 182s seldom make normal TBO. If it gets too hot going up, lower the nose a bit. If it gets too cold coming down, start farther out the next time and use more power in the descent.

mtv wrote:

Grassstrippilot wrote:In answer to your question, full power takeoff every time. Remember when you reduce throttle, you also reduce cooling fuel to the engine. As per the recommendations from the above two people, my throttle stays all the way in until top of cruise. Fuel flow and optimal power is controlled with the mixture.

Welcome to aircraft ownership. Ultimately it will be up to you to decide how you want to run your engine. The good news is, there is a lot of good information out there if you're willing to read it, get your head wrapped around it, and probably have to let go of some of the incorrect things that were taught to you. Good luck! It's fun figuring it all out!

While I agree that full power takeoffs are to be used at all times, simply to give you the best margin over the trees, or in the event of an engine failure after takeoff, I think you have to be very careful in making statements like this without discussing propeller rpm management. And, actually READING the POH and engine manufacturer's recommendations is often a GREAT idea, as Deakin notes regarding the big Lycoming engines, which is precisely why Lyc recommends against his procedures......

In other words, don't believe everything you read on an internet forum or AvWeb either.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with Deaken.....his point of old wives tales is quite accurate and good advice.

But, you're taking that to the next level, suggesting that all POH information is BS just because some guy posts contrary information on an internet site. I've found in many cases that the OWTs out there most often in fact are specifically recommended AGAINST in many POHs. We had problems with pilots running the new IO 550s, because they didn't read the engine recommendations from Continental (and, no, we're not talking about LOP here....Continental specifically recommends LOP ops in this engine). This was largely because these folks were used to IO 520s, which have very different power settings for a given percent power. Once folks got trained to operate the 550s, no more problems.

Learn about YOUR engine, avoid the OWTs, but READ that POH, and the engine operating manual.

MTV

Precisely why I said don't believe all as opposed to saying anything in the POH. Obviously some of it should be followed. It's up to each owner to learn their engine and how best to operate it...as well as to ascertain if what they read on the Internet, web forum, POH, etc. is applicable to their engine...including those that contradict their POH or poor operating practices that have been handed down by instructors.

My point is, don't stop with the POH. There is more substantive and definitive information out there if you take the time to look.

Grassstrippilot wrote: It's up to each owner to learn their engine and how best to operate it...as well as to ascertain if what they read on the Internet, web forum, POH, etc. is applicable to their engine...including those that contradict their POH or poor operating practices that have been handed down by instructors.

My point is, don't stop with the POH. There is more substantive and definitive information out there if you take the time to look.

Can I just say, this is a pretty un-ideal situation to be in....

You, I and most everyone on here are not aircraft engine experts. We don't design, build, test, sell, and support engines. The company selling the engine must know the most about their own engines and provide good, practical advice to owner-operators. (I realise this is idealistic)

How can every person be expected to know everything about operating an engine? Nobody knows everything, but everyone knows something. So all knowledge is held in networks of people. So sharing what we know is good, because it's the only way we can each find answers to our questions - because alone we can never know it all.

Battson wrote:
How can every person be expected to know everything about operating an engine? Nobody knows everything, but everyone knows something. So all knowledge is held in networks of people. So sharing what we know is good, because it's the only way we can each find answers to our questions - because alone we can never know it all.

Well said Battson. Read, ask questions, and gleam knowledge from wherever you can...hopefully gaining as well rounded an insight as one can. I'm by no means an engine expert and will never claim to be one, but I do believe I've learned a lot from people here on BCP, from reputable people on the web (some of whom are considered engine experts), and what I've read otherwise. Overall, I'd say I definitely know more than I did when I was a student and realize there is always more to learn from all the above. I'm grateful there is a community like this to act as a clearing house of information.

Thanks everyone for the discussion, and to grasstrippilot for the links much appreciated. And did clear up my question.

Any takeoff above sea level is a reduced power takeoff in a non-turbo plane,and I don't think those flights are more dangerous or harder on the engine than ones that happen to occur at sea level. It doesn't make sense to me that reduced manifold pressures harm engines (except possibly at break in).

I think 75% hp is 75% horsepower as far as engine operations go with proper engine management and happy CHT's, whether one is cruising or taking off or climbing. It is the average DA at my field in the warm time of the year. As for the extra fuel flow at full throttle on some installations, it only seems important at high heat rates (high HP, as in MP/RPM combo) with lower speeds (lack of cooling).

The POH is a good guide, and familiarity should improve on it. My POH even says to take off full rich at all times, which is guaranteed to rob a lot of power at a lot of strips in the rockies, and makes no sense when you are taking off with 60%-65% power at full throttle anyway.

lesuther wrote:Any takeoff above sea level is a reduced power takeoff in a non-turbo plane,and I don't think those flights are more dangerous or harder on the engine than ones that happen to occur at sea level. It doesn't make sense to me that reduced manifold pressures harm engines (except possibly at break in).

The biggest difference is fuel. Most carbs have an enrichening circuit for WOT.

You might at sea level match your MP with what it would be at higher elevations, but with much less fuel. That extra fuel does a lot of good things for your engine at WOT and high power demand.

CamTom12 wrote:You might at sea level match your MP with what it would be at higher elevations, but with much less fuel. That extra fuel does a lot of good things for your engine at WOT and high power demand.

I agree when down low when high %BHP is possible, and the economizer makes a really big difference down at very low altitude during climbs.

But at my field altitude, the takeoff HP is around 70% a lot of the year, well within the cruise power regime for my plane where leaning is recommended in the POH. I'm not certain the engine cares if the plane is taking off or boating around at cruise at that point as long as it is being cooled adequately with a high enough airspeed when running 65% or 70% BHP. As it is, I use WOT nearly every take off (which activates the economizer). But if I want to be quiet while departing a very low elevation airport, and don't need more than 70% power anyway, I don't think the engine really cares whether it has the fuel economizer activated- the cylinders stay cool throughout the takeoff and climb at normal climb speeds.

This will do you absolutely no good, but I just wanted to say I make many of my takeoffs at a prop rpm of 1600 or so, that's about 4 K with the Rotax 912S. I do this for noise abatement, plus it has to be easier on the engine, and it allows me a little less warm up time since I'm not demanding WOT. Living on a mountain with a good down slope is a must for this procedure to work however The downside is I have found myself taking off somewhere on level ground, and realize I am not at WOT, so kind of a bad habit to get into.

I too have always used full power in all that I have flown. Everything I have read says air-cooled engines like full power (assumimng the engine is fully warmed up) because:

A) Full power provides more fuel flow which:
1) keeps the head temps down which helps cool the exhaust valves
2) helps prevent detonation
3) gets me to a safe "turn back altitude" faster
4) gives a richer mixture to help keep EGTs a bit lower
This assumes the engine is not turbo and the climb angle is such that forward speed is adequate to provide cooling and the engine is turning a prop designed for the engine/aircraft combination.

I am currently driving a Jabiru 2200 with a Bing carb that is somewhat self compensating for altitude. This carb, as are many, is jetted to give a richer mixture at idle and full power. In cruise it will run leaner for economy. And I can lean it out even more for cruising at higher altitudes.

John

Well, again, I have to say all this applies with a definite MAYBE.

For example, to suggest that every airplane's fuel system utilizes an economizer is simply wrong. Many fuel injection systems do not, for example, and there are some carburetors out there that don't as well.

Again, the point is, you simply cannot generalize as broadly as some folks are suggesting in this thread, and the same applies to Deaken's articles....one of the beefs I have with his writings: They paint with a pretty broad brush. You simply can't say "always" when it comes to airplanes.

Hence my earlier point that to suggest the POH is wrong just because the airplane is old is bad advice. The POH is a great starting point. As others have suggested, you can add to that information with carefully considered study of well documented and supported information.

But, please don't over generalize this stuff. You simply cannot apply one set of procedures to every aircraft or every situation.

MTV

I haven't looked, since I'm not flying a Continental, but perhaps you can find pubs by Continental online which will narrow down the engine manufacturer's current advice. Lycoming has such pubs, and they've been pretty helpful to me regarding engine management.

I agree completely with Mike--lots of broad-brushing going on here and in Deakin's articles. I'd follow the owners manual (obviously pre-POH in your airplane) and if Continental is publishing stuff, get ahold of it and follow it.

The one thing I've found missing from many articles and Lycoming's pubs has been much detail on high elevation airport ops--usually limited to "lean as necessary" without saying how to do that. Since you're not going to be running out of a high elevation airport, that's a discussion for another day, but when you do, it's good to do some research so that you'll have the power your engine is capable of producing. There are a number of high elevation folks on here who can be pretty helpful at that time, too.

Cary