Typical power settings during cruise and other phases of flight

One concept you should understand is full throttle is only full power
at sealevel. As you climb, your manifold pressure guage will indicate a
lower reading. Also, you will not be able to obtain full power.
However, the air gets thinner, so you don't need full power to go as
fast a True Airpeed (TAS). A typical setting is somewhere around 24"
manifold pressure and 2400 on the tach. If you have a flight manual for
the plane look in it and pick one of those settings.

Also, remember that as the air gets thinner, you need less fuel. That
is why you need to lean the mixture as you climb.

In article . com,
Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Jay B wrote:
Huck,

As others have pointed out, our little inquisitive friend is not
referring to real flight.

He's dealing with MSFS issues under the guise of being a pilot.

Don't waste the 1s and 0s ...


Why are you being such a snob? The question he posed is legitimate
whether it is for a simulator or a real airplane. And many simmers
eventually go on to become pilots so it is in our best interest to be
receptive.


Check out some of the other threads started by Mxsmanic and you'll spot
a pattern. He asks what, at face value, appears to be a legitimate
question in the pursuit of knowledge. His questions are answered in a
helpful way. He then proceeds to pontificate, based on his hours
playing a video game, why they are all wrong and their ignorance will
eventually get them killed. He quotes out of context, completely missing
the point. His "discussion" style appears willful because nobody could
possibly be that dense.

It's futile and it does nothing but lower the signal to noise ratio in
the newsgroup. He's not here to learn. He's here to pretend that
playing MSFS is not only equivalent, but superior to flying a real plane.
Many of us have done both so we understand the strengths and weaknesses
of each. Mxsmanic hasn't and doesn't.

Andrew,

Why are you being such a snob?


Read a few early threads started by the guy. He is first class troll,
not the least bit interested in learning. In fact, there's another
active thread where he is lecturing on instrument flight. Every reason
to be snobbish.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

So what is the deal? Is it okay to run for several hours at full
throttle?

Depends on the plane.

The planes I've flown are less efficient at WOT, but get there faster.

WOT is gentler on the engine, but if it's only a sim, fuel burn and engine
wear don't matter.

Brian writes:

As a rule of thumb, that probably developed from just where I see the
majority of pilots fly is to run about 2400 RPM and about 23 to 24
inches of Manifold pressure for Cruise. Every pilot develops there
prefered Power Settings for each airplane as they fly them more, But as
a Rule of them this is a good starting spot for Non-Turbocharged
engines with Constant Speed Propellers.

The RPM I see in the cockpit is the speed of the propeller, right?
And the pitch adjusts the angle of attack of the propeller blades,
right? So if I increase the pitch, the propeller slows, but it pushes
the same amount of air. If I then increase the throttle until the
propeller gets back up to its former RPM, it's again spinning at the
same speed, but it is producing more power because of the deeper
pitch--right?

Is 2400-2500 RPM a magic number for propellers? I seem to see it a
lot in discussions of various different aircraft. Or maybe it's a
magic number for engines (?).

Do the aircraft I'm trying to fly have constant-speed propellers (A36,
Baron 58)? The fact that there's a pitch control implies not, if I
understand the principle of constant-speed propellers.

Also note that the Manifold pressure will decrease with altitude, so
you will have to increase throttle as you climb to maintian the 23-24
inches.

Is the reading on the manifold pressure gauge constant, or do I have
to mentally adjust what it says for altitude? I know the altimeter
setting but I don't necessarily have the current external air pressure
figure floating in my head, so calculation would be difficult.

I'm also not clear on whether this pressure is below or above outside
air. Is it a vacuum created by the engine (which means it would be
increasingly below ambient pressure as the engine power increases), or
is it a pressure _above_ ambient pressure? The gauge seems to imply
that it's a positive pressure.

Also some pilots will either reduce the RPM setting either before take
off or immedialty after lift off when the engine has a particalary high
RPM setting and large prop. They do this to reduce the amount of noise
made during the take-off if they really don't need 100% power.

Are GA aircraft subject to all the noise-abatement rules, too?

Yes I understand you are flying a simulator, But Learning is Learning.

Thanks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bob Moore writes:

Most non-turbocharged GA engines are rated for 100% rated
power continuously.

And most GA engines are normally aspirated, right?

I note that this Baron 58 used to be available in a turbocharged
version, but apparently that is no longer made. I wonder why. Also I
guess there was a pressurized version, too. I can understand why that
might have died because pressurization systems are probably very
expensive and high in maintenance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I agree. There was a long time between my sailplane and the airplane I have
now. The only way I could scratch my itch was with MSFS.

I used MSFS to plan and pre-fly my check ride (as much as I could). I have
used it to pre-fly flights to unfamiliar airports, setting the time, season
and various weather scenarios. I find it an excellent tool for a pilot, and
I could see where it would be a satisfactory hobby unto itself. When my son
starts college, the fate of the airplane is unclear. I might find myself
spending all my flight time with the downloaded model of my Sundowner.

I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing. I also find myself
doing the same wrong things on MSFS that I do in real flight.

The only seat I'll ever occupy in a 7x7 has a number and letter, but that
hasn't stopped me from flying them on MSFS. I track the tips here on flying
the big iron nonetheless.

"houstondan" wrote in message
oups.com...
i have a thought or two about people who come here with questions after
playing with computer flying toys:

welcome!!

Spam Magnet wrote:

It's futile and it does nothing but lower the signal to noise ratio in
the newsgroup. He's not here to learn. He's here to pretend that
playing MSFS is not only equivalent, but superior to flying a real plane.
Many of us have done both so we understand the strengths and weaknesses
of each. Mxsmanic hasn't and doesn't.


All true but you have to understand that the reason he's a "superior pilot" is
that he flies the big iron that few of us have ever even sat in the cockpit
of... like the B-737. The fact that the C-172 I flew Thursday was real can't
possibly compare against his many hours managing the mighty Boeing with just a
keyboard.

You know, I fly MSFS too. But when I do it, I fly the same aircraft that I fly
in real life. I just use it to keep my instrument scan active because I don't
fly instruments enough any more to feel comfortable without some help from the
sim.

He flies the airliners so he can lord it over you. What he doesn't realize is
that flying the crappiest piece of **** on the field is still better than the
"flight experience" you get with a computer sim.

He's playing all of you guys like fish on a hook. Wise up.

I tried to tell folks last week and some people came to his defense. I suspect
now they wish they'd just followed my suggestion: Ignore the troll.

I don't think it's censorship to point out he's pretty much taken over two
newsgroups with his crossposted questions. Not that it matters that the
questions get answered. When they disagree with his preconceived ideas he just
ignores them. We should return the favor.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
...
He's playing all of you guys like fish on a hook. Wise up.

He's just a ****in' troll... Somewhat of a subtle troll, at least
iniitially, but a troll none the less...

To make it worse, he's a French troll... One could argue that this is what
makes him think he is so superior to the rest of us while in fact being
inferior to the lowest time Cessna 150/152 student... Killfile the idiot and
be done with it...

LWG writes:

When my son starts college, the fate of the airplane is unclear.
I might find myself spending all my flight time with the
downloaded model of my Sundowner.

Wouldn't that give you more time for real flight? Or have I
misunderstood?

I think MSFS is much harder to fly than the real thing.

If so, then it would be good practice. If you can fly the simulator,
you can fly the aircraft. Although it doesn't look like I'll be
anywhere near a real aircraft in the foreseeable future.

I also find myself doing the same wrong things on MSFS that
I do in real flight.

Are they things that would be dangerous in real life?

The only seat I'll ever occupy in a 7x7 has a number and letter, but that
hasn't stopped me from flying them on MSFS. I track the tips here on flying
the big iron nonetheless.

Large aircraft are interesting for procedures and instrument flight.
I've been trying all weekend to complete a flight with the FMS alone
but I haven't been able to escape flying by hand at some point, as I
seem to screw something up in the programming each time.

Of course private pilots aren't likely to ever use a flight management
system on their aircraft, so it's either the sim or nothing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.