Warrior cruise RPM settings

"Jay Honeck" wrote \\

Perhaps you have a cruise prop on both aircraft, Ben? You shouldn't be
exceeding red line simply by going to full throttle in level flight,
*unless* your prop has been pitched differently than stock.

That would be a climb prop, wouldn't it? I thought a cruise prop had more
pitch to keep from overspeeding during level cruise, and a climb prop had
less pitch (or diameter) to let the engine spin up to maximum RPM's (and HP)
during the normally slower RPM, higher load climbs.
--
Jim in NC

Mine's the 250. I lean it pretty aggressively, and cruise high. Of course,
I'm based at 5300 feet.

Seth

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:yIS0f.2531$ar6.1471@trndny01...
wrote:
I get 150knots at 10.5 gph,
Hmmpf. Gotta get me one of those Comanches. The Lance I fly burns 16gph
at that speed and I'm carrying two extra empty seats... Is that a
PA-24-180?

According to Clarke's book, the PA-24-180 cruises at ~130 knots. The 250
hp version cruises at ~157 knots. That plane has an O-540 in it. There's
also a 260 hp model that gets a couple knots more out of an O-540.
Post-1966 models are fuel injected.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Cooling shock is, IMHO, an overblown issue in normally aspirated airplanes.
Coming east over the mountains, I regularly descend from 13,000 to land at
5300 -- and my cylinders are still tight 500 hours over TBO. It's a plain
vanilla O-540, severely understressed, and I baby it by running lower rpm
most of the time.

Seth
Comanche N8100R

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote

I would believe most owners (including myself) are more concerning with
proper leaning, cold shock, and sloppy pilot landings & takeoffs. Those
factors will bite into an owners & FBO's pocketbook.

How does cooling shock show up, in a diagnostic/ overhaul/ shortening of
engine life, if you know what I mean? What parts suffer, and how do you
know other than tearing down the engine? (short of having it seize on you)

I have my guesses, but am probably at least partially wrong, and possibly
totally wrong. g
--
Jim in NC

New Jersey. So far, 20 public fields, one landing at Lakehurst NAS and a
low approach at McGuire AFB.

Then you're burning more fuel than you need to for no perceptible
performance gain.

"lardsoup" wrote in message
...
Sorry but I don't see your point.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:44:27 -0700, Seth Masia wrote:

Cooling shock is, IMHO, an overblown issue in normally aspirated airplanes.
Coming east over the mountains, I regularly descend from 13,000 to land at
5300 -- and my cylinders are still tight 500 hours over TBO. It's a plain
vanilla O-540, severely understressed, and I baby it by running lower rpm
most of the time.

IIRC, Rod Machado also has the same sentiment about the subject. His take
is if shock cooling was a major factor, twins used for training should
constantly have a problem with once engine dying before the other....but
as he sees it, most training twins see TBO or better for both engines.

Greg