midlifeflyer

I wasn't saying stupidly and bravado is a joint concept, nor that acting stupid has anything to do with native intelligence, although Darwin might have something to say about that

Agreed. Stupidity and bravado have no limits, particularly age-related ones. If anything, bravado gets worse with age because of the number of times you've gotten away with it.

Mine too, no matter what the airplane. I've flow airplanes with 7 hours usable fuel but still plan my stops about three hours apart. My other planning minimum is to use the worst fuel burn in the chart. With a 1 hour reserve, I've found that it gives me plenty of options from unexpected headwinds to my own failure to lean properly.

I have no idea if there is a verifiable reason, but someone told me years ago to store the batteries (or at least one of the set) backwards in the flashlight when not in use. I've been doing that for more than 20 years and have not seen a leak, and even the cheapest $1 LED flashlights and their batteries have been ready to go when needed.

There are a number of reasons why. Just a few examples from my experience. Some aircraft with constant speeds props push up against redline and have a tendency to exceed itand SOP is to back them off slightly for enroute climb. Some have "continuous power" limitations for max rpm, so a reduction is required.For personal preference, some pilots like the reduction of noise and vibration without a significant hit on performance accompanying a 100-200 RPM reduction. (Admittedly, I'm taking in general rather than model specific, assuming @Vlakvark will teach the procedure he uses in the K).

No cheat sheet, just a tip or two. There are two distinct pieces to complex training. The retractable gear and the constant speed prop (which does not apply only to complex). When I do transition training , I find that pilots have more difficulty with the constant speed prop than anything else. Left to their own devices, they will constantly play with it. Even though the throttle logically should have the same problem, it seems to be the prop which causes the most issues. So I simplify it a lot. I teach there are only three prop settings for non-emergency flight. Full forward for takeoff and landing, marginally back for enroute climb, and the cruise setting for your altitude (and for some, that second one is optional, so there might only be two). For the gear, I'm not tied to any one methodology for when the gear comes down, so long as it makes some kind of sense and is repeatable.I teach repeated checks, but preach consistency above all else. At most there are only two timings for gear down in non-emergency operations. One for visual approaches and one for instrument approaches.

This is great information. The other thing interesting about the article is the 50 rich of peak. A standard for decades, it has recently come into some disrepute due to the lean-of-peak studies indicating 50 degrees rich is the worst place to be - solidly in the "red box" of high compression pressures ad high CHTs. (but that's another issue :))

WOT - wide open throttle. If you saw a WAT, it was a typo.

@brndiar, if you can find a copy, the MAPA training manual also talks about power settings (among a number of other things). It talks about optimum cruise settings in terms of a "key number" - a combination of MP and RPM/100. The key number for the C is 46, which translates to combinations such a 23/2300, 22/2400, etc, You'll notice that reflects what a number of folks here have describe as what they use.

Of all the makes and models I've flown, I've liked flying Cessnas the least (unless I actually need to carry stuff). But I'm not sure what "liking" to fly them has to do with the choices made by manufacturers for their performance chart formats

Not unless someone did it manually. This is from the 1977 edition of the M20C manual. Notice this page it only covers 5,000 feet at 41F (standard temperature). There are individual pages at 2,500' increments from sea level up to 12,500 msl, all at standard temperature for those altitudes. The data is there, but it's not as user-friendly as later charts. So, for, say 75% power at 5,000' at standard temperature, you are going to end up looking through the chart finding combinations that are close to what you want. Lest you think that's too loose, bear in mind that like all performance charts, they are based on a brand new airplane. Plus, it is innacurate unless you make adjustment for density altitude So, when we see numbers with a decimal point, we are essentially talking about measuring a football field with a micrometer. And it could be worse. If you look at similar vintage Pipers, you'll find not tables at all, but a series of graphs, and you might have to run more than one of those to get numbers for an altitude.

Well, it does. The data is there although the presentation is less, let's say, "user friendly." And, as the J tables indicate, they too have several combinations to produce the same power setting. We are still left to make choices. I'm not sure how much it has to do with being "vintage," except that I'm not at all surprised the format has changed through the years. Even in "modern" aircraft there are differences in the way performance data is presented by different manufacturers. Compare the Mooney (even new) takeoff distance graphs, which are prone to user error, with the simpler and arguably more user friendly Cessna tables where it takes all of two seconds to figure out the max gross takeoff distance over a 50 ' obstacle from a 4,000 msl airport when the temperature is 30C.

And I wasn't answering it well. The C tables do show the fuel flow at various combinations, with some minor variations, but not as wide a discrepancy as you see in your table. Part of the reason may simply be the J has a significantly wider range of "acceptable" values. I'm no engine guru, but I would expect a "weak" power plant producing only 19" MP driving a prop at 2700 RPM to be working much harder - and using more fuel - than a "strong" 24" power plant only pushing 2200 RPM. So I guess whether the numbers are "substantially the same" depends on how wide a range we are talking about. Even in your table, the GPH delta from 2200 RPM to 2600 RPM is only 0.4 GPH. That last combo is a 0.3 GPH jump all by itself. I can't even imagine wanting to use that 19"/2700 RPM combo unless my altitude required it.

I've never seen "oversquare" used to mean anything in aviation other than MP being greater than prop rpm/1000.

Sure. All cruise performance charts for airplanes with constant speed props do that. And yes, same MP but different RPM means different percent power and therefore different fuel flow. But no, if the higher RPM setting is combined with a lower MP, resulting in the same percent power, the resulting fuel flow is substantially the same.