Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:57 AM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (CloudCraft@aol.com)
2. 04:24 AM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (Jim Crunkleton)
3. 05:39 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Phil Stubbs)
4. 06:22 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Bill Bow)
5. 06:33 AM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (Bill Bow)
6. 07:13 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Harry Merritt)
7. 08:04 AM - Go Around (Jim Addington)
8. 10:51 AM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (CloudCraft@aol.com)
9. 11:04 AM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (Kelly Piper)
10. 11:12 AM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (Kelly Piper)
11. 12:28 PM - Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? (CloudCraft@aol.com)
12. 12:41 PM - Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? (CloudCraft@aol.com)
13. 01:45 PM - Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? (Kelly Piper)
14. 03:50 PM - Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? (Chris Schuermann)
15. 07:19 PM - Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? (Jody and Susan Pillatzki)
16. 07:25 PM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (Jody and Susan Pillatzki)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/23/03 19:49:20 Pacific Daylight Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
You've already received some superb guidance on approach speeds and One
Engine Inoperative ideas from Mr. Hamilton of Oz, the Unoffendable Bilbo and
others. I'll toss more junk in your lap, if I may.
To answer you question, your Va is 160 MPH or 139 knots. To compute it, find
the formula under FAR 23.335. It's really ugly, but I hate math.
I'm not sure what you'll have to know Va for on a FAR 135 checkride, other
than playing trivial pursuit with the examiner.
The practical application of Va is during your airwork, as a maximum speed to
enter steep turns, or, lacking Gust Penetration Speed (Vb) established by the
manufacturer, Va is a good second choice for flying in severe turbulence.
I'd bet 50% power is just fine for entering your steep turns, which is the
only checkride maneuver that subjects the airplane to increased G loads.
As far as Vref, use 1.3 Vso, as suggested. I like that speed at no later
than 50 feet over the threshold, meaning landing is assured and yes you're deep
into your _____ AGL commitment-to-land zone.
I prefer flying a Commander "too fast" on an IFR approach because I like #1)
crisper controls and #2) easy approach arithmetic. By that I mean either 2
nautical miles per minute, or, 1.5 nautical miles per minute. This means 120
or 90 Knots.
120 Knots is way too fast for low IFR; you'll have trouble slowing to land if
you break out at minimums. 100 knots is close to 90 for the 1.5 nm per
minute mental gymnastics and Jeppesen publishes time to MAP and descent rates at
100 knots and 100 knots is pretty close to Vyse, isn't it?
The Commanders are odd in that they're such excellent IFR platforms, but land
too slowly to fly approaches at their optimum Vref speed.
(In contrast, the 400 series Cessnas are no-brainers because you don't dare
do anything below 120 knots ...)
OK. Now you have to suffer through my Geared Engine Jihad.
Why do you bring your props up prior to landing on your geared engine?
Leave them at cruise value all the way down to landing.
Look at your power graphs for MAP and RPM combinations. You can initiate a
go-around or missed approach by adding manifold pressure to about 65% power
values before having to increase RPMs on your engine, if I'm not mistaken. I
advocate "loading the gearbox" with throttle first, then bringing up RPMs.
This is much preferred to gear box lash from low the MAP / high RPM
combination you're setting up by increasing RPM prior to touch down, which, by
the way,
has no practical use if you think about it.
It sounds 10 times more complicated than it is but with some practice, you'll
find you can arrest sink rate and miss an approach / or recover a stall with:
Throttle to a 65% value
add climb RPM (3000 max continuous),
add more throttle for 75 to 85% power,
raise flap handle; at around half flaps you'll see
positive rate: gear up!
and by this time your flaps are 1/4 where you can leave them to establish
climb or let them continue retracting to zero if you're happy with climb
performance.
There's the "what if you're struck by a meteor" school of risk management,
but if you don't have the time to push throttle / push props / push throttle,
you don't have time to go around.
And contrary to the average mind set, an IFR missed is NOT an emergency --
it's a well engineered maneuver with plenty of time for proper geared-engine
power management.
If you can make the climb gradient for departing that airport, you can
usually make the missed quite easily since you're starting out above the runway
by
several hundred feet. Took me years to figure that out. (Exceptions will be
certain high altitude airports and airports in fjiords, etc.)
Enjoy your check ride. You'll do great!
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Jim Crunkleton" <crunk12@bellsouth.net>
Wing Commander,
I have to add my two cents here also.
You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However, over
the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude on a
check ride.
I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
managing the gear and flaps!
Crunk
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs" <br549phil@mindspring.com>
I would be willing to share in the costs if we could get a group together
for the 560F, 680F etc.
> [Original Message]
> From: Tylor Hall <tylor@winddancer.aero>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 10/24/2003 8:07:01 PM
> Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall" <tylor@winddancer.aero>
>
> Moe,
> I talked to Century today. Their 2000 system is STC on 680FL/FLP. We
> talked about putting it on a 680F/FP and doing the paperwork on all short
> body Twin Commanders 500A,B,U,S,560F, and 680F as well. It would take the
> same installation kit as the Long Bodies.
> We would have to install it and let them add their instrumentation and do
> flight testing. The A/C would have to be in experimental for the testing.
> How long it would take to get the STC is unknown, but reasonable since it
is
> not a new autopilot. It is on other like aircraft.
> They will be at AOPA next week and will get back to me the week after.
> I have several other customers that have M4's that are getting hard to get
> parts for.
> They also said that they had a new GPSS box with the 429 bus interface
> coming out soon.
> Regards,
> Tylor Hall
> Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> 970-731-2127
>
>
> --> Commander-List message posted by: MOEMILLS@aol.com
>
> Dear Tylor,
>
> As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my 680F(p)
I
> would be a prospect for a good autopilot.
>
> Moe Mills
> N680RR
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
My M4 worked a lot better after Commander Gordon sent me his instruction
sheet.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: <MOEMILLS@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> --> Commander-List message posted by: MOEMILLS@aol.com
>
> Dear Tylor,
>
> As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my 680F(p)
I
> would be a prospect for a good autopilot.
>
> Moe Mills
> N680RR
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
My 1.5 cents.
It is also a maneuver that is sometimes only done at check ride time. Two
hundred feet in a Commander going 90 knots equates to a nice fly by to me.
However, I have seen some that should have been declared an emergency and
had the equipment called out.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Crunkleton" <crunk12@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Jim Crunkleton"
<crunk12@bellsouth.net>
>
> Wing Commander,
> I have to add my two cents here also.
> You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However,
over
> the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude on a
> check ride.
> I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
> managing the gear and flaps!
> Crunk
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Harry Merritt" <avtec2@bellsouth.net>
I Have a Great 560F and a very low tine 680F(P)
Harry
321 267-3141
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Stubbs" <br549phil@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Phil Stubbs"
<br549phil@mindspring.com>
>
> I would be willing to share in the costs if we could get a group together
> for the 560F, 680F etc.
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tylor Hall <tylor@winddancer.aero>
> > To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: 10/24/2003 8:07:01 PM
> > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> >
> > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Tylor Hall"
<tylor@winddancer.aero>
> >
> > Moe,
> > I talked to Century today. Their 2000 system is STC on 680FL/FLP. We
> > talked about putting it on a 680F/FP and doing the paperwork on all
short
> > body Twin Commanders 500A,B,U,S,560F, and 680F as well. It would take
the
> > same installation kit as the Long Bodies.
> > We would have to install it and let them add their instrumentation and
do
> > flight testing. The A/C would have to be in experimental for the
testing.
> > How long it would take to get the STC is unknown, but reasonable since
it
> is
> > not a new autopilot. It is on other like aircraft.
> > They will be at AOPA next week and will get back to me the week after.
> > I have several other customers that have M4's that are getting hard to
get
> > parts for.
> > They also said that they had a new GPSS box with the 429 bus interface
> > coming out soon.
> > Regards,
> > Tylor Hall
> > Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> > 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> > 970-731-2127
> >
> >
> > --> Commander-List message posted by: MOEMILLS@aol.com
> >
> > Dear Tylor,
> >
> > As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my
680F(p)
> I
> > would be a prospect for a good autopilot.
> >
> > Moe Mills
> > N680RR
> >
> >
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Jim Addington" <jtaddington@charter.net>
I have not seen any one talk about the main thing in go around, and engine
outs is practice, practice, practice.
Jim Adding ton
N444BD
----
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/25/03 04:25:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
crunk12@bellsouth.net writes:
> I have to add my two cents here also.
> You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However, over
> the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude on a
> check ride.
> I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
> managing the gear and flaps!
>
I'm rich! I'm rich! I've already made 3 and a half cents this morning!
This Internet business thing is really working out ...
I don't know when/why the IFR missed and the Go-Around became synonymous with
Emergency, but it has, hasn't it? Probably because our instructors gave it
a sense of urgency during training that was a bit overstated for the
situation.
Bilbo and Crunk are spot - on: Either the missed or Go-Around are smooth
transitions to climbing and as a wise man said recently, "Practice, practice,
practice."
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
Speaking of single-engine work -- I know it has been addressed in the
distant past here, but I can't find it in the archives so I'll ask
another annoying question. Obviously the geared engines should be cared
for in a tender loving manner (I do my best!) but at times, like a
check-ride, proficiency needs to be demonstrated in the single engine
regime. What is the best practice for zero-thrust setup and execution
with the GO-480's? Or dare I ask - how detrimental is it to actually
shut-down feather and re-start?
I've heard quite a range of answers but the depth of knowledge among the
good folks of the Commander list is just plumb deep and preferable to
typical hangar talk and opinions. We spent WAY too much on our recent
engine overhauls to assume anything when it comes to caring for them, so
any additional input is always well received.
Thanks again to all.
Kelly Piper
Director Of Operations
AirMatrix
kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
360-435-7343
425-231-3511 (Cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CloudCraft@aol.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/23/03 19:49:20 Pacific Daylight Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
You've already received some superb guidance on approach speeds and One
Engine Inoperative ideas from Mr. Hamilton of Oz, the Unoffendable Bilbo
and
others. I'll toss more junk in your lap, if I may.
To answer you question, your Va is 160 MPH or 139 knots. To compute it,
find
the formula under FAR 23.335. It's really ugly, but I hate math.
I'm not sure what you'll have to know Va for on a FAR 135 checkride,
other
than playing trivial pursuit with the examiner.
The practical application of Va is during your airwork, as a maximum
speed to
enter steep turns, or, lacking Gust Penetration Speed (Vb) established
by the
manufacturer, Va is a good second choice for flying in severe
turbulence.
I'd bet 50% power is just fine for entering your steep turns, which is
the
only checkride maneuver that subjects the airplane to increased G loads.
As far as Vref, use 1.3 Vso, as suggested. I like that speed at no
later
than 50 feet over the threshold, meaning landing is assured and yes
you're deep
into your _____ AGL commitment-to-land zone.
I prefer flying a Commander "too fast" on an IFR approach because I like
#1)
crisper controls and #2) easy approach arithmetic. By that I mean
either 2
nautical miles per minute, or, 1.5 nautical miles per minute. This
means 120
or 90 Knots.
120 Knots is way too fast for low IFR; you'll have trouble slowing to
land if
you break out at minimums. 100 knots is close to 90 for the 1.5 nm per
minute mental gymnastics and Jeppesen publishes time to MAP and descent
rates at
100 knots and 100 knots is pretty close to Vyse, isn't it?
The Commanders are odd in that they're such excellent IFR platforms, but
land
too slowly to fly approaches at their optimum Vref speed.
(In contrast, the 400 series Cessnas are no-brainers because you don't
dare
do anything below 120 knots ...)
OK. Now you have to suffer through my Geared Engine Jihad.
Why do you bring your props up prior to landing on your geared engine?
Leave them at cruise value all the way down to landing.
Look at your power graphs for MAP and RPM combinations. You can
initiate a
go-around or missed approach by adding manifold pressure to about 65%
power
values before having to increase RPMs on your engine, if I'm not
mistaken. I
advocate "loading the gearbox" with throttle first, then bringing up
RPMs.
This is much preferred to gear box lash from low the MAP / high RPM
combination you're setting up by increasing RPM prior to touch down,
which, by the way,
has no practical use if you think about it.
It sounds 10 times more complicated than it is but with some practice,
you'll
find you can arrest sink rate and miss an approach / or recover a stall
with:
Throttle to a 65% value
add climb RPM (3000 max continuous),
add more throttle for 75 to 85% power,
raise flap handle; at around half flaps you'll see
positive rate: gear up!
and by this time your flaps are 1/4 where you can leave them to
establish
climb or let them continue retracting to zero if you're happy with climb
performance.
There's the "what if you're struck by a meteor" school of risk
management,
but if you don't have the time to push throttle / push props / push
throttle,
you don't have time to go around.
And contrary to the average mind set, an IFR missed is NOT an emergency
--
it's a well engineered maneuver with plenty of time for proper
geared-engine
power management.
If you can make the climb gradient for departing that airport, you can
usually make the missed quite easily since you're starting out above the
runway by
several hundred feet. Took me years to figure that out. (Exceptions
will be
certain high altitude airports and airports in fjiords, etc.)
Enjoy your check ride. You'll do great!
Wing Commander Gordon
==
==
==
==
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
Let's see - 3.5 cents to Wing Commander Gordon, a few pennies to Bilbo,
Bill Hamilton, two more to Crunk, Nico gets at least a penny and a half,
Bruce 1.5, and jb another 1.5 - Wait, I take that back the jab about Mr.
Piper and Commanders cost him a penny, and Jim's 2 cents.
That adds up to about 13 (rounded) cents so far.... I better quit asking
questions or I'll be broke!
Kelly Piper
Director Of Operations
AirMatrix
kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
360-435-7343
425-231-3511 (Cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CloudCraft@aol.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/25/03 04:25:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
crunk12@bellsouth.net writes:
> I have to add my two cents here also.
> You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However,
over
> the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude
on a
> check ride.
> I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
> managing the gear and flaps!
>
I'm rich! I'm rich! I've already made 3 and a half cents this morning!
This Internet business thing is really working out ...
I don't know when/why the IFR missed and the Go-Around became synonymous
with e
Emergency, but it has, hasn't it? Probably because our instructors
gave it
a sense of urgency during training that was a bit overstated for the
situation.
Bilbo and Crunk are spot - on: Either the missed or Go-Around are
smooth
transitions to climbing and as a wise man said recently, "Practice,
practice,
practice."
Wing Commander Gordon
==
==
==
==
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/25/03 11:05:07 Pacific Daylight Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> What is the best practice for zero-thrust setup and execution
> with the GO-480's? Or dare I ask - how detrimental is it to actually
> shut-down feather and re-start?
>
Kelly,
Take the power to the "bottom of the green" for both MAP and RPM. You'll
have more than zero thrust, but you'll still have an engine at the end of the
day.
You're demonstrating technique on your checkride and I.M.O you shouldn't be
making a blood sacrifice to the FAA.
As soon as you can, find a Commander owner with a direct drive model and work
out what ever kind of deal you have to, to feather the left engine and fly
around to get the true sense of handling and climb gradient.
In the past, I think I've gotten one geared engine to restart comfortably.
The rest, I gave the client a chance to go through the steps, but I just
couldn't stand the grinding and grinding to get it started in the air. Maybe
they
would have all started eventually, but it just drives me berserk to watch all
that shaking and straining out there on the wing.
I always used this as an opportunity to land with an engine feathered because
the deceleration with an engine feathered is so much different than with two
turning that I think it's important to experience. Believe it or don't, the
plane doesn't slow down as fast with one feathered, contrary to what your
intuition would have you think.
Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents worth
of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in real
life?
I figure if it gets to the point of actually needing featering a piston
engine (you've done all you can do to keep it running: fuel selector, boost pumps,
mixture, mags), there's probably no reason to ever restart it. Is there?
By the way, aside from the IGSO-540 boys, anyone have unfeathering
accumulators or electric (pre) oil pumps? I believe N400CH, a Mr. RPM FLP, has
pre-oilers, but not sure if anyone else does. Those would be a big help in
unfeathering, I'd think.
It's all about building enough oil pressure to unfeather the prop and that's
a lot to ask of a starter motor fighting with 80 to 100+ knots of cold wind.
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/25/03 12:29:02 Pacific Daylight Time,
CloudCraft@aol.com writes:
> Take the power to the "bottom of the green" for both MAP and RPM. You'll
> have more than zero thrust, but you'll still have an engine at the end of
> the
> day.
Just one more comment: I can't recall the "bottom of the green" on your MAP
for the GSO-480, but with the props pulled back, you can probably go as low as
15 or even 13 inches MAP.
I don't want to give the impression that geared engines are made of glass.
Quite the contrary. I think they're stout, rugged power plants. They sound
really bitchin', too!
They do require knowledge and operating technique that are now a rare
commodities.
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
Thanks Gordon. I fully agree with your analysis on shut-down. I've
never done it and short of having to in an emergency I agree with the
cold/80mph wind resisting the starter would be just more than I could
bear.
In practice, I have been at 13 MAP and bottom of the green with RPM for
zero thrust. When I checked out in the Commander a couple of years ago
that was the wisdom of the guy that I flew with. I have since poked
around and found some variance (mostly with the RPM setting) and knew
that asking here would be of benefit.
I have discussed it with the examiner (no Commander experience) and he
is agreeable with the 13" map and min RPM. Shutdown will not be
necessary - I briefed him on the phone that I would not allow shutdown
or jockeying the props (I always make adjustments to the props very
slowly - RPM up or down). I think that the FAA is cognizant of aircraft
particulars and it didn't seem to be an issue.
Anybody else have further info on the topic?
Kelly Piper
Director Of Operations
AirMatrix
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CloudCraft@aol.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up?
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/25/03 12:29:02 Pacific Daylight Time,
CloudCraft@aol.com writes:
> Take the power to the "bottom of the green" for both MAP and RPM.
You'll
> have more than zero thrust, but you'll still have an engine at the end
of
> the
> day.
Just one more comment: I can't recall the "bottom of the green" on your
MAP
for the GSO-480, but with the props pulled back, you can probably go as
low as
15 or even 13 inches MAP.
I don't want to give the impression that geared engines are made of
glass.
Quite the contrary. I think they're stout, rugged power plants. They
sound
really bitchin', too!
They do require knowledge and operating technique that are now a rare
commodities.
Wing Commander Gordon
==
==
==
==
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm@cox.net>
CloudCraft@aol.com wrote:
> Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents worth
> of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in real
> life?
During my ownership of the 520 (GO-435's), I shut both engines down
several times on purpose (not at the same time of course). I always
pre-cooled prior to shutdown. Never had a re-start problem although
they did require a bit of cranking before coming out of feather.
Although I knew it was hard on the engines, I just felt it was prudent
for me to have a good "feel" for the airplane with one really shut down.
Although it's hard on those geared starters, it's probably easier on
the engine to shut it down rather than clatter the gearbox at idle....
I'm glad I did bother to practice single-engine work and do a couple of
true single-engine landings because I did loose an engine during takeoff
once. The right engine just stopped cold at about 200ft agl. Glad it
was the right one because the gear were just coming up. Feathered it
and climbed out easily for a return to a non-eventful landing.
Chris Schuermann
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Jody and Susan Pillatzki" <jpillatzki@702com.net>
Last monday had to shut one down in flight for real. Did some
troubleshooting figured out what it was and as per the afm it came out of
feather on the ground in about 6-8 seconds. That is on a 520 with GO 435's.
Absolutely no problem's
Jody Pillatzki
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up?
> --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm@cox.net>
>
>
> CloudCraft@aol.com wrote:
> > Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents
worth
> > of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in
real
> > life?
>
> During my ownership of the 520 (GO-435's), I shut both engines down
> several times on purpose (not at the same time of course). I always
> pre-cooled prior to shutdown. Never had a re-start problem although
> they did require a bit of cranking before coming out of feather.
> Although I knew it was hard on the engines, I just felt it was prudent
> for me to have a good "feel" for the airplane with one really shut down.
> Although it's hard on those geared starters, it's probably easier on
> the engine to shut it down rather than clatter the gearbox at idle....
> I'm glad I did bother to practice single-engine work and do a couple of
> true single-engine landings because I did loose an engine during takeoff
> once. The right engine just stopped cold at about 200ft agl. Glad it
> was the right one because the gear were just coming up. Feathered it
> and climbed out easily for a return to a non-eventful landing.
>
> Chris Schuermann
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Jody and Susan Pillatzki" <jpillatzki@702com.net>
Crunk
I agree as well. Lost the right engine on 411VV last week while climbing
out. Was in a 140mph cruise climb. Looked things over to see what was up
decided I couldn't fix it and feathered the prop. 145mph indicated at 5000
feet holding her own at full mp and 3000 rpm. What a sweetheart single
engine. and 51 years old.
Jody
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Crunkleton" <crunk12@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Jim Crunkleton"
<crunk12@bellsouth.net>
>
> Wing Commander,
> I have to add my two cents here also.
> You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However,
over
> the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude on a
> check ride.
> I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
> managing the gear and flaps!
> Crunk
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|