When to reduce power on takeoff (Cessna 182 or similar)?

Canuk
  • When to reduce power on takeoff (Cessna 182 or similar)? Canuk

    There are two sides I've heard when taking off in a Cessna 182 or other small airplane with a normally aspirated engine driving a constant speed propeller:

    1. As soon as your wheels are off the ground... Or,
    2. When you're 700-1,000 feet off the ground...

    Reduce to about 23" of manifold pressure and then reduce the RPM to 2,450 (or 2,300) depending on the plane.

    The POH or Owner's Manual (in my case a 1972 Cessna 182P) simply says Full Power under the Normal Take-Off procedure.

    The reasoning I've heard is to try not to over-stress the engine (whatever that means exactly), but on the flip side, I've heard that if an engine is going to do something funky, it's probably going to happen when you do a power reduction, or otherwise do something.

    I personally want all the power I can have until I'm far enough off the ground to have options if the engine quits or sputters (turn back if high enough, or glide to a suitable spot if not).

    I'm asking is there an "official procedure" as to when you should perform this power reduction (inches off the ground or 700-1,000 feet), and if so, have there been actual studies that say why one way is better than the other, or is this one of those groundless, "endless debates" that are so prevalent in aviation?

  • The "official procedure" is the one dictated in your aircraft's POH/AFM.
    Within the leeway that document gives you (and many of them give you a lot of leeway) this is definitely one of those "endless debate" subjects.


    Personally in a single-engine piston aircraft unless the POH directs otherwise or operational considerations (like an altitude restriction from ATC) require something different I would maintain full power (and all other takeoff settings - fuel pumps, etc.) until reaching 1000-1500 feet AGL (depending on what the terrain and obstacles in the area are like), then configure the aircraft for a reduced-power cruise climb if appropriate.
    Whether or not the first power reduction is a time of increased failure is irrelevant to me - I operate on the assumption that the engine can fail at any time, and should the engine fail (for whatever reason) I want adequate distance between myself and the ground to make some decisions, confirm my landing spot, and prepare myself, my passengers, and the aircraft for whatever is going to happen next.

    1000 feet AGL is my minimum threshold for that sort of activity. It's possible (maybe even likely) that I'm imposing additional wear on the engine in requiring full power for this long, but if the engine decides to fail on climb-out it's not going to matter how "nice" I was being to it on all my previous flights - the only things that are going to matter are my altitude, airspeed, and landing options, and I'm going to want as much altitude and airspeed as I can get to help maximize my landing options!


    There are some conditions where I would reduce power sooner than 1000 feet AGL if necessary - for example, if I can't maintain oil or cylinder head temperatures "in the green" in a full power climb a power reduction (or pitch reduction) to keep those engine parameters happy would be in order.

    There are also some aircraft/engines which have a continuous power restriction (Full throttle operation limited to 3 minutes, maximum continuous power 2400 RPM, or similar admonitions you'd find in your POH). In those cases the restrictions should obviously be observed (the engineers who set the limitations had a good reason for doing so), and observing those requirements may necessitate a power reduction or other configuration changes prior to reaching 1000 feet AGL.


    Finally, I'm not sure what kind of engine is in your hypothetical Cessna but as an additional point of reference Lycoming has this to say about takeoff operations:

    Operating Your Lycoming Engines At Takeoff And Climb

    Because there are a wide variety of Lycoming engines in operation, the paragraphs below may be helpful in understanding the different modes of operation required when operating each type at takeoff and climb power settings. The Pilots Operating Handbook for the aircraft in which the engines are installed should be the final authority as to how the engine should be operated.

    DIRECT DRIVE ENGINES

    Most normally aspirated engines are rated at full power for takeoff and climb indefinitely, provided engine temperatures and pressures are within the green arc area of the engine instruments. Extra fuel, sensible airspeed, and cowl flaps, if available, are all helpful in keeping cylinder head temperatures within desired limits during takeoff or climb.
    Climb requirements may vary; as an example, on a warm day with the airplane close to gross weight, and a direct drive engine with a fixed pitch prop, the pilot will need full throttle all the way to cruise altitude. The same airplane on a cold day and lightly loaded may not require full power for climb. After full throttle at takeoff, the pilot may want to reduce power 100 or 200 RPM and still not see performance suffer. Those direct drive normally aspirated engines with a prop governor are also rated indefinitely at full power, and the manuals all recommend full power for takeoff, but specify a small reduction in power, generally to 85% power climb. Study the specific airplane Pilot's Operating Handbook for detailed power settings.

    (They go on to talk about geared engines and turbocharged/supercharged engines, but your question was about normally-aspirated engines. This is from Lycoming Flyer "Key Reprints" - I grabbed it here but you can Google it up pretty easily, and I imagine Continental has analogous guidance somewhere.)

  • To add to voretaq7's answer: In addition to the desire to gain as much altitude as quickly possible, there is the following consideration: most engine failures happen when the power configuration is changed (a lot of oil is moving through the hub to adjust the rpm, for example), so changing the power should be delayed until you have gained enough altitude for a safe emergency landing (in real life this might not be possible, of course). Thus your second scenario is preferable under normal circumstances.

Related questions and answers
  • ), but on the flip side, I've heard that if an engine is going to do something funky, it's probably going to happen when you do a power reduction, or otherwise do something. I personally want all the power I..." as to when you should perform this power reduction (inches off the ground or 700-1,000 feet), and if so, have there been actual studies that say why one way is better than the other, or is this one...There are two sides I've heard when taking off in a Cessna 182 or other small airplane with a normally aspirated engine driving a constant speed propeller: As soon as your wheels are off

  • I'm from Brazil, and here we use the West/East rule, so we use an odd flight level when we fly between 0/360 - 179, and when we fly between 180 - 359 we fly in an even flight level. But what should you do in other countries? Where I can find those rules? I've heard that in Europe it's totally different, and that in some countries in Asia they use meters, instead of feet. Where can I find this information?

  • When I took delivery of a new Cessna 182T last year, I did a test flight for certification purposes. During the test flight we had to perform a power off stall but that didn't go as planned as it was simply impossible to stall. What happened is this: when the airspeed dropped well below the power off stall speed we simply started to sink slowly with a nose-high attitude at about 35 KIAS. This "mushing" went on for what seemed ages before I eventually applied power and pushed the nose down to gain airspeed again. We tried it again after that and the same thing happened. I had an instructor

  • protect the president whilst in the air? I have heard of TFRs for "VIP in the area" reasons — is that for AF1? I am guessing that the aircraft identification is blocked, but wouldn't they still need... jet was close to Air Force One and was unresponsive to calls. "As we got over Gainesville, Fla., we got the word from Jacksonville Center. They said, 'Air Force One you have traffic behind you and basically above you that is descending into you, we are not in contact with them – they have shut their responder off.' And at that time it kind of led us to believe maybe someone was coming into us

  • Many larger airports (class Bravos) have a landing fee. What's the process for assessing and collecting the fees? How do these landing fees work with general aviation aircraft? Where can I find out what the fee will be? Is it published? How will I be charged the fee? (Pay before leaving the airport, bill sent to my home, etc.) Is the landing fee a flat rate or is it calculated based on aircraft weight or some other factor? I've heard that the landing fee is generally waived if you buy a few gallons of (overpriced) gas at an FBO, is that true? Example scenario: I offer to take a friend up

  • When it comes to operating an aircraft, what are the practical differences between a turbocharged engine and a supercharged engine? I'm aware of the mechanics - turbochargers being exhaust-driven, while superchargers are mechanically driven - so I'm looking for the differences in how pilots need to treat the systems: Do power settings need to be set differently? Are temperatures more of a concern with superchargers? Is it easier or harder to overboost a supercharger? If you do, are there waste gates? Do engines with superchargers need a cool-down period before being shut off? Any other

  • I have a question regarding this Missed Approach Procedure Im in my final approach segment and reach DME 1.1 and the runway is not in sight so I start my Missed approach, how should it be executed? Since I have to hold I'd start a tear drop entry turning to heading 125° and then left turn intercepting 275° course inbound. This option sounds viable to me I first do a right 360° as charted (???) and going to the VOR and then starting probably a parallel entry into the hold. This doesn't sound viable to me Textual description is also clear about that 360° If it 1.) why would they chart

  • on board (which I incorrectly assumed at that point was what QNE meant), again, using "request". Anyway, I've never heard a controller say "request" before, is it just army version of "say"? I'm pretty...I recently had the opportunity to fly a PAR approach into Büchel Airbase in Germany. It was a ton of fun and I'll definitely try it again when I get the chance. However, as we were getting set up for the approach I received the following call (callsign) request heading It caught me off guard, and it took a while but I eventually interpreted it as "say heading" and gave him my current

  • and then maintain straight and level for a good 3 to 5 minutes once you got past 12,000 (so people have oxygen to breathe when they jump). And if you can descend and maintain level flight, you might as well land. But what about in a light, single engine plane (think Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee)? Engine failures in small aircraft, for example, seem to be more common, so you have more... out? It seems like a somewhat practical solution, yet I have never heard of anyone doing it. Why do pilots often try to find a road to land on or a lake to ditch in when trouble strikes instead

  • These are calculations which I use to know when to descend and the Rate: Multiply the ALT of feet to lose by 3 and $Groundspeed\div2\times10$ will give you your required rate of descent for a 3° glide slope. For example: FL350 to FL100 => 25,000 ft down $25\times3=75$, so start at 75 nm GS = 320 kts => $320\div2\times10=1,600$ => -1,600 fpm is your desired rate of descent. How do I calculate without using tangents for degrees, other than 3: 2,5; 4; 5 ...? In my last question I got it wrong, even though through math the answer was correct.

Data information