Yeah, I know, not everyone "buys into" the idea that shock cooling is real (and I have questions about it too since the sudden change in temperature happens the other way every time the engine is started). I'm sure rain cooled the cylinder fins a bit, but rain and snow seem to be about the same temperature as the air I'm flying through, so I didn't often see a huge drop on my CHT's even with the evaporative loss that I'm sure was happening.
Just wondering if the big radial are more or less susceptible.

Yeah, I know, not everyone "buys into" the idea that shock cooling is real (and I have questions about it too since the sudden change in temperature happens the other way every time the engine is started). I'm sure rain cooled the cylinder fins a bit, but rain and snow seem to be about the same temperature as the air I'm flying through, so I didn't often see a huge drop on my CHT's even with the evaporative loss that I'm sure was happening.
Just wondering if the big radial are more or less susceptible.

Yeah, I know, not everyone "buys into" the idea that shock cooling is real (and I have questions about it too since the sudden change in temperature happens the other way every time the engine is started). I'm sure rain cooled the cylinder fins a bit, but rain and snow seem to be about the same temperature as the air I'm flying through, so I didn't often see a huge drop on my CHT's even with the evaporative loss that I'm sure was happening.
Just wondering if the big radial are more or less susceptible.

Boo on the whiners

Boo on the whiners

Boo on the whiners

It's not the temperature of the rain (or snow), it's something called the latent heat of vaporization.

When you look at how much heat a single raindrop absorbs when it splats on a cylinder head and sizzles, changing from liquid to steam (not counting any temperature rise) and you compare it to how much heat that cooling air absorbs as it passes through the cooling fins and along the rest of a piston engine, a couple raindrops absorb about as much heat as every cubic foot of dry cooling air- and even a light rain has several raindrops per cubic foot.

But as you mentioned, engine cooling is a lot more complicated than just the air that's passing through the cooling fins.

FAA has written on the overhead subject, I'll attach below. It's legal. I've flown it solo and in formation of 2-4 and upwards of 40 aircraft. All of this civilian aircraft, Yak, CJ6, T-6, Marchetti, T34, bonanza. It is quick to get formations on the ground and safe when flown correctly. The 45deg entry is safe if flown correctly and unsafe if not flown correctly.

Some aircraft T-34, etc. cruise at high speed relative to flap/gear extension speed. The Overhead allows them to make the turn to downwind (level 50-60deg level turn is in the PPL test standards right?) and reduce airspeed to gear/flap extension. Not going to get into shock cooling debates. But you go from cruise power to low power, drop gear/flaps, and are back on the power to maintain 90kts so shock cooling is not an issue.

Add that the solo OH is a great training maneuver for engine outs. Flown well with good energy management you are basically practicing for an engine out to full landing.

I'm not surprised this is on the 10th page, there is a lot back and forth which doesn't surprise me as I've heard both sides for over 25 years. I know there are more than a few at BeechTalk who fly the overhead regularly that are just not going to join in on the conversation. Also I've had more than 1 CFI/II call me out on the radio for the OH being illegal and unsafe to backoff when I show the attached FAA letter.

Can we agree that there are rude and unsafe pilots flying straight in, standard 45deg entry to downwind, OH, and other methods of getting on the ground? And can we agree there are safe, well mannered pilots flying all the approaches?

At a non-towered airport, I'll call 10 and 5 miles out for the 3 mile initial to the Overhead. I'll call at the 3 mile initial. Now, I've been on freq for a while and I'm listening for traffic and will adjust and mention that on the radio.

If there are people in the pattern I'll work around them. I'll come over the numbers at pattern altitude so I'm 800+ feet from someone short final. I'll look for non-radio planes as I move from initial to over the numbers and if there is someone not speaking on the radio I'll break behind them and call it on the radio.. If there are people in downwind, I'll break behind them and call it on the radio. It is about fitting in and as someone else said, not hitting anything. If it doesn't work, I'll divert and enter some other way.

Rigid flexibility is the key to success.

BTW, I've flown formation into and out of FDK for years. It happens.

I try and respect how others want to fly their planes, straight in, straight and level, 45deg to downwind, descending teardrop into downwind, etc. I just ask the same in return. I'll communicate and work around others in the pattern.

No, it's actually, "...approximately a 45° bank...±5°."

Commercial is approximately 50° bank ±5°

Still and all, your well-reasoned and safe approach to executing the overhead maneuver won't be enough to convince those who don't know what they don't know.

BWTHDIK

Nice description of who was behind, with, and ahead of the airplane.

Slightly off topic, but I find flying a "rounded" turn from downwind to final seems more natural in a pattern in a Bonanza.

Do you guys square your base and final turns?

It's mentioned a lot that the overhead is used by warbirds. Piston not jet.

How does the sudden power reduction work out with reverse loading the gearbox or master rod in a radial or inline engine? I always was taught to avoid this condition. And with the 421, Queenair, Beech 18 I made sure I kept the engines pulling or under positive load until very short final or the landing flare. Master rod failure from the crankshaft

Same for thrust bearings in big Lycoming or Continental singles. I was always taught wherever possible keep from reverse loading the crankshaft. Has this been proven to not be needed?

Even with turboprops I'm usually always in this condition until landing flare.

Most propellor planes have enormous energy bleed rates under G. It doesn't take very much to slow them down to gear speed, even at higher power settings. Also, since it's downhill from initial to the break, one does not necessarily need to be at WOT to make the break look good.

At least in the 28, I don’t go “flight idle”. Just pull the power back to 20” or so and it works out great.

Using Gs to load up the airframe and slow it down is one of the benefits of the break. It lets you slow down without having to pull power way back. I can go from 200+ to 140 by reducing power (but not ‘under boosting’) and doing 180 degrees of turn at 50-60 degrees of bank. 140 is my gear and flap speed.

Robert

this is great....no more base to final stalls.