Good point. Though I thought it may make a difference when you are trying to get absolute max power out of an engine.

For example there is a considerable improvement in performance of my P210 after going from a 520 to a 550. Both engines are rated at 310hp, yet I have picked up nearly 15kts in cruise at 80% power, and a much better rate of climb.

I don't know where this additional performance comes from. More torque? Crossflow heads?

In any event, I thought the engines may be suitable for the big twins.

Jack- the stakes are a mod that cost $20,000 i believe.. 5-10 its not a game changer.

Good point. Though I thought it may make a difference when you are trying to get absolute max power out of an engine.

For example there is a considerable improvement in performance of my P210 after going from a 520 to a 550. Both engines are rated at 310hp, yet I have picked up nearly 15kts in cruise at 80% power, and a much better rate of climb.

I don't know where this additional performance comes from. More torque? Crossflow heads?

In any event, I thought the engines may be suitable for the big twins.

So I'm assuming winglets would diminish the value of strakes? Or is it the other way around?

Most likely b/c the 550 did not exist circa 1967 or so when Continental began producing motors for the 421. As to just dropping in a 550 now, the angle valve cylinders on the GTSIO probably make that not possible.

RAS

I can't remember the reason at the moment, but there is s very good reason not to do reduced power takeoffs in any turbocharged Continental. I only seem to remember that mechanically something goes over enter in the FCU prohibiting fuel flow. I've been unable to reach the Maintenance a Manager that explained it to me 20 years ago. It was very clearly prohibited by him in our fleet of 15 (GTSIO) aircraft.

Jason

Add one more vote of "thanks" for the owners and operators of 300/400 Cessnas taking the time to post in this thread. Reading it just cost me some real work time today, but what a great read and totally worth it!

Jack- the stakes are a mod that cost $20,000 i believe.. 5-10 its not a game changer.

I can't remember the reason at the moment, but there is s very good reason not to do reduced power takeoffs in any turbocharged Continental. I only seem to remember that mechanically something goes over enter in the FCU prohibiting fuel flow. I've been unable to reach the Maintenance a Manager that explained it to me 20 years ago. It was very clearly prohibited by him in our fleet of 15 (GTSIO) aircraft.

Jason

[/quote]
Ours were $15,300 installed. (APM Strakes).[/quote]
Thanks Martti. Are their performance claims accurate?

Tim,

Shhhhhhhh.... Don't distract them. Besides dukes are pigs and don't fly LOP

Kevin

Tim,

Shhhhhhhh.... Don't distract them. Besides dukes are pigs and don't fly LOP

Kevin

Tim Doreen, you are right there is no reason why it is wrong to make reduced power departures.


No one can up with anything other than OWT's. Or bs they heard. I

Watch the fuel flow as you throttle up. It has never looked linear to me in either my Cirrus or Aerostar. As such, one inch of MP at full power gives a lot more fuel then one inch farther down. So I am fairly certain that reduced power take off you are dramatically affecting the fuel air ratio which likely is reducing how far ROP you are. This may or may not increase the stress on the engine.

Tim

I'm definitely in the "full throttle" camp. In any flat engine airplane, I've always used full throttle to take off and I think it's especially important in a twin - you want to get above blue line as quickly as possible, and if an engine does fail you don't have to adjust the power on the good engine so you have one less thing to do.

However, on the big radials I will use reduced power since it's allowed for in the operating manual. Usually in the T28 I'm around 42-45" but we can go to 51" or more. Also, if we're doing a section takeoff, lead will use slightly less power so that the wingman can keep up...

Robert