Shock Cooling in a PA46

We’ve all heard it said…”reduce the throttle by no more than 1-inch every minutes to ensure you don’t shock-cool your engine”. Does this advice apply to a PA46 engine? Can a PA46 engine (Lycoming 540 or Continental 520/550) really be shock-cooled? How should the engine temperature be managed?

Metals expand and contract with temperature, and the various metals in an air-cooled aviation engine expand and contract at a different rates. Shock-cooling supposedly occurs when the engine changes temperature quickly and the different metals in the engine cool (and therefore change shape) at different rates. When the change occurs dramatically supposed scoring, rubbing, and marking of the metal can occur, which can cause catastrophic results.

So, let’s back to the original question…can a PA46 engine suffer shock-cooling and should a pilot operate the engine so as to avoid shock cooling? Simply put, I’ve never seen nor heard of any piston PA46 engine suffer shock-cooling. In 5000+ hours flying the piston PA46 and 16 years of flying/managing/training in the Malibu/Mirage/Matrix, it simply has not happened to me nor anyone I know. Does it mean that it cannot happen or has never happened? No. But, it is certainly not a prolific threat to our fleet.

Should the owner/pilot operate the engine with a cautious eye cast toward the potential of shock cooling? Well, sort of…but, let’s flesh this out. My suggestion is that a pilot should operate the engine with conservatism in movement of temperature, but only because this is a good operating practice with any machine, and any flying machine is (by definition) not “overbuilt”. And, there are many ways to change the temperature of the engine…not just by reducing power. Here’s a partial list of ways to cool your PA46 engine:

  • Reduce power: Obvious…yes. When the engine produces less power, less heat is generated. Reducing power in a piston engine will almost always result in less temperature.
  • Lower the nose: By descending (and leaving power in a cruise setting) the airspeed will increase and cool the engine.
  • Enrichen the mixture: Fuel has a cooling effect on the engine, so the richer the mixture the cooler the engine.
  • Lower the landing gear: Yes…you read that right…engine cooling will occur when you lower the landing gear because more air will flow over the cylinders. Notice the landing gear doors on the PA46 have air louvers. Air flows into the engine nacelle on the front, passes down through the cylinders (along with the oil cooler, intercoolers, and other components) and then out the louvers of the closed gear doors. When the landing gear is lowered the “back door is opened” and a LOT more airflows over the cylinders.

My suggestion is that a pilot only perform ONE of these actions at a time when beginning a descent. This suggestion was presented to me by Chad Menne (Owner, Malibu Aerospace) some time ago and I’ve operated engines this way ever since. If you are at a higher altitude and simultaneously reduced the power, lowered the landing gear, started a big descent, and enrichened the mixture in one flail swoop, I think there’s a chance that your engine would suffer some negative effects that could be called “shock cooling”. So, when you do start a descent, pick one “cooling action” to accomplish at a time. I’m sure you’ll not hurt your engine.

Simply put, shock cooling is not a huge factor in the PA46 community, and a PA46 pilot does not need to be overly cautious. The “one inch per minute” rule may apply in some other airframes, but in the PA46 world it is not applicable.

Joe Casey’s aviation story began in 1990 with his first flight near Nacogdoches, TX in a Cessna 172. From lift-off, Joe knew he would have a lifetime passion flying just about anything that will leave the ground…He was completely hooked.

Along with being an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE), Joe is an ATP/CFI-AHMG and Commercial Rotorcraft/Glider Pilot in the civilian world and also a UH-60/AH-64 Pilot-in-Command/Instructor/Examiner Pilot in the US Army Reserves.  His passion for the last 19 years, however, has been the PA-46 Malibu/Mirage/Matrix/Jetprop/Meridian. Has has amassed over 6,500 hours in various PA-46 airframes and believe it to be one of the finest flying machines available for the serious cross-country pilot with an eye for efficiency.

Now, Joe has flown more than 12,200 hours in just about every imaginable environment. Whether providing initial/recurrent training in the PA-46’s, TBM’s, instructing in NVG’s in a UH-60 Blackhawk, flying the King Air series of airplanes, giving tailwheel endorsements, or taking kids flying for the first time, he simply loves flying machines and the people who fly them.

Similar Posts

  • The Avidyne Equipped Cirrus Upgrade

    A History Lesson

    11 years ago, in April of 2009, the Avidyne Corporation unveiled the much bally-hooed Release 9, or R9 as it is commonly known, as a hardware replacement for the Avidyne EX5000 Entegra system in Cirrus Aircraft. The Entegra system was way outdated by that point. Even though Avidyne was the first company to put together a glass PFD in a single engine piston airplane, the company had quickly fallen behind Garmin in keeping up with the ever changing technology landscape.

    Rewind to 2008. Cirrus had been going strong with the Avidyne Entegra since the SR20 and SR22 went to full glass in 2003 (a PFD and an MFD; prior to that, Cirrus aircraft only had an MFD with steam gauges and a Sandel Electronic HSI). Cessna, on the other hand, vaulted past the Avidyne Entegra and went straight to the Garmin G1000 in it’s aircraft, starting in 2004 with the 182 G1000 and 2005 with the 172 G1000. Beechcraft and Columbia went to the G1000 (Columbia started with the Avidyne as well) in 2005.

    Garmin’s technology in 2007 was so much better than Avidyne’s technology that Cirrus decided to switch. I’m sure there were many promises made by Avidyne to Cirrus about what Avidyne was working on (the R9), but the G1000 was out there, available, and being used in a lot of different airplanes with very good results.

    So, in 2008, Cirrus made the switch from the Avidyne Entegra to the Garmin G1000, dubbing it the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin avionics package. Avidyne finally got the R9 to market in 2009, but by that time, Piper was the only airplane manufacturer left putting factory Avidyne panels in their airplanes, and they switched to G1000 later that year.

    The R9 is a fabulous product. It’s fully integrated, has great graphics, has fully redundant displays, a QWERTY keypad (which, by the way, Garmin didn’t do for another 8 years), and a lot of other neat features. There’s a bit of a learning curve, but it’s a really good product for what it is.

    Avidyne, though, was late to the game with their technology. By the time it debuted in 2009, all the GA aircraft manufacturers had long since switched to the Garmin G1000 and weren’t looking back. That left Avidyne with the retrofit market for the many different Avidyne Entegra Cirrus aircraft out there. The only problem was, the retrofit was $80,000 ($95,000 if you wanted to throw in the DFC 100 Autopilot, which is a must have) and not many owners were up for paying that much money, then or now.

    To sum up our brief history lesson, Avidyne knew the Entegra needed to go, but couldn’t get the R9 out quickly enough to convince anyone to stick with Avidyne products. The retrofit market didn’t amount to many sales, so Avidyne doesn’t even make the R9 anymore.

    As a side note, I really, really like the Avidyne R9 and am sad that it didn’t make it into more airplanes.

    So, when the Avidyne Entegra starts to have issues, what’s an owner to do? Keep reading!

    There is Hope

    There are thousands of Cirrus aircraft out there flying with the Avidyne Entegra instrumentation, which is basically 20 year old technology (I’ve had a computer engineer tell me the programming in an Entegra is Windows 98 tech). These things are going to start having problems at some point (many already have), but what solution do owners have that is cost effective and get’s them new technology?

    Remember that little company named Garmin? Well, they have come through again. Announced this summer, the Garmin G500 TXi is now certified as a replacement in the Cirrus Avidyne Entegra equipped aircraft. This means pulling out both the PFD and MFD and replacing them with the G500 TXi on both sides. Engine data is also displayed on the G500TXi MFD, including the percent power and TIT indications, if equipped.

    Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens and Dual Garmin GTN 650Xi GPS Units

    The cost for the panel? Two 10.6″ G500 TXi’s run about $16,000 apiece for the units, not including labor. $32,000 for a brand new panel isn’t terrible. Plus, the G500 TXi’s work with the DFC90 autopilot if the Cirrus is already equipped with it. If not, the Garmin GFC 500 autopilot is now approved for the Cirrus at a relatively low price of $7,000, including the servos.

    Still have the original Garmin 430s in your Cirrus? Upgraded to the Avidyne IFD 540/440 stack? Put in dual GTN 650Xi’s? Put in a GTN 750Xi? All are compatible with the G500 TXi panel.

    Want to upgrade everything? It does get kind of pricey at that point, but for just equipment, the cost for a complete panel conversion is somewhere in the area of $65,000 plus labor, still below what the R9 cost, but not cheap either. That would include 2 G500 TXi’s, 2 GTN 650Xi’s, a GFC 500 Autopilot, and all the engine monitoring equipment that the G500 TXi would need.

    Cirrus SR22 Equipped with Dual G500 TXi Screens, a GTN 750Xi, and a GTN 650Xi

    Thankfully, some new technology has finally come to the Generation 1-3 Cirrus. Oh, and by the way, your steam gauge Cirrus is fully upgradable as well.

    Want to read more? Check out Garmin’s website.

  • The Importance of Transition Training

    In September, the FAASTeam at the San Antonio FSDO put a special emphasis on transition training (AOPA put out a free course last year covering general transition training topics).  A lot of pilots don’t understand the need for transition training or what it even entails.

    Transition training deals mainly with piston engine aircraft, regardless of whether the airplane is a single or twin.  The FAA doesn’t have any special requirements for changing from one piston engine airplane to another, as long as the pilot has the appropriate endorsements (high performance, complex, high altitude, etc.) and is rated in that category and class.

    Transition training is promoted mostly by insurance companies. An insurance company looks at a pilots experience when deciding to insure him or her in a new airplane.  If the pilot has only flown Cherokees and Comanches and is now upgrading to a Malibu, then the insurance company is going to require some transition training with a knowledgable instructor.

    What is transition training?  It is when an appropriate rated pilot needs to learn how to fly a different airplane.  These are referred to commonly as checkouts, but with more complicated airplanes, the training is actually very in depth.

    Using the example above, Pilot A just sold his Comanche 260 and bought a 1987 Malibu.  Pilot A says, “A Malibu is a complex, high performance, single engine piston, which is what I had in my Comanche.  I can fly that, no problem.”  In reality, a Malibu has a lot of differences.

    pa46-transition-training

    First, there are more systems in a Malibu.  You have pressurization, air conditioning, emergency oxygen, turbo charging, and possibly radar.  Not to mention you are dealing with a Continental engine instead of a Lycoming.  And, is it a factory TSIO 520 or a converted 550?  2, 3, or 4 blade prop?  Glass panel or steam gauges?  What kind of autopilot?  Plus, it’s a much heavier airplane so it’s going to fly different, have different rotation and landing speeds and handle differently in stalls.  What’s the sight picture supposed to be on final approach?  What are the emergency procedures?

    Overwhelmed yet?

    An experienced, insurance approved instructor and training program is a necessity when getting into new airplanes.  It makes for safe pilots and safer skies.

    Texas Top Aviation offers Cirrus Transition Training as well as Bonanza Transition Training and Columbia/Corvalis Transition Training.  We are working on an insurance approved Piper PA 46 piston transition course as well (Malibu and Mirage) and will have the course approved by the end of 2016.  Contact us today to schedule your transition training.

  • Cirrus SR22 Partnership in Houston

    Ever wanted to be a Cirrus owner, but the economics of being a single owner just don’t make sense for you? If you’re in the Houston area, you now have a chance to join a Cirrus SR22 partnership at the West Houston Airport, KIWS.

    The group, CirrusShare, is a 4 member group, but one of the members is looking to sell his share.  The airplane is a 2007 G3 SR22.  It is in excellent condition, with dual WAAS 430s and air conditioning.

    If you would be interested, please contact Texas Top Aviation for more information.

    N578AG

     

  • Lightspeed Zulu 2 vs. The Bose A20

    The debate about which headset is the better product will never cease.  We do know this for sure, though, Lightspeed and Bose make the best noise canceling headsets out there.  David Clark’s offering doesn’t match up with these two.  Newcomer AKG has a light (weight-wise that is, as the headset is equipped with a pair of LED lights as well) ANR headset that the jury is still out on.  For now, Lightspeed and Bose sit atop the ANR kingdom.

    The comparison for this article will be between the Lightspeed Zulu 2 and the Bose A20 headsets, both of which I have used quite extensively in my flying career.  I am officially in the Lighspeed camp at this point and after reading my comparison below, you’ll see why.

    ANR Functionality

    Bose A20

    Between the two, the Bose A20 cancels out more noise, no argument there.  This isn’t to say that the Lightspeed Zulu 2 doesn’t.  Quite the opposite, actually.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 does a great job of canceling the noise.  But with the A20 on in a C172, you can barely hear the engine running.  The difference before you press the power button and after is extremely noticeable.  I had one client turn to me after turning on the noise canceling function of his new A20 headset and state, “These things are awesome!”

    The other advantage Bose has is a continuation of the noise canceling.  About the only thing I don’t like about the Lightspeed is if you don’t have the headset sized just right on your head, each time you turn your head to look at something, then the suction gets broken around the ear cup and you get some ambient noise.  My glasses probably don’t help with this.  It’s not that big of a deal, you just have to readjust the size of the headset, but, since I’m a little OCD, it bugs me.  Once I get the set sized right, it’s smooth sailing.

    Comfort

    Lightspeed Zulu 2

    Far and away, the Lightspeed Zulu 2 is much more comfortable than the Bose A20.   I flew for 5 hours in the right seat with my Lightspeed set on the other day.  I switched to the left seat for the last leg and used the owner’s A20 headset since it was plugged in on that side already and I noticed quite a bit of difference.  The ear cups seemed to press against my head more.  The pad on top of my head didn’t seem to be as cushiony.  It just wasn’t overall as comfortable as the Lightspeed Zulu 2.

    Bose has made a lot of progress from their original noise canceling headsets.  Those didn’t have much of a cushion on top at all.  After about 2.5 hours, the slim ear cushions began to dig in to the side of your head.  So, the A20 has made some progress, but the Lightspeed Zulu 2 takes the cake in comfort.

    Weight Distribution

    “Wait!”  You Bose boys scream (no pun intended).  “The A20 is lighter than the Zulu 2!”  While this is true (the Zulu 2 weighs in at 15.7 oz while the A20 is only 12 oz), the way that weight is distributed makes a massive amount of difference.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 feels lighter on top of your noggin than the A20 because the weight of the A20 is firmly planted on the top of your head in a single point.  With the Zulu 2, the weight is distributed evenly across the top of your scalp, so even though the set is heavier, it feels lighter on your head because the weight is not all concentrated on one point.

    All this adds up to why I like the Lightspeed Zulu 2 more than the Bose A20.  As for a practical example, I wore my Lightspeed Zulu 2 set for 9.1 hours one day two weeks ago.  Needless to say, it was a long day.  But, once I climbed out of the airplane, I had no pain on the top of my head and only a very little where my glasses ran along the side of my head.  Now I call that a winner.

  • Dallas Airspace Changes

    As was the case with the Class B Airspace around Houston several months ago, the Class B Dallas airspace has been overhauled as well.  These changes were implemented at the last database update on September 18th.  If you’ll be flying into any of the Dallas airspace airports IFR, make sure you have current charts and your GPS databases are updated.

    According to AOPA, 14 SIDs and STARs were deleted, a number of new procedures were added, and changes were made to most of the other remaining procedures.  The new procedures in the Dallas airspace consist mainly of RNAV procedures for turboprops and jets, so most GA aircraft won’t be affected by those.  The legacy procedures that remained in place over went changes, including new frequencies, so piston aircraft going into the Dallas airspace are still affected.

    From AOPA, departures from Dallas Love (KDAL) that file their flight plan with special equipment /G in their flight plan will automatically be given an RNAV departure procedure.  This does not appear to affect piston aircraft as all the new RNAV SIDs in the Dallas airspace are for turboprops or turbojets.

    The reason for the changes to the Dallas airspace?  Similar to the changes in Houston, these airspace changes are meant to streamline departures and arrivals in the Dallas airspace area, reduce controller workload, and give continuous descent angles for arriving high altitude traffic.

    Don’t be surprised the next time you are in the Dallas airspace area if you receive a clearance that states:  “Descend via the arrival.”  In that case, just check the chart and aim for the appropriate altitudes at the appropriate fixes.  As we move closer to the ADS-B requirement, I believe we will see more and more of these terminal procedure overhauls, so be prepared and keep those charts and databases up to date.

  • 3 Tips to Better Landings

    In my 3,000+ hours of flight training, I have developed some tips and tricks to help people fly better.  With teaching landings, I have 3 specific tips that will make smoother landings every time, guaranteed.

    A Good Pattern

    A wise flight instructor whom I would love to give credit to (but don’t know who it is!) once said that a good landing starts off with a good traffic pattern.  So true!  A good landing all begins with the setup.  This is true for a VFR rectangular traffic pattern or an IFR instrument approach.  Flying the proper speeds and being at the proper AGL altitudes helps immensely in making a good landing. Being at 600 feet AGL on a 1/2 mile final (or the alternative of 60 feet off the ground on a mile final!) makes it hard to make a good landing.

    Proper Use & Understanding of Pitch and Power

    Once flaps are used in the pattern, the plane is now on the back side of the power curve (or in the region of reverse command).  Power is now being used to control the plane’s rate of descent while pitch is being used to control airspeed.  The key is, both pitch and power work together, so if the pilot changes the power, he’ll also need to change the pitch and vice versa.

    The common mistake I see here is when the airplane gets low on final, the pilot tends to (quite naturally) pitch up.  All this does is bleed off airspeed and cause the airplane to sink faster.  The proper input would be to add power, then adjust the pitch for airspeed.

    Look Down the Runway

    Now that we have gotten to the point of the round-out and touchdown, it’s the most important part.  The best thing the pilot can do to make the best landing possible, is to look at the trees at the end of the runway.  When I worked with college students, I told them to find the owl in the trees at the end of the runway.

    The tendency is to stare at the pavement (or concrete) the whole way down to the landing.  When a pilot’s eyes are fixated on the ground, this destroys his depth perception and causes a level off too low to the runway, resulting in a 3 point landing and/or a bounce.

    By looking at the trees at the end of the runway, this gives the pilot much better depth perception and allows him to properly judge where to level off the airplane.

    The question now is when should the pilot start looking at the trees?  My recommendation is crossing the threshold of the runway.  For some, it works better to start looking at the trees when turning final.  Others, right before the level off.  Regardless, find that owl!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *