Highest elevation airport in Europe, and engine management for takeoff?

I think that Tignes (7,900 ft) is the highest aerodrome that I’ve visited on wheels, with density altitude in excess of 12,000 ft on a hot summer’s day.

Many alpine glaciers are higher, but their DA can be lower in winter.

I lean to “best power” EGT before landing and check rate of climb. If not sufficient, I don’t land. The runway at Tignes is sloping and about 900 ft long so there’s no problem taking off but there’s terrain with ski lifts to avoid on departure.

Peter wrote:

I think the highest I have been to was Salamanca LESA, at around 2590ft.

At that altitude there is no need to do anything special regarding engine management, on a piston aircraft.

Given that Salamanca is in Spain, chances are that temperatures will be well over standard. At a density altitude of above 3000 ft you should generally lean for max rpm/manifold pressure at takeoff if you have a normally aspirated engine.

Samedan is 5600 ft and engine management usually means leaning on take off. However, some engine books say not to lean over 75% power.

I’ve been there several times with the Mooney (O360) and it never was a problem. Set take off power, lean back slightly until max MP and go. Usually the DA there is around 7000-8000 ft.

if you have an engine monitor, the correct way to lean at any high DA take off is:
1. note the EGT at a sea-level take off for any one of the cylinders
2. during the runup at high DA conditions, go full throttle and lean to that EGT value noted in point 1 for that specific cylinder.
that’s the most perfect way to lean properly at any DA irregardless of how high or low.

you just need to do the recording the EGT at a sea-level take off (or as near as possible) once. it becomes the perfect benchmark for take off from anything higher. In my arrow 200 that is about 1390deg F for Cylinder nr 1. That’s what I lean to during high elevation take off. That EGT value is also what I progressively continue to lean to maintain it, during the climb out after any take off.

if you dont have an engine monitor…. honestly I don’t get why people would even consider renting an aircraft without a proper engine monitor.
It is one of those things that should be mandated by regulation instead of all that 8.33 radio BS.

you just need to do the recording the EGT at a sea-level take off (or as near as possible) once. it becomes the perfect benchmark for take off from anything higher. In my arrow 200 that is about 1390deg F for Cylinder nr 1. That’s what I lean to during high elevation take off. That EGT value is also what I progressively continue to lean to maintain it, during the climb out after any take off.

Of course. That‘s the „school method“. The only problem with that is that this is a good thing only if the max fuel flow is set to a proper value by the mechanic. It should yield an EGT which is about 150-200 degrees ROP. If it is leaner, you might harm the engine. If it is richer, you lose power (and waste fuel).

So, the procedure is good, but only if you verify (for the particular AC you fly) that the fuel flow produces a good # of degrees ROP. Unfortunately, in many aircraft, it doesn‘t.

Alternatively, some aircraft have max power fuel flow tables for various density altitudes as a reference. Yesterday, taking off at Samedan, where density alt was about 4000 feet (high pressure and cold), I set mixture to give 24GPH which, as expected yielded EGTs of about 1330, which is about 170 ROP on my aircraft.

f you dont have an engine monitor…. honestly I don’t get why people would even consider renting an aircraft without a proper engine monitor.
It is one of those things that should be mandated by regulation instead of all that 8.33 radio BS.

I agree that it‘s good to have an engine monitor, but why do people always want to mandate things for others??

I’ve never flown a plane with a “proper engine monitor” and may never. My first plane had no electrical system…

One pointer when leaning for take off, particularly with a carb equipped engine, is to use full throttle so as to obtain & remove the additional full throttle enrichment. Lean to max rpm assuming a FP prop. It’s not exactly rocket science, and is a completely accurate indication of best power mixture.

By9468840 wrote:

if you dont have an engine monitor…. honestly I don’t get why people would even consider renting an aircraft without a proper engine monitor. 
It is one of those things that should be mandated by regulation instead of all that 8.33 radio BS.

An oddly specific demand. I’ve never flown an aircraft with a “proper engine monitor” and don’t think there is any reason to “mandate” one. On the contrary, engine monitors are only necessary because so many aircraft engines are ancient technology. A “proper” engine should just work by itself, all the time, without any need for monitoring.

My wife’s Skoda doesn’t even have an oil temp indicator and works flawlessly…this is what GA aircraft should aspire to as well.

My 1946 A-65 worked just fine without any engine controls whatsoever except a throttle. It did have an oil temp and oil pressure gauge, but I cannot recall ever doing anything in response to their indications.

Aircraft engines are basically fixed speed constant power devices, like a stationary engine on a farm. They don’t actually need much of anything complicated to do their job, if you understand the basics of how they work.