As I'm part of the air traffic community I'm interested in this must be 500fpm climb crap you Speak of. I've only been in this job for 12 years and have yet to hear of such a thing that the controller will actually make you level of because you climb so bad.
Thanks for not reading my post. I used the word "rule" in quotes for a reason. It was not necessarily a regulation, but it was something that was done by standard. I also never said that ATC would force you to level off. I said it was considered uneconomical if 500fpm could not be maintained. That's from an AIRLINE
standpoint, not an ATC one.
Also, this "rule" still exists. It's even in the AIM -http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... m0404.html
4-4-10. Adherence to Clearance
d. When ATC has not used the term “AT PILOT'S DISCRETION” nor imposed any climb or descent restrictions, pilots should initiate climb or descent promptly on acknowledgement of the clearance. Descend or climb at an optimum rate consistent with the operating characteristics of the aircraft to 1,000 feet above or below the assigned altitude, and then attempt to descend or climb at a rate of between 500 and 1,500 fpm until the assigned altitude is reached. If at anytime the pilot is unable to climb or descend at a rate of at least 500 feet a minute, advise ATC. If it is necessary to level off at an intermediate altitude during climb or descent, advise ATC, except when leveling off at 10,000 feet MSL on descent, or 2,500 feet above airport elevation (prior to entering a Class C or Class D surface area), when required for speed reduction.
When I was working in Ohio and our CV-240's were heavily loaded, they regularly couldn't make more than 300fpm or so in climb due to the use of reduced climb power to account for the 100LL used. They always notified ATC that they were unable to maintain 500fpm and ATC simply acknowledged and made the required adjustments to his flows. Never once am I aware of them being "leveled" by ATC at a lower altitude unless it was for traffic.
Look, I respect that you're an Air Traffic Controller. But you weren't one in 1960. You weren't one in 1970. This is the period I am talking about and why I was clear in stating that. Additionally, I AM
someone who's operated large-displacement radial engines. I also AM
someone who's been through several ground schools for warbird operators who also fly these big radials today. So I AM
fairly well versed on what power settings are used now and what is in the manuals for those airplanes. I am also aware of the why
behind those power settings because that's part of the training. That training is given by guys who've in many cases not only flown the planes in the military, but also flown them with the airlines, so they are quick to point out where the differences in operation are between the two, especially in common types like the R1830 and the R2800. However, even with those differences, many times the engines still had very good reliability because when you put them on a transport, the US military needs them to be reliable just as much as the airlines since those transports are being relied upon to deliver important materiel and personnel in a time critical manner.