Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - flying at what altitude

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

flying at what altitude

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

graeme bird

Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Posts: 434

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:55 pm Post subject: flying at what altitude

I notice it seems to be popular to fly at highish altitudes. I must admit even with an IMC and when I had an IMC legal plane I have always been reluctant to spend the time climbing, feels the winds are stronger higher, the scenery is less interesting and the engine performance is worse. 

On the other hand the air is thinner and maybe the engine performance is not so bad, though its not turbo charged. I may have it wrong, any views?

_________________
Graeme Bird
kit4 (Wagstaff) TBD
Kit3 G-CLXU (Gregory) mono 914 xs Woodcomp
Kit2 G-PATS - (kesterton) Mono Classic 912 warpdrive
Kit 1 G-UMPY - Mono Classic/XS 912S, Woodcomp G(@)gdbmk.co.uk

davidjoyce(at)doctors.org
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:14 pm Post subject: flying at what altitude

Graeme, It is often much more comfortable flying above the 

thermal layer and if you are going a few hundred miles 

then climbing up to 5 or 6 thousand feet may be well 

worthwhile. Winds at that level are often much the same as 

at 2000ft., but with a GPS giving you ground speed you can 

always check you re not getting increased headwinds. If 

you have a 914 then you actually save a fair amount of 

fuel, although this is not the case with non turbocharged 

engines.

Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ



On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:55:09 -0700

  "graeme bird" <graeme(at)gdbmk.co.uk> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

<graeme(at)gdbmk.co.uk>

 

 I notice it seems to be popular to fly at highish 

altitudes. I must admit even with an IMC and when I had 

an IMC legal plane I have always been reluctant to spend 

the time climbing, feels the winds are stronger higher, 

the scenery is less interesting and the engine 

performance is worse. 

 On the other hand the air is thinner and maybe the 

engine performance is not so bad, though its not turbo 

charged. I may have it wrong, any views?

 

 --------

 Graeme Bird

 G-UMPY

 Mono 912S/Woodcomp 3000/3W

 Newby: 55 hours 1 year 

 g(at)gdbmk.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399386#399386

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Un/Subscription,

Forums!

Admin.

paul.the.aviator(at)gmail
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:42 pm Post subject: flying at what altitude

Graeme, 



I have a 914 so I guess its a bit different for me. If I am going any distance I always climb.  Since I have put oxygen in the airplane I often cruise in the 10~12,000 range, even higher if the winds are favorable. For sure it scenery isn't as interesting, but I nearly always get a smooth ride which keeps "her indoors happy"

 

With the turbo I get to enjoy the advantage of DA so if I am not pushing into the wind it can be  a pretty quick ride.

 



Cheers, Paul



  [quote][b]

max8992

Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 142

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:29 pm Post subject: flying at what altitude

Flying is a compromise! So you have to balance quality of air and engine

performance, wind stengh and direction and TAS, scenery and comfort, time to

climb and time to descent... Each flight is different and that is why we fly

!



Max  Cointe

mcointe(at)free.fr

F-PMLH Europa XS_TriGear

Kit #560-2003 912ULS/AirmasterAP332 450 hours



F-PLDJ Dyn’Aéro MCR 4S 

Kit #27-2002 912ULSFR/MTProp MTV7A 1550 heures

-----Message d'origine-----

De : owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com] De la part de graeme bird

Envoyé : jeudi 25 avril 2013 22:55

À : europa-list(at)matronics.com

Objet : flying at what altitude






I notice it seems to be popular to fly at highish altitudes. I must admit

even with an IMC and when I had an IMC legal plane I have always been

reluctant to spend the time climbing, feels the winds are stronger higher,

the scenery is less interesting and the engine performance is worse. 

On the other hand the air is thinner and maybe the engine performance is not

so bad, though its not turbo charged. I may have it wrong, any views?



--------

Graeme Bird

G-UMPY

Mono 912S/Woodcomp 3000/3W

Newby: 55 hours 1 year 

g(at)gdbmk.co.uk





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399386#399386

_________________
Max8992
Europa XS #560 F-PMLH

h&jeuropa

Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 650

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:06 am Post subject: Re: flying at what altitude

Graeme,



We agree with all the above and add that altitude gives you more landing options in case of a problem - more potential landing sites and more time to figure out your course of action.



Jim & Heather

N241BW

XS Mono 914

budyerly(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:29 am Post subject: flying at what altitude

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  My two sense (since I really don't want to work on what I should be) if you  have a 914 you climb better so we normally use that to our advantage.  A  short wing at 1370 lbs from TO takes 15-20 minutes to level off at  12,000.   Fuel used 2.5 gallons start, taxi, TO to L/O.  

 A similarly equipped 912S will take 25-30 minutes and 3.5 gallons.   Both climbing at 90 KIAS ish. 

 Once level, figure your true airspeed (nominally about 10 Kts between the  two engines) and the difference in climb distance to cruise and I have found the  optimum altitude for best range to be nominally 8500-9500 for a 2.5 hour  trip.  No oxygen required either engine.  

  

 But then again, I have a 2.5 hour bladder any more, plus I get bored.   The plane just flies too well.  In the 914 I go 270-300 miles, and in a  similar 912S I go 250-270 and on landing, put 10 gallons in the tank and drain  my bladder.

  

 In Florida, the tops of the bumpers on a nice day are about 8500, and  it is nice to cruise climb a bit higher to 10.5.  Pull the throttle  back to 68% and 4.6 GPH once level then plan a long slow descent, your fuel  usage is quite low and you can do the 2.5 hour trip at or near 35MPG truing  about 127 ish.  If I pick up the speed my milage drops to  25-30MPG (even in a trigear) truing a bit faster and climbing higher is done for  comfort only, not economy.  Each plane and engine prop combination has to  be tested for optimum cruise performance.  Some of our birds are draggy and  built for fun, and others are stripped down speed merchants with extended range  tanks and pilots with tight urinary tract control.

  

 The new 912iS appears to be the ticket.  I'll wait a bit for them to  figure out maintenance, injector cleaning, etc.  Then the extra fuel  savings of the iS may be able to put more legs on the trip and frankly better  efficiency for the normally aspirated engine.

  

 I refuse to get into a contest on which engine is better.  Your flying  desires, density altitude operation, personal stomach for maintenance costs, and  type of aircraft all affect a subjective decision.  I hate my 914 (except  when it behaves), and I hate the 912S (when shaking on start and stop).  I  love and hate both these engines and the new engines (UL, MW, Jabiru) so I do  not descriminate, I hate them all, except when I love them. 

  

 Bud

  

 [quote]   ---

paul.the.aviator(at)gmail
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:09 pm Post subject: flying at what altitude

Yep, I hate my 914 too except when it behaves  



It's a bit my kids, when there good they are really good, and when they are bad they are REALLY bad 

 



do not archive





 



_____________________________________

  

[quote]   

 I refuse to get into a contest on which engine is better.  Your flying  desires, density altitude operation, personal stomach for maintenance costs, and  type of aircraft all affect a subjective decision.  I hate my 914 (except  when it behaves), and I hate the 912S (when shaking on start and stop).  I  love and hate both these engines and the new engines (UL, MW, Jabiru) so I do  not descriminate, I hate them all, except when I love them. 

  

 Bud 

[b]

jeff(at)rmmm.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:21 pm Post subject: flying at what altitude

I have a dog and a middle daughter like that... But my new 912ULS is so far perfect all the time!!!!! Like a sewing machine!



 Jeff R. N128LJ Gold Rush / FOR SALE



 



Do not archive!

 

On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:

[quote]Yep, I hate my 914 too except when it behaves  



It's a bit my kids, when there good they are really good, and when they are bad they are REALLY bad 

 



do not archive





 



_____________________________________

  

 	  Quote: 	
		     

 I refuse to get into a contest on which engine is better.  Your flying  desires, density altitude operation, personal stomach for maintenance costs, and  type of aircraft all affect a subjective decision.  I hate my 914 (except  when it behaves), and I hate the 912S (when shaking on start and stop).  I  love and hate both these engines and the new engines (UL, MW, Jabiru) so I do  not descriminate, I hate them all, except when I love them. 

  

 Bud 





href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
[b]

davidjoyce(at)doctors.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:53 pm Post subject: flying at what altitude

Bud, All good stuff, except what's with the 2.5 hr 

bladder? Those of us who have come to power flying via 

gliding dream of those rare days(rare in the UK that is) 

when you can glide in style for 7 or 8 hrs. Glider Pilot's 

bladders are no different. They just use a pee tube or a 

bottle - in fact I thought that was what the space under 

the L thigh rest was designed for!

Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ



On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:28:51 -0400

  "Bud Yerly" <budyerly(at)msn.com> wrote:

[quote] My two sense (since I really don't want to work on what 

I should be) if you have a 914 you climb better so we 

normally use that to our advantage.  A short wing at 1370 

lbs from TO takes 15-20 minutes to level off at 12,000. 

  Fuel used 2.5 gallons start, taxi, TO to L/O.  

 A similarly equipped 912S will take 25-30 minutes and 

3.5 gallons.  Both climbing at 90 KIAS ish. 

 Once level, figure your true airspeed (nominally about 

10 Kts between the two engines) and the difference in 

climb distance to cruise and I have found the optimum 

altitude for best range to be nominally 8500-9500 for a 

2.5 hour trip.  No oxygen required either engine.  

 

 But then again, I have a 2.5 hour bladder any more, plus 

I get bored.  The plane just flies too well.  In the 914 

I go 270-300 miles, and in a similar 912S I go 250-270 

and on landing, put 10 gallons in the tank and drain my 

bladder.

 

 In Florida, the tops of the bumpers on a nice day are 

about 8500, and it is nice to cruise climb a bit higher 

to 10.5.  Pull the throttle back to 68% and 4.6 GPH once 

level then plan a long slow descent, your fuel usage is 

quite low and you can do the 2.5 hour trip at or near 

35MPG truing about 127 ish.  If I pick up the speed my 

milage drops to 25-30MPG (even in a trigear) truing a bit 

faster and climbing higher is done for comfort only, not 

economy.  Each plane and engine prop combination has to 

be tested for optimum cruise performance.  Some of our 

birds are draggy and built for fun, and others are 

stripped down speed merchants with extended range tanks 

and pilots with tight urinary tract control.

 

 The new 912iS appears to be the ticket.  I'll wait a bit 

for them to figure out maintenance, injector cleaning, 

etc.  Then the extra fuel savings of the iS may be able 

to put more legs on the trip and frankly better 

efficiency for the normally aspirated engine.

 

 I refuse to get into a contest on which engine is 

better.  Your flying desires, density altitude operation, 

personal stomach for maintenance costs, and type of 

aircraft all affect a subjective decision.  I hate my 914 

(except when it behaves), and I hate the 912S (when 

shaking on start and stop).  I love and hate both these 

engines and the new engines (UL, MW, Jabiru) so I do not 

descriminate, I hate them all, except when I love them. 

 

 Bud

 

  ---

budyerly(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:30 pm Post subject: flying at what altitude

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  David

 I guess we are not all blessed with appendages that reach out the window or  far enough out of our pants to pee lying down...

 I do not love flying enough not to enjoy a good FBO and the joy of meeting  and talking to new people at different airports.  The prostate issues  are just and excuse.  Cruising for hours in a powered plane cannot be as  much fun as gliding and conquering mother nature for a few hours, hence I  understand you perfectly. 

  

 Bud

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum