Value of a knot

[Dude]

I got an idea from a recent thread.

I would like to know what you guys would spend to go a little faster. This
would seem to be interesting information, and a fun topic.

Please note the present speed of your plane, because 5 knots means a lot
more at 100 than 200.

Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when I am
not.

I know the people selling the mods often over advertise, but lets assume we
know the real increase of a given mod from an expert. What's it worth to
you?

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Dude > wrote:
>Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
>likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when I am
>not.

They're probably not worth much of anything until you're talking about
airplanes with stock speeds in the 160kt+ range. That seems to be the
speed aircraft designers can easily get by going to 250-300hp. Getting
beyond that requires smarter aerodynamics.

For example, the price difference between a similar vintage Piper
Cherokee 235 and Comanche 250 is $10-15,000 (based on a quick look
at TAP). If you put $15,000 worth of speed mods (ie all of them) on
a 235 it still doesn't go as fast. The same is probably true of the
Warrior -> 235 upgrade.

Once your stock speed is up around 160kt it might cost less to add STCs
than to upgrade to a faster model, but the returns have diminished
significantly. I'm not aware of any combination of mods that take a
160kt stock airplane and give you 180kts (with the possible exception
of an aftermarket turbo, if any still exist). Even that only saves you
20 minutes on a 3 hour trip.

If you're flying long distances and want to cut the total time, the most
cost effective way is to carry enough fuel that you don't have to stop.
If you can cut a 30 minute fuel stop out of a C-172 flightplan it's like
adding 15kts.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Aaron Coolidge]

Dude > wrote:
: I got an idea from a recent thread.

: I would like to know what you guys would spend to go a little faster. This
: would seem to be interesting information, and a fun topic.

This isn't really what you asked, but its been bothering me for a while.
The most cost-effective speed mod that I have ever seen is:
Ram air knob on an '83 Mooney 201. It adds 0.5 to 0.75 inches of MP at
full throttle, and is worth 3 knots. My friend, the owner of the Mooney,
won't bother using it because "It's too much trouble, and it's not worth it".

I keep reminding him that us Cherokee owners spend over $3000 to get a 3-knot
increase, and he can have the same for FREE!

--
Aaron Coolidge

[[email protected]]

On 6-Sep-2004, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

> If you're flying long distances and want to cut the total time, the most
> cost effective way is to carry enough fuel that you don't have to stop.
> If you can cut a 30 minute fuel stop out of a C-172 flightplan it's like
> adding 15kts.


I don't think I have ever in my life been able to turn a fuel stop in 30
minutes, taking into account the time to fly the pattern and climb out after
the stop. 45 minutes is probably more realistic, and probably at least an
hour if IFR. And the speed penalty is more pronounced on higher performance
airplanes. For a 140 kt plane on a 600 nm trip, the penalty (of a 45 min.
stop) would be more than 20 kts.

This illustrates why having small tanks in order to obtain high "full fuel"
cabin load is such a stupid idea.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Elwood Dowd]

Amen brother. Range was one of the main reasons we chose our Beech
Sierra---only 135-ish knots, but 6+ hours aloft make us faster than a
Bonanza on some trips. Not all, but some. Heck, if you have a Mooney
you get higher speed AND more range (but less headroom).

To answer the original question, if I could spend $1000 to get 5 knots I
would do it, but not 1. If I could spend $5000 and be guaranteed 5
knots I would think about it. If I could spend $10,000 on a turbo that
would take me up higher when I need to climb to be safe, I would
seriously think about it, but I wouldn't count on it to give me lots
more speed.

Regarding range---I have found that for our plane at least, a LOT of
fuel savings can be had by flying at 10,500 rather than 6,500. Speed is
very nearly the same while fuel use drops to about 8.9gph, vs. 10.5 at
the lower altitude. This is not a linear relationship and drops off
above about 13,500. I will leave it to the math weenies to tell me
exactly how long I have to fly for a given leg to get a positive return
from amortizing the climb, but on really long legs I always go up high
and it always pays off.

[tony roberts]

My own view - who cares?
I fly because I love to fly - not because I want to get from A to B in X
amount of time. I have friends who go Waaaay faster than me - and they
burn 14gph. I plod along burning 8gph. I love to fly.They get there much
faster and fly a lot less. I doodle along at my 8GPH, and take way
longer than them. There are faster ways of getting there - but that
isn't why I'm flying. I'm flying because I love flying. So how much
would I pay to fly faster? Very little. How much would I pay to get
shorter and safer take-offs from short high density altitude strips?
Lots.

Tony


--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article >,
"Dude" > wrote:

> I got an idea from a recent thread.
>
> I would like to know what you guys would spend to go a little faster. This
> would seem to be interesting information, and a fun topic.
>
> Please note the present speed of your plane, because 5 knots means a lot
> more at 100 than 200.
>
> Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
> likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when I am
> not.
>
> I know the people selling the mods often over advertise, but lets assume we
> know the real increase of a given mod from an expert. What's it worth to
> you?




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:51:16 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

For 1-3 hour trips, I wouldn't spend anything (well, not $1,000
anyway) to go faster.

I fly a B model 170. All my flying buds own 180s (or 182s). On a one
hour trip, I'm 15 minutes behind them when I show up (they're just
pulling beers out of their coolers), two hour trip, perhaps 25-30
minutes, etc. I burn 7.? gallons per hour. They burn 14 (or more).
When my airplane breaks, a C-note gets it going again. When theirs
breaks, it's more like 5 C-notes.

I could put a cruise prop on my airplane, little baby tires and wheel
pants, perhaps try to trim a few pounds off of it and then it'd cruise
at 118-120 mph instead of 112 mph (I've got a climb prop on mine
and 850 tires).

Bottom line, if you bought every speed mod available for your type
of airplane, the cost to do so might be tough to justify over the
long-run. In my cause, it would be cheaper to pass the 170 on
to someone else who will enjoy it for what it is and go out and buy
a bone-stock (early) C-180.

Bela P. Havasreti



>I got an idea from a recent thread.
>
>I would like to know what you guys would spend to go a little faster. This
>would seem to be interesting information, and a fun topic.
>
>Please note the present speed of your plane, because 5 knots means a lot
>more at 100 than 200.
>
>Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
>likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when I am
>not.
>
>I know the people selling the mods often over advertise, but lets assume we
>know the real increase of a given mod from an expert. What's it worth to
>you?
>
>

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:51:16 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>I got an idea from a recent thread.
>
>I would like to know what you guys would spend to go a little faster. This
>would seem to be interesting information, and a fun topic.
>
>Please note the present speed of your plane, because 5 knots means a lot
>more at 100 than 200.
>
>Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
>likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when I am
>not.
>
>I know the people selling the mods often over advertise, but lets assume we
>know the real increase of a given mod from an expert. What's it worth to
>you?

I fly a PA28-180. Added the K2U speed mods (all of them) and fly
approx 5-8mph faster than the plane used to. (The performance seems
to be dependent on OAT).

This means I get to cruise @ 140mph loafing, or 150mph pushing it @
8000ft.

Cost was a bit lower than $1k/knot. There are other benefits than
speed though. Climb rate is better, and handling is much crisper with
the aileron and stabilator seals, so there is value there.

One interesting data point. You really need a constant speed prop to
take full advantage of the drag reduction from speedmods. I can
redline my prop close to 10k DA. I've considered repitching to
capture some additional speed, but obviously there would be a loss on
climb. I am also not sure of the legalities in repitcing as the
PA28-180 is only certified for a 58 or 60" prop and I already have a
60" prop.

From a financial standpoint. The speedmods make the plane about 3-4%
faster. So if it costs me approx $60/hr to fly my plane, the
speedmods are saving me approx $2-3/hr. That's a long payback period.
I'm not even sure if that is a fair comparison since that is my hourly
operating cost (including insurance, hangar, etc), and not the direct
(fuel/oil) operating costs, which would be even lower.

-Nathan

[Paul Sengupta]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-4FFFDB.23194306092004@shawnews...
> My own view - who cares?
> I fly because I love to fly - not because I want to get from A to B in X
> amount of time. I have friends who go Waaaay faster than me - and they
> burn 14gph. I plod along burning 8gph. I love to fly.They get there much
> faster and fly a lot less. I doodle along at my 8GPH, and take way
> longer than them. There are faster ways of getting there - but that
> isn't why I'm flying. I'm flying because I love flying. So how much
> would I pay to fly faster? Very little. How much would I pay to get
> shorter and safer take-offs from short high density altitude strips?
> Lots.

Ok, how about turning this around. Each person has their own value
on speed and time...obviously someone who could make $100,000 a
sale and could do three a a day instead of two by going 10 knots faster
would find speed worth it! But...if you're talking about aerodynamic
clean-ups...the collorary to that is if you want to go the same speed,
how much fuel does it save you? It would save more money here in
Europe where fuel is much more expensive.

So how much would you spend to save how much on fuel?? :-)

The ultimate here where kerosene is 1/3 the price of avgas would be a
diesel conversion.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> ...the collorary to that is if you want to go the same speed,

Corollary...

Brain/finger mismatch.

Paul

[Dude]

I am no math weenie, but I read an article once than basically said that
climbing higher always pays off, no matter the distance. In other words,
level cruise was less efficient than a plan where top of climb was the same
as the beginning of the descent.

I can't prove it though, so I will leave it up for debate like you.



"Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
...
> Amen brother. Range was one of the main reasons we chose our Beech
> Sierra---only 135-ish knots, but 6+ hours aloft make us faster than a
> Bonanza on some trips. Not all, but some. Heck, if you have a Mooney
> you get higher speed AND more range (but less headroom).
>
> To answer the original question, if I could spend $1000 to get 5 knots I
> would do it, but not 1. If I could spend $5000 and be guaranteed 5
> knots I would think about it. If I could spend $10,000 on a turbo that
> would take me up higher when I need to climb to be safe, I would
> seriously think about it, but I wouldn't count on it to give me lots
> more speed.
>
> Regarding range---I have found that for our plane at least, a LOT of
> fuel savings can be had by flying at 10,500 rather than 6,500. Speed is
> very nearly the same while fuel use drops to about 8.9gph, vs. 10.5 at
> the lower altitude. This is not a linear relationship and drops off
> above about 13,500. I will leave it to the math weenies to tell me
> exactly how long I have to fly for a given leg to get a positive return
> from amortizing the climb, but on really long legs I always go up high
> and it always pays off.

[Dude]

Amen on enjoying the flight.

Personally, speed mods that include upping the GPH are not very interesting
to me for similar reasons.

I mostly fly short trips, and take my time. However, the wife sees the plane
as a way to get places, and so I am concerned about efficiency. Also, the
ability to go more places in a single leg interests me.

I am still thinking a $1000 per knot seems about right to me.


"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-4FFFDB.23194306092004@shawnews...
> My own view - who cares?
> I fly because I love to fly - not because I want to get from A to B in X
> amount of time. I have friends who go Waaaay faster than me - and they
> burn 14gph. I plod along burning 8gph. I love to fly.They get there much
> faster and fly a lot less. I doodle along at my 8GPH, and take way
> longer than them. There are faster ways of getting there - but that
> isn't why I'm flying. I'm flying because I love flying. So how much
> would I pay to fly faster? Very little. How much would I pay to get
> shorter and safer take-offs from short high density altitude strips?
> Lots.
>
> Tony
>
>
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE
>
>
> In article >,
> "Dude" > wrote:
>
> > I got an idea from a recent thread.
> >
> > I would like to know what you guys would spend to go a little faster.
This
> > would seem to be interesting information, and a fun topic.
> >
> > Please note the present speed of your plane, because 5 knots means a lot
> > more at 100 than 200.
> >
> > Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
> > likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when
I am
> > not.
> >
> > I know the people selling the mods often over advertise, but lets assume
we
> > know the real increase of a given mod from an expert. What's it worth
to
> > you?
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> I am no math weenie, but I read an article once than basically said that
> climbing higher always pays off, no matter the distance. In other words,
> level cruise was less efficient than a plan where top of climb was the
same
> as the beginning of the descent.
>
> I can't prove it though, so I will leave it up for debate like you.

I've thought about this when paying tach time for a rental...climbing full
rpm
which isn't too far over the 1 tach hour = 1 clock hour mark but uses lots
of fuel (highish MP, but you don't get to see it on a fixed pitch machine
usually). Then you pull to idle to descend...1 tach hour = maybe 3 clock
hours. So you pay less! :-) Don't suppose it does the engine and fuel bill
much good though.

Paul

[PaulH]

Interesting question - answers will be all over the map. But most of
us fly for pleasure. Sometimes I fly 65% instead of 75% just to
prolong the flight. Under these conditions, an extra knot isn't worth
anything.

People who buy speed mods generally just enjoy spending money on their
airplanes; the purported speed gain is only a rationalization.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Ben Jackson wrote:

> If you're flying long distances and want to cut the total time, the most
> cost effective way is to carry enough fuel that you don't have to stop.
> If you can cut a 30 minute fuel stop out of a C-172 flightplan it's like
> adding 15kts.

Another way might be to get an instrument rating.

I only have one data point for this, but this spring a fleet of 4
Warriors took a club trip from TTA to IAD. It was a VFR day. The one
flying VFR put 6.1 hours on the hobbes. The three flying IFR all put
5.1 hours on. I was the VFR one. The ADIZ did not slow me down as far
as I can tell. As far as I can tell the penalty was due to:

1. Worse ATC service. Once in the ADIZ and class B, every time I was
switched to a different frequency, I had to wait for several stretches
for there to be a break in the servicing of IFR traffic before I could
even get acknowledged and get a vector. Not to mention how nervous you
can get flying right at the prohibited area (or later, right at the
airport at 3500) on the vector the last guy gave you and the new guy
hasn't acknowledged you for several minutes.

2. More vectoring. While my compatriots were being cleared direct to
Brooke VOR then to IAD, I was getting vectored around the RDU Class C,
and then once in the ADIZ and class B I was vectored all over the place
to basically get me out of the way while the IFR traffic landed, then
they worked me into a gap in the IFR traffic for landing. My first time
on a 13 mile final in a Warrior!

I don't know if this is typical, but assuming an instrutment rating
costs $5-6000 to get working the $/effective knot here might be a pretty
good number. So pilots who fly both IFR and VFR, is that experience
typical? Is better routing and radar service a good enough reason to
get the instrument rating, even if you don't plan to do much hard IFR?

[[email protected]]

PaulH > wrote:
: Interesting question - answers will be all over the map. But most of
: us fly for pleasure. Sometimes I fly 65% instead of 75% just to
: prolong the flight. Under these conditions, an extra knot isn't worth
: anything.

... unless you turn that knot into less GPH. Of course, you'll never make
your money back, but it might help. If you were to add enough speed mods to get the
same speed at 65% you used to get at 75%, it translates into more enjoyment for less
direct cost.

: People who buy speed mods generally just enjoy spending money on their
: airplanes; the purported speed gain is only a rationalization.

Amen to that. If you want a faster airplane, sell what you've got and buy one
that's faster. If you add speed mods, you're not going to get much. Even if you bolt
on a bigger engine, it'll burn more gas, not go appreciably faster. Drag power goes
as the cube of the speed. Changing the drag coefficient (read: speed mods and usually
a few percent at most) changes the required power linearly with speed.

-Cory
--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Dude wrote:

> I am no math weenie, but I read an article once than basically said
that
> climbing higher always pays off, no matter the distance. In other
words,
> level cruise was less efficient than a plan where top of climb was the
same
> as the beginning of the descent.

True for jets, not so for non-turbocharged piston aircraft.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
>
>Another way might be to get an instrument rating.
>
>1. Worse ATC service [vfr]. Once in the ADIZ and class B, ...

Controllers have to make quick judgements about who they can trust to
execute more complex clearances without deviating. In my experience
several things factor in, including: good radio technique, being on an
IFR flightplan, and flying an airplane that's not typically a trainer.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[C Kingsbury]

wrote in message news:<he7%c.3530$Va5.1196@trnddc01>...
> On 6-Sep-2004, (Ben Jackson) wrote:
>
>
> This illustrates why having small tanks in order to obtain high "full fuel"
> cabin load is such a stupid idea.

Anybody know of a mod to install a lavatory in place of the back seat in a 172?

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

On 7-Sep-2004, (C Kingsbury) wrote:

> > This illustrates why having small tanks in order to obtain high "full
> > fuel"
> > cabin load is such a stupid idea.
>
> Anybody know of a mod to install a lavatory in place of the back seat in a
> 172?

Try:
http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&Product_ID=297&DID=19

Cheap, too!

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Aaron Coolidge]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:

: typical? Is better routing and radar service a good enough reason to
: get the instrument rating, even if you don't plan to do much hard IFR?

Yes.
It's helpful for avoiding TFRs that suddenly pop up. It's helpful for avoiding
active MOA (IFR aircraft get separation from military traffic). It's helpful
for not having to dial up every stinkin class C & D from Boston to Miami. It's
helpful for not having to study the many shelves of the MOAs on the coast of
the Carolinas. It's helpful for landing at a class B main airport. etc.
--
Aaron Coolidge

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dude wrote:
>
> Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
> likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when I am
> not.

Personally, I need additional carrying capacity. If I were in a position to afford
it, I would pay for that. I'm not interested in speed enough to pay that kind of
money for more.

BTW; my cruise is 103 knots.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dude wrote:
>
> I am no math weenie, but I read an article once than basically said that
> climbing higher always pays off, no matter the distance. In other words,
> level cruise was less efficient than a plan where top of climb was the same
> as the beginning of the descent.

Maybe that's true, as far as it goes, but I've seen many days when I can make 90
knots at 1,000' AGL and 50 knots at 6,000' AGL. You'd be a fool to climb under those
conditions.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Mike Rapoport]

I think that this is only true in still air. Obviously you don't want to be
climbing into a rapidly increasing headwind.

Mike
MU-2

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>I am no math weenie, but I read an article once than basically said that
> climbing higher always pays off, no matter the distance. In other words,
> level cruise was less efficient than a plan where top of climb was the
> same
> as the beginning of the descent.
>
> I can't prove it though, so I will leave it up for debate like you.
>
>
>
> "Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Amen brother. Range was one of the main reasons we chose our Beech
>> Sierra---only 135-ish knots, but 6+ hours aloft make us faster than a
>> Bonanza on some trips. Not all, but some. Heck, if you have a Mooney
>> you get higher speed AND more range (but less headroom).
>>
>> To answer the original question, if I could spend $1000 to get 5 knots I
>> would do it, but not 1. If I could spend $5000 and be guaranteed 5
>> knots I would think about it. If I could spend $10,000 on a turbo that
>> would take me up higher when I need to climb to be safe, I would
>> seriously think about it, but I wouldn't count on it to give me lots
>> more speed.
>>
>> Regarding range---I have found that for our plane at least, a LOT of
>> fuel savings can be had by flying at 10,500 rather than 6,500. Speed is
>> very nearly the same while fuel use drops to about 8.9gph, vs. 10.5 at
>> the lower altitude. This is not a linear relationship and drops off
>> above about 13,500. I will leave it to the math weenies to tell me
>> exactly how long I have to fly for a given leg to get a positive return
>> from amortizing the climb, but on really long legs I always go up high
>> and it always pays off.
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

wrote in message news:<4fp%c.4397$j62.2501@trnddc04>...
> On 7-Sep-2004, (C Kingsbury) wrote:
> >
> > Anybody know of a mod to install a lavatory in place of the back seat in a
> > 172?
>
> Try:
> http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&Product_ID=297&DID=19
>
> Cheap, too!

I was wondering how long it would take somebody to suggest that.

To be honest, I hate sitting in any vehicle for more than 3 hours at a
stretch anyway. Even in a nice big couch-on-wheels car, I stop every
few hours and stretch out.

I remember one time on a trip back from MVY to BED (1 hour-ish) one of
my pax made the comment that he had to go "like a racehorse." He
asked, how long until we're home, I said an hour maybe, and he
grimaced. I said, no biggie, we'll just stop right down there, and 10
minutes later we were on the ground at PYM. I think that illustrated
the "freedom" of GA better than any lecture I could have given. You
want to stop? Just land at the next airport... He and the other pax
couldn't get over the novelty of the concept.

-cwk.

[Mike Noel]

I find that if I transit the Phoenix Class B airspace as a VFR pop-up, ATC
sometimes treats me as a second class citizen. If I contact Tucson
departure as I leave the airport and request flight following into Phoenix,
things usually go much smoother. I now fly almost all of my long cross
country flights with flight following rather than a formal VFR flight plan
and have the extra security blanket of someone immediately available to talk
to when needed.
--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Ben Jackson wrote:
>
> > If you're flying long distances and want to cut the total time, the most
> > cost effective way is to carry enough fuel that you don't have to stop.
> > If you can cut a 30 minute fuel stop out of a C-172 flightplan it's like
> > adding 15kts.
>
> Another way might be to get an instrument rating.
>
> I only have one data point for this, but this spring a fleet of 4
> Warriors took a club trip from TTA to IAD. It was a VFR day. The one
> flying VFR put 6.1 hours on the hobbes. The three flying IFR all put
> 5.1 hours on. I was the VFR one. The ADIZ did not slow me down as far
> as I can tell. As far as I can tell the penalty was due to:
>
> 1. Worse ATC service. Once in the ADIZ and class B, every time I was
> switched to a different frequency, I had to wait for several stretches
> for there to be a break in the servicing of IFR traffic before I could
> even get acknowledged and get a vector. Not to mention how nervous you
> can get flying right at the prohibited area (or later, right at the
> airport at 3500) on the vector the last guy gave you and the new guy
> hasn't acknowledged you for several minutes.
>
> 2. More vectoring. While my compatriots were being cleared direct to
> Brooke VOR then to IAD, I was getting vectored around the RDU Class C,
> and then once in the ADIZ and class B I was vectored all over the place
> to basically get me out of the way while the IFR traffic landed, then
> they worked me into a gap in the IFR traffic for landing. My first time
> on a 13 mile final in a Warrior!
>
> I don't know if this is typical, but assuming an instrutment rating
> costs $5-6000 to get working the $/effective knot here might be a pretty
> good number. So pilots who fly both IFR and VFR, is that experience
> typical? Is better routing and radar service a good enough reason to
> get the instrument rating, even if you don't plan to do much hard IFR?
>
>

[Dude]

Yes, that was assuming winds did not work against you higher up.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I think that this is only true in still air. Obviously you don't want to
be
> climbing into a rapidly increasing headwind.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I am no math weenie, but I read an article once than basically said that
> > climbing higher always pays off, no matter the distance. In other
words,
> > level cruise was less efficient than a plan where top of climb was the
> > same
> > as the beginning of the descent.
> >
> > I can't prove it though, so I will leave it up for debate like you.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Amen brother. Range was one of the main reasons we chose our Beech
> >> Sierra---only 135-ish knots, but 6+ hours aloft make us faster than a
> >> Bonanza on some trips. Not all, but some. Heck, if you have a Mooney
> >> you get higher speed AND more range (but less headroom).
> >>
> >> To answer the original question, if I could spend $1000 to get 5 knots
I
> >> would do it, but not 1. If I could spend $5000 and be guaranteed 5
> >> knots I would think about it. If I could spend $10,000 on a turbo that
> >> would take me up higher when I need to climb to be safe, I would
> >> seriously think about it, but I wouldn't count on it to give me lots
> >> more speed.
> >>
> >> Regarding range---I have found that for our plane at least, a LOT of
> >> fuel savings can be had by flying at 10,500 rather than 6,500. Speed
is
> >> very nearly the same while fuel use drops to about 8.9gph, vs. 10.5 at
> >> the lower altitude. This is not a linear relationship and drops off
> >> above about 13,500. I will leave it to the math weenies to tell me
> >> exactly how long I have to fly for a given leg to get a positive return
> >> from amortizing the climb, but on really long legs I always go up high
> >> and it always pays off.
> >
> >
>
>

[Dude]

Well, that would be a neat mod, but the only way I can think to get that on
most planes is to improve efficiency and leave more fuel on the ground.



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
> >
> > Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
> > likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when
I am
> > not.
>
> Personally, I need additional carrying capacity. If I were in a position
to afford
> it, I would pay for that. I'm not interested in speed enough to pay that
kind of
> money for more.
>
> BTW; my cruise is 103 knots.
>
> George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.

[Martin Kosina]

> I don't know if this is typical, but assuming an instrutment rating
> costs $5-6000 to get working the $/effective knot here might be a pretty
> good number. So pilots who fly both IFR and VFR, is that experience
> typical?

Certainly not in case of non-turbo'd airplanes in the West... VFR is
almost always more efficient, routing-wise. However, I agree IFR tends
to be a lot easier in busy class-B areas.

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:28:46 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Dude wrote:
>>
>> Personally, It seems to me that a speed mod less than $1,000 a knot is
>> likely a good deal. I presently fly about 142 in a hurry, and 120 when I am
>> not.
>
>Personally, I need additional carrying capacity. If I were in a position to afford
>it, I would pay for that. I'm not interested in speed enough to pay that kind of
>money for more.
>
>BTW; my cruise is 103 knots.

I cruise at 75%, I play at 75% and I do maneuvers at considerably
less.

>
>George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.

Beautiful movie stars, people with power.... Sounds good to me.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dude wrote:
>
> Well, that would be a neat mod, but the only way I can think to get that on
> most planes is to improve efficiency and leave more fuel on the ground.

The mod is simple -- trade up to a bigger plane.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Ray Andraka]

I put gap seals on my six, but not for the speed. I put them on for
better climb rate and low speed handling. I did gain about 5kts as well,
but that was not the motivation (it was actually a pleasant surprise, as I
didn't expect it).

PaulH wrote:

> Interesting question - answers will be all over the map. But most of
> us fly for pleasure. Sometimes I fly 65% instead of 75% just to
> prolong the flight. Under these conditions, an extra knot isn't worth
> anything.
>
> People who buy speed mods generally just enjoy spending money on their
> airplanes; the purported speed gain is only a rationalization.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759