Low performance climbs

[kevmor]

When flying a plane that doesn't have a lot of climbing power, is it
quicker to get to your destination if you climb at a slower rate, but
faster speed? Or is it quicker if you climb faster to your altitude?

For example, say I took off at sea level and want to cruise at 6,500.
I don't need to be that high for terrain clearance for some time. In
a fixed pitch plane, I could climb at Vy to get to the altitude using
full throttle, but this gives lesser engine cooling. If I climb at a
speed greater than Vy, I'll need to reduce the throttle more (fixed
pitch) to keep RPMs in range. When I do this, it seems like it'll
take forever to get to the altitude, however.

[kontiki]

kevmor wrote:

> When flying a plane that doesn't have a lot of climbing power, is it
> quicker to get to your destination if you climb at a slower rate, but
> faster speed? Or is it quicker if you climb faster to your altitude?
>
Depends on the winds at any given altitude.

> For example, say I took off at sea level and want to cruise at 6,500.
> I don't need to be that high for terrain clearance for some time. In
> a fixed pitch plane, I could climb at Vy to get to the altitude using
> full throttle, but this gives lesser engine cooling. If I climb at a
> speed greater than Vy, I'll need to reduce the throttle more (fixed
> pitch) to keep RPMs in range. When I do this, it seems like it'll
> take forever to get to the altitude, however.
>

In the smaller fixed pitch AC you want to climb at full throttle.
After arriving at or above pattern altitude it is normal to push
the nose over a bit to increase airspeed to cruise climb.