X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:39:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com ([207.46.163.24] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 5998113 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:58:42 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.46.163.24; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from mail11-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.237) by CO9EHSOBE012.bigfish.com (10.236.130.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:58:06 +0000 Received: from mail11-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail11-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC6B420291 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:58:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.245.5;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:CH1PRD0710HT002.namprd07.prod.outlook.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -1 X-BigFish: PS-1(zz98dIc85fhzz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275bh8275dh18c673h17326ahz31h2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h1155h) Received-SPF: softfail (mail11-co9: transitioning domain of htii.com does not designate 157.56.245.5 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.245.5; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com; helo=CH1PRD0710HT002.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ;.outlook.com ; Received: from mail11-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail11-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1357505881990872_8159; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO9EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.246]) by mail11-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EF74E018C for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1PRD0710HT002.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.245.5) by CO9EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (10.236.130.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:57:58 +0000 Received: from CH1PRD0710MB367.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.244]) by CH1PRD0710HT002.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.152.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0245.002; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:57:57 +0000 From: Robert R Pastusek X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] IV-P Cruise Altitudes? Thread-Topic: [LML] IV-P Cruise Altitudes? Thread-Index: AQHN63uDPGglL8v9sUWnylZU2HLCNpg8yOdw X-Original-Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:57:56 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD4A833734@CH1PRD0710MB367.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [72.66.86.7] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD4A833734CH1PRD0710MB367_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Return-Path: rpastusek@htii.com X-OriginatorOrg: htii.com --_000_41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD4A833734CH1PRD0710MB367_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dan Olsen wrote: Greetings, As I build my IV-P kit, I'm always watching with anticipation the other IV-= P planes out there and how you guys are using them. One thing that has str= uck me is that it appears most of you with piston IV-P's are flying them ar= ound in the low- to mid-teens rather than in the flight levels. I'm curiou= s why this is the case... Trips not long enough to justify the climb? You= want to stay VFR? Performance or handling issues up high? Etc. Would love to hear from some of you on the operational practicalities of us= ing your IV-P as a X/C traveling machine. My expectation is that I'll be u= sing mine a lot on lots of 1,000nm X/C flights and am planning to fly in th= e FL220-FL250 range. Thoughts? Dan, I am one of the IV-P builder/flyers that you describe below. I tested N437R= P to FL 250 and have had it up there several times over the past few years,= but I generally fly in the high teens/low FLs for several reasons. First i= s the pressurization. I lost a canopy in an AF F-4 Phantom at FL 280 many y= ears ago, and I'm pretty sure that if we ever lost a window up high, my wif= e would not get in the airplane again...and that's important to me. We also= like to fly 2-3 hour legs, even on long cross country flights, so climbing= way up is usually counterproductive WRT fuel burn. Having said all that, t= he ability to go up high is VERY useful, and I'm really happy to have the c= apability...when warranted. For example, we launched from Phoenix, AZ enrou= te to Manassas, VA last year. The winds at FL 210 were 100 KTS, almost on t= he tail. At FL 230 they were 120 KTS directly on the tail. We climbed to 23= 0 and went all the way home without a stop...fastest this airplane has ever= passed over the ground! I considered FL 250, but the winds were not quite = as favorable. Second issue is weather, and this tends to drive you higher in most situati= ons. You won't top TSMS in a Lancair, but you can almost always climb high = enough to get above the "prevailing clouds" to see the real threats... and = above about 15,000 they tend to be isolated and easy (in a Lancair) to avoi= d. After an incident in NC a couple of years ago, my wife won't fly cross = country without our Garmin 696/XM weather...which I can highly recommend. T= here are several alternatives to XM WX now, and I'd strongly encourage you = install one of them. The reason is that these airplanes have the range to f= ly through two or more weather systems during a typical cross-country trip,= and the speed to fly around almost anything along the way...if you know ab= out weather along the way and can keep updated. ATC has become much more in= volved in helping GA aircraft avoid weather in recent years. While ATC is v= ery good at this, they provide weather avoidance as a second priority to th= eir ATC duties; it's really assuring to be able to monitor and confirm thei= r recommendations, or to ask well ahead of their recommendation for a 10 de= gree heading change... You'll also find ice in the cloud tops at any time o= f the year...higher in summer, but even in August, the freezing level is be= low FL 250. I've gone to FL 250 several times, when we planned to cruise lo= wer, to stay out of the cloud tops. Works well for me, and is a very useful= capability. There is very little air traffic in the high teens-most GA aircraft don't w= ant to bother with oxygen, but by the low flight levels, you're mixing with= some of the small regional carriers. It's really not too bad, but 15,000 t= o FL 200 is almost devoid of "cruising" airplanes...I usually suspect anoth= er Lancair if I hear someone at these altitudes... My airplane handles very solidly and reliably up to FL 250; this is not an = issue at all for me. Ditto for the power to climb that high. My engine CHT'= s run the hottest (around 400 degrees) when climbing through 14,000-17,000.= If any cylinder goes above 400 during the climb (full rich/WOT/160KIAS), i= t's a reminder that I failed to turn on the low boost (recommended by Lanca= ir, and my personal experience). The small amount of additional fuel flow c= ools the cylinders back down, if it's a particularly hot day up high, a bit= more airspeed does the trick, but I never run my engine at CHTs above 400,= although I recognize this is well below the 460 limit specified. Once abov= e about 17,000, the cylinder temps start back down. I suspect that this is = the "critical altitude" for my engine...where the turbos are producing max = boost and the power starts falling off with increasing altitude? (Would app= reciate thoughts of others on this observed phenomena) I predict you'll be very pleased with your IV-P as a long distance cross co= untry machine, no matter what altitude you fly. The cabin is relatively qui= et when the door seal is inflated, and a 4-hour flight at any altitude abov= e the turbulence layer is as comfortable and relaxing as watching a long mo= vie. Try this while breathing O2 through a mask or cannula at FL 180 in a "= regular" GA airplane and you'll be wasted...or at least tired. I consider t= he pressurization to be the best feature of my airplane after the very reas= onable fuel burn for the speed! If you're as old as I am, a pee bottle, or alternative, is almost mandator= y for long flights, but the bottle works for me, and I've been across the c= ountry (Manassas, VA to Ridgecrest, CA), both ways, a number of times with = one mid-country fuel stop. A fuel burn of 14 GPH (LOP) will yield 210 to 26= 0 KTAS depending on cruise altitude; that's almost 7 hours endurance in my = airplane (depends on your fuel capacity and how high you climb after takeof= f). So, the really nice thing about a piston powered, pressurized airplane = is that you can chose the optimum altitude for your mission, and arrive com= fortable and refreshed! ...my best short summary. Glad to talk to you directly about this if desired. Bob Pastusek 757-286-4802 ...a believer! --_000_41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD4A833734CH1PRD0710MB367_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dan Olsen wrote:

 

Greetings,

 

As I build my IV-P kit, I’m always watching wi= th anticipation the other IV-P planes out there and how you guys are using = them.  One thing that has struck me is that it appears most of you wit= h piston IV-P’s are flying them around in the low- to mid-teens rather than in the flight levels.  I’m curiou= s why this is the case…  Trips not long enough to justify the cl= imb?  You want to stay VFR?  Performance or handling issues up hi= gh?  Etc.

 

Would love to hear from some of you on the operation= al practicalities of using your IV-P as a X/C traveling machine.  My e= xpectation is that I’ll be using mine a lot on lots of 1,000nm X/C fl= ights and am planning to fly in the FL220-FL250 range.

 

Thoughts?

 

Dan,

 

I am one of the IV-P builder/flyers that you describe below. I = tested N437RP to FL 250 and have had it up there several times over the past few years, but I generally fly in the high tee= ns/low FLs for several reasons. First is the pressurization. I lost a canop= y in an AF F-4 Phantom at FL 280 many years ago, and I’m pretty sure = that if we ever lost a window up high, my wife would not get in the airplane again…and that’s importa= nt to me. We also like to fly 2-3 hour legs, even on long cross country fli= ghts, so climbing way up is usually counterproductive WRT fuel burn. Having= said all that, the ability to go up high is VERY useful, and I’m really happy to have the capability…when = warranted. For example, we launched from Phoenix, AZ enroute to Manassas, V= A last year. The winds at FL 210 were 100 KTS, almost on the tail. At FL 23= 0 they were 120 KTS directly on the tail. We climbed to 230 and went all the way home without a stop…fastest this= airplane has ever passed over the ground! I considered FL 250, but the win= ds were not quite as favorable.

 

Second issue is weather, and this tends to drive you higher in = most situations. You won’t top TSMS in a Lancair, but you can almost always climb high enough to get above the “prevai= ling clouds” to see the real threats… and above about 15,000 th= ey tend to be isolated and easy (in a Lancair) to avoid. After an  incident in NC a couple of years ago, my wife won’t fly cross = country without our Garmin 696/XM weather…which I can highly recommen= d. There are several alternatives to XM WX now, and I’d strongly enco= urage you install one of them. The reason is that these airplanes have the range to fly through two or more weather systems = during a typical cross-country trip, and the speed to fly around almost any= thing along the way…if you know about weather along the way and can k= eep updated. ATC has become much more involved in helping GA aircraft avoid weather in recent years. While ATC i= s very good at this, they provide weather avoidance as a second priority to= their ATC duties; it’s really assuring to be able to monitor and con= firm their recommendations, or to ask well ahead of their recommendation for a 10 degree heading change… Y= ou’ll also find ice in the cloud tops at any time of the year…h= igher in summer, but even in August, the freezing level is below FL 250. I&= #8217;ve gone to FL 250 several times, when we planned to cruise lower, to stay out of the cloud tops. Works well for me, and is a v= ery useful capability.

 

There is very little air traffic in the high teens—most G= A aircraft don’t want to bother with oxygen, but by the low flight levels, you’re mixing with some of the small regional= carriers. It’s really not too bad, but 15,000 to FL 200 is almost de= void of “cruising” airplanes…I usually suspect another La= ncair if I hear someone at these altitudes…

 

My airplane handles very solidly and reliably up to FL 250; thi= s is not an issue at all for me. Ditto for the power to climb that high. My engine CHT’s run the hottest (around 40= 0 degrees) when climbing through 14,000-17,000. If any cylinder goes above = 400 during the climb (full rich/WOT/160KIAS), it’s a reminder that I = failed to turn on the low boost (recommended by Lancair, and my personal experience). The small amount of additional fu= el flow cools the cylinders back down, if it’s a particularly hot day= up high, a bit more airspeed does the trick, but I never run my engine at = CHTs above 400, although I recognize this is well below the 460 limit specified. Once above about 17,000, the cylind= er temps start back down. I suspect that this is the “critical altitu= de” for my engine…where the turbos are producing max boost and the power = starts falling off with increasing altitude? (Would appreciate thoughts of = others on this observed phenomena)

 

I predict you’ll be very pleased with your IV-P as a long= distance cross country machine, no matter what altitude you fly. The cabin is relatively quiet when the door seal is inflated, and= a 4-hour flight at any altitude above the turbulence layer is as comfortab= le and relaxing as watching a long movie. Try this while breathing O2 throu= gh a mask or cannula at FL 180 in a “regular” GA airplane and you’ll be wasted…or at= least tired. I consider the pressurization to be the best feature of my ai= rplane after the very reasonable fuel burn for the speed!=

 

If you’re as old as = ; I am, a pee bottle, or alternative, is almost mandatory for long fli= ghts, but the bottle works for me, and I’ve been across the country (= Manassas, VA to Ridgecrest, CA), both ways, a number of times with one mid-= country fuel stop. A fuel burn of 14 GPH (LOP) will yield 210 to 260 KTAS depending on cruise altitude; that’= s almost 7 hours endurance in my airplane (depends on your fuel capacity an= d how high you climb after takeoff). So, the really nice thing about a pist= on powered, pressurized airplane is that you can chose the optimum altitude for your mission, and arrive comfortabl= e and refreshed! …my best short summary.

 

Glad to talk to you directly about this if desired.<= /span>

 

Bob Pastusek

757-286-4802

…a believer!

 

--_000_41361035E6613244A377D5AC3BF5EFDD4A833734CH1PRD0710MB367_--