If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Value of a knot
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pinckneyville Pix | pacplyer | Home Built | 40 | March 23rd 08 05:31 PM |