Low performance climbs

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.

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.