ET wrote:

Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
"angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
climb and engine output/stress?

Actually, best angle of climb tends to reduce cooling air to the engine. In some
aircraft, it will produce higher CHTs and, consequently, more engine stress. This, by
the way, is not the case with my aircraft/engine combo. It has two advantages. It
keeps you closer to the airport during climb, so you may have a better shot at
putting the plane down on airport property if things go bad while you're still pretty
low. It also gets you higher by the time you reach those obstacles that most fields
seem to have not far from the end of the runway. It also may reduce the noise level
for people who live near the end of the runway. I've seen this claim in print, but
several people here have argued otherwise.

One certain disadvantage is that best angle of climb airspeed and flap configuration
is rarely the same as that required for best glide. In my aircraft, I will be 13 mph
slower than best glide, and I'll have 24 degrees of flaps in. I feel that, if the
engine quits at, say, 300' AGL, I probably will prefer to have the flaps down to
reduce the speed at touchdown, so all I really have to do is force myself to push the
yoke forward and keep the speed up enough to avoid a steep descent rate. Best glide
speed isn't real important at that altitude, IMO.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".