Any piston engines that fly above FL250?

Ted said:
Yeah, but it's pretty rare for you to see Twin Cessnas flying above FL250. A RAM VII 340 or 414A might hit it more often, but the only picture I recall of a Twin Cessna flying that high that got posted to the forum was of a 421, and I'm pretty sure that was a 421C which has the long straight wings. Of course, it's been done, just not something that you do much. I only took the 414 to FL230 once, and even with the MT props, it wasn't super happy.

For a stock 340 or 414, FL180-200 is really the sweet spot. My preferred altitudes were FL180 and 190, and I'd take FL200 when FL180 wasn't available most of the time. When you get a RAM VI or especially RAM VII 340, that's when you start to see use of FL230-250 more often, but the low pressurization differential of the plane makes those altitudes sub ideal from a cabin altitude perspective.
Click to expand...

I have limited time in the twin cessnas but my findings have been similar. My point really wasn’t that they regularly are flown above 25k, just that they are probably the most commonly seen piston aircraft anywhere in the flight levels not limited to 25k.

Almost all of my time in the flight levels in a piston has been in a Malibu, which actually doesn’t do too bad in the low 20s. However, Like the twin cessnas, I think that the mid to upper teens is where they do best. I’ve never had one up to 25k to know how they do at their maximum altitude, and I don’t ever really care to try.
 
While I haven't had one at or above 250, I've had a 421C up to 230 a couple of times. Seemed to do fine, another 2,000 feet should have been easily doable. Good TAS too.
 
Ted said:
The 414 I used to fly had a published service ceiling of 31,000 ft as I recall.
Click to expand...

ZOWEE.!!

Highest I took a 414 was 24,000. No passengers, no pay load, just me and gas. A real pleasant flight over the Rockies, clear and a million all the way from Denver (APA) to Gallup.
 
kicktireslightfires said:
Interesting. At what altitude does the pressure start adversely affecting non-pressurized mags?
Click to expand...

It's not a finite altitude. My experience has been don't fly above FL200 unless absolutely necessary. Fine wire plugs gapped close, clean ign systems help. But once carbon tracking starts, its going to cost $$$$$$. When air get thin the resistance gets less. sparks fly.
 
The T210F has a certified ceiling of 31,300 feet.
 
Ted said:
The 414 I used to fly had a published service ceiling of 31,000 ft as I recall. I considered that somewhat laughable, but apparently Cessna got a brand new one up there.

At some point, the certification rules changed and I believe it got a lot more strict to certify above 25,000 ft, even in the pre-RVSM days. The MU-2 I flew (and most of them) were only certified to FL250 as well. .
Click to expand...

My Rajay twin turbo 182P is certified to 25,000 MSL It would probably make it. Close to 18,000 the plane still climbs 800ft/min at nearly max gross.
 
kicktireslightfires said:
Well, at least you can still take it up to 28,000 if it doesn't have the RVSM equipment requirements! I wonder how much it would cost to install the RVSM required equipment in something like that.
Click to expand...

And the qualified training program for the pilots.:eek2:$$$
 
I think most of the Spitfires would go that high. Some over 40k. It may not be a reasonable answer, but I didn't want to let that slow me down.
 
wrt RVSM: non-RVSM certified aircraft/crew can operate in RVSM airspace but need ATC approval (not necessarily easy to get)
 
There are some dirt bikes that can ride on the highway, but they aren’t the best tool for the job.
 
Albany Tom said:
I think most of the Spitfires would go that high. Some over 40k. It may not be a reasonable answer, but I didn't want to let that slow me down.
Click to expand...

No one has mentioned the Mustang? Isn't this a pilot forum? And to hell with being reasonable... "reasonable answers only" wasn't part of the question, was it? :)
 
SCCutler said:
The T210F has a certified ceiling of 31,300 feet.
Click to expand...

That is correct. The T210F also holds the world record for single engine (stock) piston engine, as someone else has noted.

It would scare the urine out of me to find myself flying on the very edge of the backside of the power curve in an airplane with a 38 foot wingspan. My hat is off to the gentlemen who flew those two aircraft.

There are many aircraft now that can fly above FL180. For those who can, I would strongly recommend you become familiar with AC 61-107B CH1, and get high altitude training in a pressure chamber before you do.

Personally, I’d never fly above FL250 unpressurized. I seldom go above 180. No real benefit to me. Even flying above FL180 is physically taxing and not without potential dangers, specifically, the possibilities of trapped gas and evolved gas problems. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember ever flying above FL250 unpressurized in the Air Force.

But then, I’m getting old and forgetful.

Did I mention forgetful?
 
I saw a Mooney once at FL305.
 
Van's claims that the RV-14 is capable of FL260 at "solo weight" of 1700 lbs. For my RV-14, that's me plus 40 gallons of gas (probably full tanks at takeoff). I haven't attempted that altitude, for many reasons. But they claim it.
 
kicktireslightfires said:
Forgive my ignorance please, but why would you feel drained? So long as you had adequate oxygen supply from say a constant flow Mountain High system and constantly keeping an eye on your blood oxygen level, and were frequently hydrating and drinking plenty of water (and peeing into a bottle), is there any reason you would feel drained? I suppose your skin might get dry, but if you're drinking plenty of water and getting plenty of O2, then wouldn't your insides still feel right as rain?
Click to expand...
It's just about staying hydrated and making sure your pulse ox stays up. For the amount of time it would take to climb up into the 20s with a single engine recip, you had better be trying to catch a good tailwind on a long flight. Otherwise I'd just stay down lower to minimize the risks of hypoxia or unpressurized mag issues.
 
Boeing Phantom Eye. 54K ft on a pair of auto conversions. ;)
phantom_eye.jpg

Nauga,
big and bendy
 
donjohnston said:
Most people consider vaporware to be a product that was advertised but never produced. At least the Celera was built and flew. Although, the last time I checked, 15,000' and 250kts was as high and fast as it got. So it's still a long way from what they are advertising.
Click to expand...
The Raptor flew too, and that was certainly vaporware.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
The Raptor flew too, and that was certainly vaporware.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of "vaporware". I consider the Moller Skycar vaporware. Never flown (at least without a tether) as far as I know and it's been in "development" for what... 40 years? Now that's vaporware.

The Raptor is a failed concept. The Celera is an unknown at this point.
 
..there was also the Grob Strato 2C
powered by two conti 550 with a 30,000 lb takeoff weight and 185 foot wingspan. It flew in the high 70,000 ft range

Although it's sort of cheating as it used a P&W turbine as a sort of 'ultra turbo' for the piston engines

the scale in this photo is misleading, the plane is rather 'huge'
upload_2022-1-21_12-54-39.png

note how itty-bitty the conti is in that huge cowling:
upload_2022-1-21_12-55-18.png
 
donjohnston said:
Depends on your definition of "vaporware". I consider the Moller Skycar vaporware. Never flown (at least without a tether) as far as I know and it's been in "development" for what... 40 years? Now that's vaporware.

The Raptor is a failed concept. The Celera is an unknown at this point.
Click to expand...


va·por·ware
/ˈvāpərˌwer/

noun
INFORMAL•COMPUTING
  1. software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed.
 
I guess you missed the very first sentence of my post. :rolleyes:
vaporware
vā′pər-wâr″
noun
  1. New software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced.
Click to expand...
I could probably find a definition which states that the product actually has to be a gaseous vapor.
 
In theory one could ship a piston in an airplane. And therefore I argue that any piston engine could fly above FL250

under its own power, different story.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Go suck an egg, kerosene addict! ;)
Click to expand...

It really isn't cheap, but man is it nice. I loved my piston airplanes, but turbine flying really is a different game. I probably do need to get out of the habit of entering the downwind at 220kts, but meh...it was a quiet night.
 
donjohnston said:
I guess you missed the very first sentence of my post. :rolleyes:

I could probably find a definition which states that the product actually has to be a gaseous vapor.
Click to expand...
Nah. Just decided to go for the literal definition per Oxford
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top