Optimizing cruise altitude: Climbing for favorable winds

jasc15

jasc15

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
443
Location
New Jersey
Display Name
Display name:
Joe
It's easy to look at a winds aloft report and pick the best tailwind or least headwind, but based on the length of the trip it becomes an optimization problem to determine if the extra fuel and reduced speed in climb can be sufficiently compensated by the more favorable winds aloft.

What methods does POA use for this?
 
Best guess. It definitely depends on the length of your flight and how fast you can climb. Anything over about 1.5 hrs its generally worth it to climb to whatever altitude is best. Depending on your airplane if the air is smooth you can make a little of that time back on the descent.
 
The aopa flight planner lets you input your climb/decent/cruise speeds and shows your flight time at different altitudes. I'm not sure how accurate it is but I'm sure the winds at 3k,6k,9k aren't exact as the forecast either.

I use that to plan flights ahead of time and get a basic idea of flight time, and then check for updates on weather just prior to the flight.
 
tonycondon said:
algebra
Click to expand...

Is that anything like Gee I'm A Tree?

I've gotten lazy lately and just just navmonster.com to tell me how long a route will take at different altitudes.
 
Put good data into Fltplan.com....it will show you an array of altitudes at a time, with time vs. fuel burn pitted against the winds aloft data.
 
Right about the time you're patting yourself on the back for "optimizing" to get there ten minutes faster, your wife will say she needs to pee and you'll be landing at the next airport.

BTDT. ;)
 
jasc15 said:
It's easy to look at a winds aloft report and pick the best tailwind or least headwind, but based on the length of the trip it becomes an optimization problem to determine if the extra fuel and reduced speed in climb can be sufficiently compensated by the more favorable winds aloft.

What methods does POA use for this?
Click to expand...

+1 Fltplan.com
 
taters said:
Put good data into Fltplan.com....it will show you an array of altitudes at a time, with time vs. fuel burn pitted against the winds aloft data.
Click to expand...

n20junkie said:
+1 Fltplan.com
Click to expand...

+1. My whole company runs on FltPlan.com. It's a great way to weight time vs. fuel burn, and surprisingly accurate, even on long stage lengths.

If I'm climbing into a good tailwind, I'll usually go for a low airspeed, high rate climb all the way up. I may spend a little extra time at a lower speed, but it'll get me into the favorable winds sooner. If I'm climbing into a known headwind, I keep the nose down for a flat climb with higher ground speeds and a lower climb rate.
 
Teller1900 said:
+1. My whole company runs on FltPlan.com. It's a great way to weight time vs. fuel burn, and surprisingly accurate, even on long stage lengths.

If I'm climbing into a good tailwind, I'll usually go for a low airspeed, high rate climb all the way up. I may spend a little extra time at a lower speed, but it'll get me into the favorable winds sooner. If I'm climbing into a known headwind, I keep the nose down for a flat climb with higher ground speeds and a lower climb rate.
Click to expand...

I wish foreflight would come out with something like fltplan's system, where it tells you the time enroute for several different altitudes all at once so you can compare at a glance. Foreflight has a dynamic system and will tell you an average headwind/tailwind component and ETE for the altitude you input, but you have to manually re-enter the altitude several times if you want to use it to pick the best altitude.
 
CJones said:
Is that anything like Gee I'm A Tree?

I've gotten lazy lately and just just navmonster.com to tell me how long a route will take at different altitudes.
Click to expand...

lol well i once did an algebra excercise to decide in the 421 when it was worth it to climb for more wind. IIRC i needed to gain 2 knots for every 1000 feet in order to actually save gas.

but for an individual flight i just use fltplan.com
 
Teller1900 said:
+1. My whole company runs on FltPlan.com. It's a great way to weight time vs. fuel burn, and surprisingly accurate, even on long stage lengths.

If I'm climbing into a good tailwind, I'll usually go for a low airspeed, high rate climb all the way up. I may spend a little extra time at a lower speed, but it'll get me into the favorable winds sooner. If I'm climbing into a known headwind, I keep the nose down for a flat climb with higher ground speeds and a lower climb rate.
Click to expand...

And when I'm eastbound out of OLM and crossing the Cascades I get to 11,000 MSL just as fast as I can flog that 182 to get there. :D Winds? Who cares? The MEA is 10,000 feet and having crossed VFR at 9500 MSL I can tell you why. VOR/DME coverage is non-existent over part of the airway, including the bend in the middle if you are below the MEA. :eek:
 
Also depends on how bad I want a good view, temperature (am I climbing to get tailwinds or to cool the $%$@%^@!! off), and how bumpy it is down low. It is actually a fairly complex multivariable decision. Of course, I'm discussing the VFR altitudes in a piston single. Turbines and multis likely have other considerations, which might actually be simple enough for algebra.
 
WingX for the iPad will show you multiple altitudes with the corresponding time, speed and fuel requirements for your flight plan.
 
Teller1900 said:
+1. My whole company runs on FltPlan.com. It's a great way to weight time vs. fuel burn, and surprisingly accurate, even on long stage lengths.

If I'm climbing into a good tailwind, I'll usually go for a low airspeed, high rate climb all the way up. I may spend a little extra time at a lower speed, but it'll get me into the favorable winds sooner. If I'm climbing into a known headwind, I keep the nose down for a flat climb with higher ground speeds and a lower climb rate.
Click to expand...

+1 on Fltplan.com. The fuel burn is pretty accurate and you can tweak the aircraft profile as needed to get it closer on future trips.
 
Ghery said:
And when I'm eastbound out of OLM and crossing the Cascades I get to 11,000 MSL just as fast as I can flog that 182 to get there. :D Winds? Who cares? The MEA is 10,000 feet and having crossed VFR at 9500 MSL I can tell you why. VOR/DME coverage is non-existent over part of the airway, including the bend in the middle if you are below the MEA. :eek:
Click to expand...
I know that route well! We were on the southbound DP out of there one day when they gave us an early turn to the east...that will make you want to climb for the moon!

HPNPilot1200 said:
+1 on Fltplan.com. The fuel burn is pretty accurate and you can tweak the aircraft profile as needed to get it closer on future trips.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Our newest plane to our oldest plane (all the same type) can vary by about 30kts in cruise and 20-30lbs/hr, easily, so the ability to adjust the aircraft profile so simply is huge. And the winds aloft/fuel/time matrix is great!
 
I do a lot of long xc and the number 2 advantage of XM weather On board (after NEXRAD) is winds aloft. It's a great en route tool.
 
Lance F said:
I do a lot of long xc and the number 2 advantage of XM weather On board (after NEXRAD) is winds aloft. It's a great en route tool.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
I routinely check it to see how accurate it is...the data is acceptably accurate for my uses...
 
Lance F said:
I do a lot of long xc and the number 2 advantage of XM weather On board (after NEXRAD) is winds aloft. It's a great en route tool.
Click to expand...
Interesting you would say so Lance. I thought, 'how would he do that?' then I remembered about wind barbs. Discovered that I'd been reading them backwards all along.:rofl:
 
Jaybird180 said:
Interesting you would say so Lance. I thought, 'how would he do that?' then I remembered about wind barbs. Discovered that I'd been reading them backwards all along.:rofl:
Click to expand...

Yep you'd think thy would be like a windsock
 
I do find them to be pretty accurate. I have made many en route altitude changes based on the XM data and it usually works out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top