Reaching the service ceiling (non turbine)

Fly at >10,000 feet regularly for fuel economy reasons, as well as possible favorable tail winds. No oxygen. I understand why people dont, but you would be crazy not too, if you are flying in a mountaneous area, solely for gliding range. 14.5 is the max I have done, and only did it twice, in the winter.
 
Last edited:
I also routinely cruise >10,000' if I'm going greater than 150 miles or so (and if the winds are favorable). Then again, I'm driving one of those physics bending Mooneys ;)

Hopefully soon I can get a portable oxygen setup to start exploring above 12,500. I'm NA, but there have been times I would've liked to be in the teens, and I usually still have 500fpm left when I level off.
 
The O2 comes in handy at lower altitudes as well. Going high is nice at times. I've done IFR between 10,000 and 16,000 in the Navion.
One time coming out of Cincinati, Margy had to be back at work the next day so she bummed a ride with a friend who had driven to the same event. I leisurely finished breakfast and went out and preflighted the plane. I start out thinking I'm likely going to catch up with the weather at some point and need to put down. As I'm climbing out I'm thinking I can get on top of all this mess. I look at the GPS and I'm doing 180 knots GS in the climb. This is interesting. I level out and I'm doing over 240 @ 17,500'. Still, I'm thinking any minute now I'm going to have to ask for a clearance. Then suddenly the tailwind goes away (must have crossed the front). And then a giant hole opens up. I scream down through it but overshoot CJR by a bit. Still just about an hour and a half from LUK to CJR. Land and call Margy to find she's still in west viringia in the rain somewhere.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Have you ever done it? Gone up as high as it can go? (NON turbine aircraft). I haven't taken the Arrow up to its max! I capped out just under 12.5 for O2 reasons and because the climb at that altitude SUUUUCCCKKSSS.

Reason I'm asking is I see some pretty ridiculous numbers cited for turbo'd aircraft on their specs, where I can't imagine anyone actually taking it up that high. For instance, a Turbo Stationair that Cessna advertises as having a service ceiling of FL260. I see a 210 Turbo with a ceiling listed at FL270. I see a couple Mooneys with similar FL250-ish levels. I'm not doubting that they can get there, but is it even remotely practical to climb that high?

From just poking around on ForeFlight and watching traffic (a favorite pastime of mine) I don't think I see planes like this usually get above low/mid teens. That's not exactly a scientific study but it makes me wonder if anyone actually does take it up that high?
Click to expand...
Non turbine (as in jet engine jet fuel power?) or non-turbo, meaning turbocharged? I have taken turbocharged, pressurized (Malibu Mirage) and non-pressurized (Cirrus) up to 25,000 feet with ease. As to non-turbo'd, I have had my DA40 up to its maximum operating altitude of 16,300 ft. Felt like a leaf floating in the wind up there, but it got there with some patience. ;-)
 
I had my PA-28R-180 (original Arrow) at 12,000 MSL on a hot day that I later calculated was 15,000 DA, which is the ceiling listed in the POH. We were under gross, two men and full tanks, but at that altitude any input you made would cause a descent. Even adjusting the seat belt dropped us a few feet.
 
Not long after getting my PPL, I went up with a friend who was a bored CFI with no students that day in one of the school's C152s one day...just one of those bored days looking for a purpose. I think we got bored again before reaching 9,000.... I think we made 8,500ft flying out of 49ft elevation field.
That probably would have been a good day to do our "see how many spin turns we can make"....but I think we did that on a different flight.
 
Last edited:
Does less fuel and weight help us get higher?
 
mandm said:
Does less fuel and weight help us get higher?
Click to expand...
Less weight does. Less fuel only helps because of the weight. Not enough fuel will definitely limit your ceiling. 8)
 
iamtheari said:
Less weight does. Less fuel only helps because of the weight. Not enough fuel will definitely limit your ceiling. 8)
Click to expand...
Carry all the fuel you can and climb the entire flight. You're at max altitude when you run out. ;-)
 
BillTIZ said:
I had a Pawnee, PA-25, O-540 fixed pitch at 250HP, 1/2 tank fuel, get maxed out at about 3000ft AGL. Granted the airport was at 5500MSL on a hot day with a water ballasted glider in tow.
Click to expand...
I had a 235 Pawnee that took 12 minutes to get to 1000 AGL in western MD (maybe 500’ field elevation) with a Grob 102 in tow…those things have powerful spoilers!
 
MauleSkinner said:
I had a 235 Pawnee that took 12 minutes to get to 1000 AGL in western MD (maybe 500’ field elevation) with a Grob 102 in tow…those things have powerful spoilers!
Click to expand...
I probably would have gotten him back over the airport as soon as I could... maybe 500ftAGL and shook him off...
 
BillTIZ said:
I probably would have gotten him back over the airport as soon as I could... maybe 500ftAGL and shook him off...
Click to expand...
I was going to wave him off at 1000 over the field, but figured he wouldn’t make it from there since he hadn’t figured it out yet…but he must’ve seen the field go by and noticed his spoilers, because he finally retracted them.
 
Jim K said:
the Comanche p-51 wing :biggrin: in all seriousness, the Comanche has those long slender sexy laminar flew wings.
Click to expand...

You do know that the guy who designed the Comanche wing is the same person who designed the Mooney metal wing? :)

Mooney 252 is rated to 28,000 or 29,000. It is that high to get the TAS up to 252 MPH. Marketing named the plane, then they had to figure how to get there. :D

Bob Kormer was the test pilot for Mooney at the time. And after doing the flight to get the numbers, he said he NEVER wanted to take one up that high again. :D :D
 
Pinecone said:
You do know that the guy who designed the Comanche wing is the same person who designed the Mooney metal wing? :)

Mooney 252 is rated to 28,000 or 29,000. It is that high to get the TAS up to 252 MPH. Marketing named the plane, then they had to figure how to get there. :D

Bob Kormer was the test pilot for Mooney at the time. And after doing the flight to get the numbers, he said he NEVER wanted to take one up that high again. :D :D
Click to expand...
Why did he not want to take it backup to FL280 again? Oxygen concerns?
 
I’ve flown a glider higher than I’ve flown my C414. That being said the service ceiling is a ludicrous 30,000’. FL230 I’ve done and makes sense if weather & winds are right. Since FL300 is into RVSM airspace, you’d need an accommodating ATC to try it. Maybe Dave T and I can file that going to Rough River.
 
Yes, O2 was scarry up that high. Mike Miles (Captain Mikey) was the test pilot when I was an engineer at Mooney, he didn't want to try going that high either.
 
david.h said:
Yes, O2 was scarry up that high. Mike Miles (Captain Mikey) was the test pilot when I was an engineer at Mooney, he didn't want to try going that high either.
Click to expand...

Were they using cheap plastic masks? If going that high I would get a quality mask with a built in mic.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Were they using cheap plastic masks? If going that high I would get a quality mask with a built in mic.
Click to expand...

You really, really want a much better O2 system than much of what GA offers when you’re in an unpressurized vessel where the TUC is 3 mins or less.

Above FL250, you really want a diluter demand or pressure demand mask and system since portable continuous flow systems have challenges delivering enough O2 related to partial pressure at those altitudes and higher.
 
I took a C152, 67849, to 14,500- just shy of the poh SC of 14.7.
My first XC after getting my PPC, KHWD to KPSP, winter 2004. IMG_7599.jpeg
 
If you fly at higher altitudes with or without O2, you really should do one of the altitude chamber events. Either a real chamber or the PROTE system.

But each person's altitude tolerance is different.

I did a flight many years ago that we had to go up to 13,500 to clear some clouds (long story). I was left seat as a CFI. Right seat was a pilot under the hood working on CFII. Back seat was a third pilot.

I noticed the PF started bobbing his head. I turned and looked in the back, and the guy was out, sleeping. I was fine.

I let the guy keep flying to see if he noticed, but he did not. We cleared the clouds went down to 9,500 and the head bobbing stopped and the guy in back woke up.
 
Pinecone said:
If you fly at higher altitudes with or without O2, you really should do one of the altitude chamber events. Either a real chamber or the PROTE system.
Click to expand...
This! I did the altitude chamber in OKC, and it was a great experience. Well worth a couple days to go down and do it.
 
thought I would chime in with another concern/limit on flying as high as the plane will go. It's called the coffin corner.... essentially, the higher you go, the greater the AoA needed to compensate for thinner air. So flying at the greatest Density Altitude, the lower IAS and greater AoA, which leaves you closer to stall at level flight

...a low speed stall for pistons wherein jets would also be up against a high speed stall as well, so the airspeed envelope could only be 5 kts

But The Piston airplane that we're talking about in this thread, would not have a high speed limit (a critical mach speed resulting in loss of linear flow over wing), only a low speed stall limit, which might be just a couple knots slower than the airspeed you're able to maintain at a given high altitude. remember, it's not necessarily the altitude your altimeter says, or even pressure altitude. it is a density altitude function.

so, there's a aerodynamic Factor called Buffett margin, and stall margin. this refers to an airspeed margin between what the airplane can maintain at a given density altitude and GW, compared to where it will experience a stall if it goes faster or slower than that, speed. typically, most aircraft performance tables will have a 10% -15% Buffett margin. meaning that the table will only let you fly as fast as 10% -15%=0 below your stall Buffett speed or the speed initial buffet occurs for a specific GW and DA. . however, there may be another lower margin if the air is smooth, say 5-10%....this is because if already flying at just above stall and the wing is additionally loaded or relative wind abruptly changes due to tubulence causing higher AoA or commanding a nose up or bank, the wing could stall.

So. most published max alt limits are calculated with this in mind. however, in pistons, max altitude is usually a factor of thrust limit (not enough thrust to get high enough for margins to be a factor) rather than wing limits ...meaning you will run out of thrust before lift..... but not always the case with high performance aircraft. These #'s are finalized in test flights and can tell you from experience it can get interesting stalling at high altitudes.

back on point of thread.... taking a plane as high as it will go beyond published performance data, may have issues not fully understood depending on aircraft type. ... stalling and spinning at high altitude in thin air bears warning.

likely more info than needed for the thread, sorry for run on .
 
I'm really surprised how low some of you have been. My factory maule had a listed 20K ceiling and I took it up to 18K once. It was still climbing at 250fpm, but I didn't feel like opening a flight plan. I feel confident it would have been able to exceed its POH.

My experimental maule has clip wings and I think the highest I've had it is only 14k. I'm sure it wouldn't be able to match the factory wings in any case.
 
R172K 210hp (light) still climbing, 17,999. Better leave it there.
Now my R-44 maxs out at 200 AGL. Also better leave it there
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Yeah, I've got the hershey bar arrow. Though I've flown 4 arrows. Two hershey bar, two tapered. And 2 fixed gear cherokees. I honestly can't tell a difference between them in terms of handling/climbing/landing/etc. I'm starting to think I'm just not as perceptive as everyone else!

What surprised me about the Comanche reaching FL210 is that I think it was Bryan who recorded that video taking off out of Leadville in his comanche? That climb rate seemed... Not amazing. I'm kind of surprised someone more than doubled the altitude there and reached the service ceiling. That must have been a long, excruciating process.
Click to expand...
:) I bet a cheeseburger that it's not because you're not perceptive, but because you don't land them too fast. I say that, because I've landed hershey and tapered both many times too fast, and they react very differently. Now that I'm paying at least moderate attention to approach speed, they fly a lot the same. Or maybe I'm just getting old and we're both less perceptive...
 
iamtheari said:
Less weight does. Less fuel only helps because of the weight. Not enough fuel will definitely limit your ceiling. 8)
Click to expand...

My J ceiling is 18800 at max weight but above 23200 if just me and full tanks, but the climb rate would only be 100ft/min at the top. It would take about 40 minutes and I would burn about 10+ gallons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top