Two Eagle II’s on the ramp next to each other. That can’t happen often. I think there are 24 flying.

Oh and pretty good true airspeed today at FL310

Mike

What kind of fuel flow does that require?

In the low 30s I can make my V go blistering fast, but I think that's from the reaction thrust of throwing fuel out the tail pipe.

Mike C.

What kind of fuel flow does that require?

In the low 30s I can make my V go blistering fast, but I think that's from the reaction thrust of throwing fuel out the tail pipe.

Mike C.

The one I test flew did, Mach 0.62 was all it had at FL410 and MCT. That's 355 KTAS.

Mike C.

The one I test flew did, Mach 0.62 was all it had at FL410 and MCT. That's 355 KTAS.

Mike C.

The one I test flew did, Mach 0.62 was all it had at FL410 and MCT. That's 355 KTAS.

Mike C.

Been to FL450 in the V. Hard to imagine a step up from the V that I will do, so it is likely my pinnacle of performance.

I want the 170 back, though. What a sweet airplane that was.

Mike C.

What is your speed and fuel flow at FL410?

FlightAware doesn't show any flights you took recently that reached FL410. Do you not use that altitude?

The highest flight I could find was this one:

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight ... /KDZB/KPVU

FL400

Near ABQ:

When I look at the upper air soundings for that day from the ABQ site, I get the winds at FL400 (187 hPa) to be 253 at 43 knots.

That works out to a true airspeed of 344 KTAS, Mach 0.60.

So I'm not seeing the great disparity between my observations and your results since my test flight did Mach 0.62 at FL410.

As you get higher, Mach 1 gets slower and you reach the Mach limit on your fat wing sooner. This is well understood aerodynamics and why fast airplanes have thin wings.

If you take your airplane and fly it in the mid 30s and compare a Stallion (FJ44 but no extra fuel hump) flown at FL430, the range and speed is comparable. Part of that is the higher Mach limit of the thinner original wing, but also part of that is being lighter to get to altitude faster for the Stallion.

You can disagree with my analysis and observations, but I came to the conclusion that the fuel hump mod isn't worth it. The extra range and the extra leak potential don't make it that much better than the Stallion.

Mike C.

Yes I agree a stallion is faster. I think that clear and never disputed that. But to say the hump is not worth it is a stretch. My range has come in handy lots of time.

I guess it's possible that all of my instruments are wrong and my clocks. Maybe my plane changes space and time to get me there faster but it really flew slow. I guess either way the results are good with me.

I have never seen true of 340's ever in cruise. And I am usually dead on trip planing and some times off by maybe 2-3% of my planned trip time and fuel from my firelight performance profile. Mostly because of routing or restricted climbs and descents.

So every measurement I have is wrong but your single experience is correct. Oh and your screen shot of as track proves nothing.

I guess this is the point where I just let it go and let you think what you want. Like others have said it's frustrating to have you state your perspective as fact against others that have different experiences and perspective.

I have never had a trip that I wished I had a Stallion and there have been plenty of times that I was glad I had the Eagle II range.

Like you I am very happy with my aircraft that I own and fly. Not sure why you get off on attacking others that have different aircraft than you currently own. If you were ever to get a different model then that new one would be thee worlds best plane for everyone.

Mike

Mike C

Sorry I didn’t see your question above the screen shot.

I rarely fly high if I can get away with lower for passenger comfort and single pilot limitation for mask use. Which the extra fuel allows me to fly lower and use more fuel for that leg.

If I had a Stallion I would be forced to fly high to get better range.

Each flight has its own trade offs. Having an extra 1000lbs of fuel gives me more tools in my tool chest. Being able to get up to FL430 is another tool in the box. Having 10 total seat belts is another tool that I may use.

With Foreflight I can see all of the performance variables to pick the things that matter. Sometimes trip time or altitude matters more than fuel use.

Every plane has its trade offs and compromises. It’s all about having the trade off that matters to you. I like my trade offs as I can’t spend 3x to get anything better and I don’t have 500 jet hours to get SPW for the V. So for my situation the Eagle II is the best option. You clearly have different things that matter to you. You have made it clear that you would never buy a Williams powered aircraft. That’s good for you.

Mike

I am curious to hear what everyone does for climb schedules. Do you run cruise climb numbers from the book, max climb numbers from the book, or strictly use AOA?

160 indicated through 30k, then 150-155 indicated above that to 35-37k (step climb above that). I don’t like the 200 kt climb schedule. Takes too long to get on step and accelerate. Just my worthless two cents.

I use the cruise climb IAS listed in the table in my abbreviate checklist (from CAE - came with the plane). I assume it's the same as what's in the AFM. It's in the plane right now but I'm headed out there tonight if you want me to scan it.

I tend to interpolate during the climb to make it a very slow speed bleed-off vs strictly following the table - waiting until X altitude and then jump 10 KIAS like a stair-step.

Interesting. I haven't flown it back to back but using the time to climb tables in the book, it's slower overall and uses (barely) more fuel to climb quickly than it is to cruise climb. I did the math and posted it somewhere, can't recall if it was here or on CJP. Maybe I can dig it out.

Update: found my post on CJP:
Here are the details from my CAE abbreviated checklist.

Cruise climb Time/Fuel/Distance:
10,500 T/O weight to FL370: 29 mins, 591lbs, 139nm

Max climb Time/Fuel/Distance:
10,500 T/O weight to FL370: 20 mins, 440lbs, 69nm
Then add the 9 mins at FL370 at MCT: 124lbs, 52nm

So after 29 mins at max climb you have burned 564lbs and gone 121nm - 18 miles short of the cruise climb. To go that 18 miles you will burn another 41lbs which means that max climb actually uses MORE fuel (605 for max climb vs 591 for cruise climb).

I think we may actually be saying the same thing. The 200 kt climb schedule I was referencing starts out with 200 kts in the initial climb but then decreases significantly as you gain altitude. In the high 30’s, the indicated is something like 135 kts depending on weight.

I prefer the cruise climb approach by maintaining 160 kts indicated. My climb rate slows down as I go higher but my TAS increases.

Much better approach, IMO, for all of the reasons you mentioned.