VFR - how fast is fast enough to travel

Emir wrote:

I usually fly anywhere between 165 and 180 KTAS (recorded in FlySto) trying to choose appropriate altitude to minimize headwind or maximize tailwind. However, when choosing between worse headwind and potential flying in clouds, I always choose above the clouds regardless the wind.

I checked my average ground speed (recorded via ADL) and it’s not so great – 145 kts.

Edit: I re-checked and ADL puts direct distance in database log rather than real ground distance covered. That means that my average GS is much higher. Unfortunately FlySto doesn’t show it directly, you can calculate it and then average but it’s too much manual work.

I went through corrected distances for last 20 flights and I got a bit better average ground speed – 155 kts. Still not as hoped for but better than 145 kts.

Guys: you are missing the point entirely: the main reason for speed is bragging rights.

Inkognito wrote:

(Sorry, can’t remember if someone posted it on this forum already…)

I am sure it was, but this one never gets old, especially since it has not been beaten yet!

Antonio wrote:

Guys: you are missing the point entirely: the main reason for speed is bragging rights.

LOL!!!

More than a grain in truth in it. Goes for cars as well even though it is even more theoretical there.

Seeing how much money people put into speed mods is also quite interesting. Even though some airplanes have truely been transformed when someone like LoPresti got his hands on them, such as the AA5 Traveller vs the Cheetah or the M20F vs the J model.

Antonio wrote:

Guys: you are missing the point entirely: the main reason for speed is bragging rights.

Ha ha my thoughts entirely when reading this thread! :B

Of course I could brag around that my DR253 has the performance of a Cessna 182 with the maintenance cost and fuel consumption of a 172. But that’s not the point. I suggest we start a new trend, “How slow do you enjoy flying?” or even “How economical can you make your fuel consumption?” :D

As stated in this post, last Sunday I went for low and slow for a change and I really, really liked it. I will certainly do it more in the future. 20% speed reduction for 30% fuel savings, plus a longer time in the air and a smoother ride, what’s not to like?

Cheapest speed mod is a knot in the urethra.

However, this is not the best for bragging rights although, maybe, for some, still

You better not ever send me any FB movie URLs

etn wrote:

“How economical can you make your fuel consumption?”

That on the other hand can be a real exercise in “know your airplane”. E.g what is the max range you can squeeze out of your airplane flying as economically as you can, with the clear pre-condition to land with >45 mins of fuel remaining. Some airplanes, if operated on such a regime, can get quite astonishing results, even though it means to go sometimes painfully slow.

I recall a guy (a physics professor working at the CERN in Geneva) who modified a M20E to be a full earthrounder plane and wrote a lot about how he maximized the range he had. Just found back his homepage, slightly dated but still quite a nice read.

Amazing to read such a trip 20-25 years back in time. How the world has changed… But apart from bits of the world having blown up, flying itself is still the same. Same ATC procedures, etc. He had someone sending him wx over an Iridium phone. He was about 60 back then.

45 mins is not enough for Europe. It may be OK for the US, with so many runways.