Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Typical GA IFR profile: Kortrijk - Deauville - Kortrijk

Forum,

Last Sunday I flew a typical GA IFR profile (Peter H style) from Kortrijk (EBKT) to Deauville (LFRG) and back: climbing as fast as possible with a non-turbo single engine piston through and above the remainders of a cold front (and picking up just a slight bit of ice). Climbing to FL120 in the going and FL150 in the return. All on Mountain High oxygen. Airplane is a Robin 3000/160.

It works and it is very rewarding ! Impossible without IR, and higher risk without oxygen. See attached video my son made (some comments in Dutch).



ATC and intercom audio recorded through my Attenuator (Link)

Last Edited by Niner_Mike at 11 Nov 09:48
Abeam the Flying Dream
EBKT, western Belgium, Belgium

It’s lovely to have such a nice relationship with one’s son

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Excuse me for a couple of critical questions:

-) is it worth climbing that high for such a short distance? A whopping 147 NM, in a straight line…

-) with a non-turbo engine, you climb must have taken quite some time. What % of the distance were you actually at the intended altitude?

-) the climbs must not only have taken a good deal of time, you must also have burned an awful lot of fuel.

Of course, to each their own, as has so often been said. And I won’t deny there’s a bit of envy on this side.
Also, fully agree to Peter’s comment!

PS your “attenuator” looks like a neat well-done project – keep it simple! Does it contain a transformer or is there just a potmeter and a couple of resistors? I couldn’t find a schematic, disappointment…

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

Dag Jan,

Thank you for your questions.

  • is it worth climbing that high for such a short distance? A whopping 147 NM, in a straight line…
    = Absolutely. It was worth climbing above the weather, to enjoy good tailwinds (in the return flight), to test my oxygen system, and to set my personal record ;-)
  • with a non-turbo engine, you climb must have taken quite some time. What % of the distance were you actually at the intended altitude?
    = I climbed at an average of 500 fpm at 80 knots … so 30 minutes climb to reach FL150, covering 40 NAM, with a 20% tailwind, about 48 NGM
  • the climbs must not only have taken a good deal of time, you must also have burned an awful lot of fuel.
    = In the going flight, I consumed 69l for 1h54m engine time, or almost 9.6 GPH, nothing ‘awful’ for a 160 HP engine. Remember: what you go slow, high and consuming in the climb, you go fast and frugal in the descent not taking into account the non-linearities.
  • your “attenuator” looks like a neat well-done project – keep it simple! Does it contain a transformer or is there just a potmeter and a couple of resistors? I couldn’t find a schematic, disappointment…
    = Potmeter, resistors and DC blocking capacitors. And with more than 35 units sold, lot’s of safe flight hours! It’s my own IP, and I sell it as a product. Interested ;-) ?

Niner Mike

Last Edited by Niner_Mike at 11 Nov 12:56
Abeam the Flying Dream
EBKT, western Belgium, Belgium

Hehe, dag Steven,

Thank you for a patient and friendly answer.

All of your facts and arguments seem quite correct for the category, for as little as I can judge – but it is really “a different ballpark” from my humble contraption – whence the envy mentioned… Yet, with no wind, at 75 knots IAS I would have taken about two hours each way, burning less than 60 litres on both flights combined – if I could have flown at all.

As for the attenuator: no thanks, if ever I want such a device I’ll get the soldering iron under pressure and concoct one. But it is not going to happen soon, as I do not have a video (nor indeed any kind of) recorder.

Kind regards,
Vriendelijke groet,
The Antwerp Daredevil

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium
5 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top