Cruise Speed Vs. Climb Rate

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm going to do a video piece on this soon. I like to get your take on it. Since I've been flying or talking about airplanes, cruise speed is generally what people prioritize when it comes to the aircraft's performance. Everyone wants to go fast, but you have to get to your cruise altitude first right?
Anyway, the more I learn about different types of airplanes, the more this question comes to mind.

So which should you prioritize? better climb rate or better cruise speed?
Which is more important? and why?
Also what's been your personal experience?

Thank you.

Yes. The correct answer is "Yes."

Climb, cruise, or fuel economy. Pick any two...

Naah. I fly a Mooney. Climb to 10,000 feet in under 10 minutes, cruise at 170-175 KTAS while sipping 12 gph.

Personally, I am a big fan of overall efficiency. The "Introducing Vz" paper came out around the time that I first got the Mooney. My Vy is 105, book cruise climb is 120, and Vz is about 138. Climb rate isn't all that different between those three options, but the faster airspeeds give better cooling AND I'm farther down the road reaching cruise altitude. Yes, climb rate is *slightly* reduced and fuel flow is higher for longer, but the shorter flight mostly makes up for that. I'd have to do some flight testing myself to see what the change is in total trip fuel/time, but I much prefer a pretty quick transition to Vz for the climb.

So, I set takeoff trim, lift off, retract the gear at 85, retract flaps at 95, aim for 105 to 1000 AGL but I usually hit those two about the same time and just continue to accelerate and climb, slowly pitching down between 1000 AGL and 2000 AGL to reach Vz. I'm generally climbing between 1000-1500 fpm for this initial portion depending on conditions, and I generally maintain >1000 fpm up through 5000 at least.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Takeoff distance. Landing distance. To make those shorter makes the trip in between slower.

As a general rule, yes... But not always. I'm sure the guys at Pilatus would disagree.

But there's two ways to lower takeoff and landing distance - Use a fatter, higher-lift (=draggier) wing, or accelerate/decelerate faster. What you're talking about is the difference between, say, a 182 and a Mooney. The 182 has a fat wing and a lower stall speed and thus more drag in cruise, so it's slower, but it gets off and on the ground faster. But, if you compare, for example, a Mooney Eagle to a Mooney Ovation, basically the same bird except the Eagle is limited to 244hp vs the Ovation's 280, and let's say the Ovation has speed brakes and the Eagle doesn't. The Ovation will take off (thanks to more hp) and land (thanks to speed brakes) in less distance but also travel faster between. A similar comparison could be made between a stock King Air and one that has all the Blackhawk and Raisbeck mods.