Real TAS for Planes?

ktup-flyer said:
12.5-13, but I can carry a lot more ;) Give and take. I need to find someone with a Tiger around here to go fly with. They seem like fun planes
Click to expand...

They are a lot of fun to fly. Definitely more fun than a 182. Also, carrying is relative. Don't need as much gas when you burn less and Tiger weights are respectable. I know of ones over 1000 pounds. A lot more comfortable seats than a Cessna too, especially for the back seat passengers.
 
N1120A said:
Depends on the Mooney. Not an M20C. Also, if you want space, the Tiger is going to dominate a short body Mooney on that and be up with a mid body. The UL will also be better.

Oh, and 140-145 is not uncommon in Tigers.
Click to expand...
My C gets 140 knots all day long. 160 mph
 
LongRoadBob said:
Air frames too, if kept up, repainted, etc. and not let to deteriorate, what would really hinder an airplane from 40 years ago to meet or be very close to the POH specs?
Click to expand...

RIGGING!

Older Cessnas are just as likely (or moreso) to be misrigged than properly rigged. Not making book speed? Take it to Paul New, Jon Efinger, Adam Halop, etc. and spend $800 or so. You'll make book speed when you leave, unless something is bent that they can't fix with proper rigging.

it's amazing to me how many planes I see sitting on a ramp with one flap slightly drooped to (presumably) correct a wing heavy condition. Yeah, it's a $50 "fix" that works to pick the heavy wing up but costs money with every hour of operation by slowing you down.
 
Tigers are fun to fly. Visibility and the sliding canopy are just bonuses. Then again the only other planes I’ve flown are the Cessnas (150/172/182) so not much to compare to.

However, the original post was about renting a plane. Not sure you will find anything to rent outside the standard training plane, with perhaps a few exceptions. Flight school nearby used to have an Arrow for rent. Not sure if they still do.
 
Lots of good info in all the above posts.
I would add, the major limitation will be in what's available for rent. Anything beyond 172's or PA-28 series are somewhat rare. You might find flight schools/FBOs with a 172RG or Arrow, maybe an M20 Mooney in their fleets, perhaps an all-Cirrus fleet, but beyond that there just aren't many higher performance planes for rent. Not that they don't exist, just not very common. I see your profile shows Atlanta for location, larger cities do tend to have more (of everything) for choices. There may also be some good flying clubs with wider ranges of airframes that you may wish to join.
Just saying, a better starting place for your search might be the list of what's actually available, then choose the type that gets you close to what you need.

Edit: Oops, woodchucker beat me to it, and quite a bit more succinctly!
 
timwinters said:
RIGGING!

Older Cessnas are just as likely (or moreso) to be misrigged than properly rigged. Not making book speed? Take it to Paul New, Jon Efinger, Adam Halop, etc. and spend $800 or so. You'll make book speed when you leave, unless something is bent that they can't fix with proper rigging.

it's amazing to me how many planes I see sitting on a ramp with one flap slightly drooped to (presumably) correct a wing heavy condition. Yeah, it's a $50 "fix" that works to pick the heavy wing up but costs money with every hour of operation by slowing you down.
Click to expand...

Rigging and a prop balance, I’d say 90% of the fleet would be well served and for less than a whiz bang G5 too!
 
My Archer Trues out around 128-132 knots between 6-8k. I generally keep it filled to the tabs leaving me around 3 hours of flying +reserve with just a couple pounds under 800 for pilot pax and baggage. That is really hard to beat. Especially when you consider it is a 4 banger with fixed gear and fixed prop. If you don't need the payload, A Mooney is 10-15 knots faster. 182 will do longer legs with the same payload with opportunity for really long legs if you ever need it. Your operating cost will be 30% more in the 182 though.
If I were to be looking for a new airplane right now though, I'd grad a late model Grumman Tiger.
 
ktup-flyer said:
Mine does almost exactly book numbers. The old ragged out 172 rentals we had didn't make close to book...
Click to expand...

The 172's I'm flying are well maintained / safe, but yes I would call them ragged out. They're ridden hard. They also have climb props / low pitch, which is great for training but also dials the speed back.

The school does have a Tiger that doesn't get rented out much. After I get the check ride done, I'll find some time after the holidays to have a CFI spend 5 hours or so with me and check me out on that.
 
N1120A said:
They are a lot of fun to fly. Definitely more fun than a 182. Also, carrying is relative. Don't need as much gas when you burn less and Tiger weights are respectable. I know of ones over 1000 pounds. A lot more comfortable seats than a Cessna too, especially for the back seat passengers.
Click to expand...
I can carry 1305lbs and have 88gal usable. 777lb payload. Doesn't fly like a Bonanza, but it's more comfortable and a good XC machine.
 
1. It's never as fast as they claim, nor as fast as you wish.
2. TAS is meaningless until you have too little or too much.
 
Shepherd said:
1. It's never as fast as they claim, nor as fast as you wish.
2. TAS is meaningless until you have too little or too much.
Click to expand...
TAS tells you, relative to other planes, how slow or fast you'll get to your destination averaged over a large number of flights (with a slight reduction, because you'll spend more time in headwinds than tailwinds). That's relevant to anyone who regularly flies cross-country trips. For local fun flights, agreed, what matters is how long you spend in the air, not how fast you're flying.
 
David Megginson said:
TAS tells you, relative to other planes, how slow or fast you'll get to your destination averaged over a large number of flights (with a slight reduction, because you'll spend more time in headwinds than tailwinds). That's relevant to anyone who regularly flies cross-country trips. For local fun flights, agreed, what matters is how long you spend in the air, not how fast you're flying.
Click to expand...

Ground speed is most important to me in the grand scheme of things, and it's displayed in mph (for benefit of passengers) whereas other speeds are in kts. I want to know how quickly/slowly I'm getting somewhere, automatically taking whatever headwind/tailwind into account. TAS is good for bragging rights, or to see if an aircraft is hitting an expected performance target (or to not blow past Vne!). IAS is great for takeoffs/landings/pattern speed, as it's always right in terms of lift generation, given reasonable angles of attack.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Ground speed is most important to me in the grand scheme of things, and it's displayed in mph (for benefit of passengers) whereas other speeds are in kts. I want to know how quickly/slowly I'm getting somewhere, automatically taking whatever headwind/tailwind into account. TAS is good for bragging rights, or to see if an aircraft is hitting an expected performance target (or to not blow past Vne!). IAS is great for takeoffs/landings/pattern speed, as it's always right in terms of lift generation, given reasonable angles of attack.
Click to expand...
Apples and rutebegas: ground speed is something you talk about in flight; TAS is something you talk about on the ground (planning, comparison shopping, etc). It doesn't make sense to say one matters more than the other, because the contexts are different.
 
David Megginson said:
Apples and rutebegas: ground speed is something you talk about in flight; TAS is something you talk about on the ground (planning, comparison shopping, etc). It doesn't make sense to say one matters more than the other, because the contexts are different.
Click to expand...
Yup. Without TAS you can’t estimate ground speed for planning purposes.
 
Agreed TAS is very important.....for getting my Crabs on the eastern shore. lol ;)
 

Attachments

  • 098C8616-7121-419E-851A-7893FC7AC51B.jpg
    098C8616-7121-419E-851A-7893FC7AC51B.jpg
    101.6 KB · Views: 24
  • 279.jpg
    279.jpg
    159.8 KB · Views: 20
  • 283.jpg
    283.jpg
    150.6 KB · Views: 20
David Megginson said:
Some airspeed indicators (like mine) have a circular sliderule built in for TAS. You turn the knob to line up the pressure altitude and OAT in the little window at the top, and the needle will be over your TAS in the bottom. It depends on you having the right OAT and pressure altitude (as well as a well-calibrated ASI), but that's equally true if you put the inputs into a full E6B (mechanical or electrical).
View attachment 81282
Click to expand...
It took me 3 years to realize that my airplane had one of these. Noticed it this summer. Granted, I haven't been flying her 2 out of the 3 years, but still, I felt like a complete moron.
 
David Megginson said:
Apples and rutebegas: ground speed is something you talk about in flight; TAS is something you talk about on the ground (planning, comparison shopping, etc). It doesn't make sense to say one matters more than the other, because the contexts are different.
Click to expand...

I said that it matters more to me! ;) YMMV.
 
Clip4 said:
If the rigging is correct, the engine is sound, the gross weight and the CF are center of envelope, you should get POH values. Aft CG you should get a little more.
Click to expand...
Rigging....I learned I was flying a bit nose-high rather than level. Altho the VSI was pegged at zero, the nose-high was really cutting my speed down (cherokee 180). Did some experiments in the air with different nose-attitudes, and all of a sudden, I'm getting 5-7 kts better than before.
 
murphey said:
Rigging....I learned I was flying a bit nose-high rather than level. Altho the VSI was pegged at zero, the nose-high was really cutting my speed down (cherokee 180). Did some experiments in the air with different nose-attitudes, and all of a sudden, I'm getting 5-7 kts better than before.
Click to expand...

I referencing the control surfaces adjusted to meet manufacture specifications.
 
N1120A said:
A Cheetah (160 HP) will go faster than a 172 180HP
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I owned a ‘78 Cheetah with the Bill Scott STC (actually 157.5 hp, because of the arbitrary rpm limit). It cruised at 118-119 KTAS at 7.7 gph, and 122 KTAS at 8.4 gph at 7-9K’. I now own a 172N with 180 hp. It cruises at 125-127 KTAS at 10 gph. Both airplanes had/have the full factory wheel/brake fairings.
 
Pilawt said:
Maybe, maybe not. I owned a ‘78 Cheetah with the Bill Scott STC (actually 157.5 hp, because of the arbitrary rpm limit). It cruised at 118-119 KTAS at 7.7 gph, and 122 KTAS at 8.4 gph at 7-9K’. I now own a 172N with 180 hp. It cruises at 125-127 KTAS at 10 gph. Both airplanes had/have the full factory wheel/brake fairings.
Click to expand...

That is a very fast 172
 
N1120A said:
That is a very fast 172
Click to expand...

Or a slow Cheetah. My Traveler will make 117 kt at 2600 rpm and just under 8 gph or 120 kt at 2650 rpm and 8.4 gph. Or I can loaf at 2550 rpm and 115 kt for extended range at 7.5 gph. I have the HC STC and Sensenich prop STC, but a Cheetah should be a lot faster at equivalent power settings even with the stock prop.

When I rented a relatively new C172 at Yingling Aero a while back I was pleasantly surprised at how fast they are with the 180 hp engine. Easily as fast as my Traveler, albeit at higher fuel flows.
 
WDD said:
.... would a 30 year old Tiger really give me 130 kts?
Click to expand...

Yes, but you have to throttle back slightly;)

chemgeek said:
Going 130 kt instead of 115 kt doesn't gain that much on a 350 nm trip.
Click to expand...

Give up 20 knots of that 130 knot Tiger speed to a headwind adds a little over 30 minutes on a run from Austin to El Paso.

SoCal RV Flyer said:
Ground speed is most important to me in the grand scheme of things....
Click to expand...

Now THIS is RV thinking! I can flight plan 165 knots, firewall and get near 171 knots and love seeing near 200 knots if there's any tailwind!:D:D:D
 
Pilawt said:
Maybe, maybe not. I owned a ‘78 Cheetah with the Bill Scott STC (actually 157.5 hp, because of the arbitrary rpm limit). It cruised at 118-119 KTAS at 7.7 gph, and 122 KTAS at 8.4 gph at 7-9K’. I now own a 172N with 180 hp. It cruises at 125-127 KTAS at 10 gph. Both airplanes had/have the full factory wheel/brake fairings.
Click to expand...
Hard to be sure, without seeing your POH, but I think you might have been operating both a bit under 75% power. Also, you didn't mention your weight, density altitude, and air conditions. As I mentioned above, the book TAS is usually under one specific set of conditions.
 
Pilawt said:
1964 Piper ad:

View attachment 81322
Click to expand...
Great ad! Thanks for sharing. This was their philosophy in 1964:
Our aircraft are evaluated at full gross weight
Click to expand...
But by the early 1980s, the PA-28-161 was giving the TAS for "Mid cruise weight 2300 lbs." vs the max gross weight of 2,440 lb. I guess the competitive pressure had got to them; plus, they'd just bumped the max gross weight for the Warrior II up from 2,325 lb to 2,440 lb, and probably didn't want customers to see the 1–2kt reduction in cruise speed from the extra weight.

Short version: check the weight that was used for the book TAS number.
 
David Megginson said:
Not bad at all! Did you also have some ridge lift or other rising air to help you along, or was it just the weight reduction?
Click to expand...
Nope, this is normal for two-up with bags. The airplane has a long-stack Power-Flow, Maple Leaf exhaust fairing and flap gap seals. I haven’t flown it at full gross for a long time, so I can’t really compare.

In that photo, the throttle is backed off just enough to disable the enrichment circuit.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Nope, this is normal for two-up with bags. The airplane has a long-stack Power-Flow, Maple Leaf exhaust fairing and flap gap seals. I haven’t flown it at full gross for a long time, so I can’t really compare.

In that photo, the throttle is backed off just enough to disable the enrichment circuit.
Click to expand...
Sweet! I've never managed above 124 KTAS (143 mph TAS) in my 160 hp Warrior II, at least not without help from rising air (e.g. orographic/thermal/convective lift). Maybe a new paint job would get me a knot or two closer to the POH's 127 KTAS at 8,000 ft DA. :)
 
David Megginson said:
Sweet! I've never managed above 124 KTAS (143 mph TAS) in my 160 hp Warrior II, at least not without help from rising air (e.g. orographic/thermal/convective lift). Maybe a new paint job would get me a knot or two closer to the POH's 127 KTAS at 8,000 ft DA. :)
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean an Archer II, cause I've never seen published speeds for a Warrior like that.
 
WDD said:
Where can I find an idea of what "real" speeds other 30 year old rentals might have?
Click to expand...

You ask about 'real' world speeds; http://www.flightaware.com will tell you what typical groundspeeds specific N-numbers are doing, if you know some you want to look up. And finding random aircraft shouldn't be too difficult.
Many a/c will fly A to B then return to A, a short time later - so you can get an idea of real world average GS's. (for very recent flights you can look up winds aloft to see how that was affecting their GS)
Its a good tool to see what an aircraft you are going to purchase has been doing too, helps blow through the sales pitch lies (also good to see if your buddies are giving fish stories when they talk about what their aircraft can do, lol)

I know some people use flightaware to monitor all a/c of one type, but I am not sure how to do that. Somehow they can type in "Cessna 172" somewhere and see all that are airborne at any one time and from there, select one and view the track log.
Maybe you have to pay extra for this but I think you an also get an alert anytime one of these aircraft in the entire fleet are detected in the NAS by ATC radar.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
You ask about 'real' world speeds; http://www.flightaware.com will tell you what typical groundspeeds specific N-numbers are doing, if you know some you want to look up. And finding random aircraft shouldn't be too difficult.
Many a/c will fly A to B then return to A, a short time later - so you can get an idea of real world average GS's. (for very recent flights you can look up winds aloft to see how that was affecting their GS)
Its a good tool to see what an aircraft you are going to purchase has been doing too, helps blow through the sales pitch lies (also good to see if your buddies are giving fish stories when they talk about what their aircraft can do, lol)

I know some people use flightaware to monitor all a/c of one type, but I am not sure how to do that. Somehow they can type in "Cessna 172" somewhere and see all that are airborne at any one time and from there, select one and view the track log.
Maybe you have to pay extra for this but I think you an also get an alert anytime one of these aircraft in the entire fleet are detected in the NAS by ATC radar.
Click to expand...
Na...there's a drop down in the left side of the menu bar, Live Flight Tracking. Look for browse by aircraft type.
 
N1120A said:
I'm assuming you mean an Archer II, cause I've never seen published speeds for a Warrior like that.
Click to expand...
The Warrior II POH says 127 KTAS at around 7,500 ft DA, mid-weight (2,300 lb), with wheel fairings on. I've never quite managed that.

When I'm cruising a few hundred lb below max gross (2,440 lb) at 75% power, in smooth air, I see 112 KIAS on the ASI, which is 110 KCAS. If you're at 7,500 ft pressure altitude with an OAT of 0C, 110 KCAS is abou 124 KTAS.

Have you never seen 112 KIAS in cruise on a Warrior II at 75% power?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top