VFR - how fast is fast enough to travel

I have to say I’m not bothered about speed.
Some years ago a group of us went down to San Sebastian for the weekend. 3 aircraft a Mooney M20J a Piper Arrow and I was in a Robin 400/120 with 2 others. It took 2 hours each way LFFK / St Sebastian/LFFK.
We were in no particular hurry but each way we heard the others calling up to integrate.
We all landed and parked up and ready to leave the airport within no more than a few minutes of each other. We all walked to Fontarabie together at St. Sebastian and we all arrived at the LFFK club bar for a beer at the same time. I don’t need to rush around in retirement.

gallois wrote:

I have to say I’m not bothered about speed…We all landed and parked up and ready to leave the airport within no more than a few minutes of each other.

Exactly. Few minutes here and there in total trip time doesn’t make much difference. You can easily lose much more time waiting for fuel bowser than you can save by pushing throttle. The only thing that I think of when speed is in the question is patience and stamina of my passengers.

This subject has come up many times and the consensus answer taking wind into account is always 120 kt minimum if you view planes as transport. But you can in reality go anywhere with anything given time and often lower and slower is more fun.

hazek wrote:

Man you have more patience than me xD

I was used to 100-110 kts TAS in the good old Dimona days, so 130+ TAS in a DR401 feels like a rocket to me. Sure, it is not the fastest plane, but still practicable for doing VFR trips throughout Europe, especially out of a central country like Switzerland. If I get my IR ticket one day, I might need some faster planes though… But let’s face it: Even traveling with the Dimona was fun and it was rare to have a GS below 100 kts. I fly also the Lightwing AC4 sometimes, which only reaches 90 kts TAS. Slow yes, but with a modern an clean cockpit and incredibly cheap rental price for Swiss circumstances. I can fly 2,5 hours AC4 compared to one in the DR401.

hazek wrote:

Btw, do you still do longer trips? Would love some new videos if you have the time, you really have some great content! It certainly taught me a lot.

Yes, I do! I’m a bit lazy in video editing to be honest, I might need to kick myself on getting new episodes done. Some cool trips to Croatia, Norway, France, and Italy are still waiting on the shelf.

I would say “no slower than you are used to!”

For example, if you are used to an aircraft doing 150kts, you’ll hate anything slower. But if all you’ve ever experienced is 100kts then you’ll be perfectly happy there.

Most of my longer trips were done in one of two aircraft. One did 100kts and one 125kts.

The 100kts I’d say is the slowest that I’d think would be suitable for touring. Generally it only made a few minutes difference on landing. But with a significant headwind progress is much slower as it takes a bigger percentage of your airspeed. If you’re up against closing times (a big issue when travelling east when you might lose an hour due to a time zone change), speed is really important.

Ideally I’d say no slower than 120kts (but that’s what I’m used to, so of course I’d say that!) but the faster the better. Personally I’d be happy with 120kts, but anyone used to more would probably not be so happy with it.

For example, if you are used to an aircraft doing 150kts, you’ll hate anything slower. But if all you’ve ever experienced is 100kts then you’ll be perfectly happy there.

Not for me. I an used to 170kts in the SR22. I am currently on a trip in France in the Fuji (100kts) and love it.

Anz aircraft works four touring in Europe. Also, there is no magic number.

dublinpilot wrote:

If you’re up against closing times (a big issue when travelling east when you might lose an hour due to a time zone change), speed is really important.

Luckily, flying east you’ll probably have tailwind.

The last aircraft I’ve flown with were an SR 20 – which I effectively flew typically at 135KTAS lean of peak burning 39 litres per hour, a Pipistrel Virus SW with 130KTAS burning around 23 litres / hour (the aircraft, however, was extremely cramped) and now my current steed which, at FL 100, will cruise at 120KTAS burning 13 litres per hour. On a trip to (eg) UK, I’d save maybe between 17 and 7 minutes on a 2hour 36 flight but save more than €140 (compared to SR 20) or €60 (compared to Pipistrel) on fuel costs….

What would you take? Yes, with a 20 knot headwind, seeing the groundspeed in double digit can be demoralising but hey, when you tot up the expenses at the end of the month, that puts the smile back on your face….

To the OP: obvously the answer depends on how far you are going, but in general range is the best “speed mod”.