Mooney_Driver wrote:
I recall taking the club Archer I had to fly for a while up to 15000 ft easily with max load
That surprises me. Does the Archer I have a higher service ceiling than the Archer II or was the air very cold? The service ceiling for the Archer II according to the POH is 12000 ft. I’ve never been that high due to oxygen requirements, but I’ve been to 11000 ft density altitude at FL 100. The climb rate was down to about 250-300 fpm which fits nicely with a service ceiling of 12000 ft.
I onece went up in a C172 P (160 hp) with almost MTOM/ISA +10°C and had the clearance for FL 105/airspace C already. At FL 95 I had to declare unable – already on the Radar freq. – “okay, cleared to leave”. That was embarrassing!
Nothing beats a Turbo at altitude 
Peter wrote:
Even a PA28-181 will go to FL140
if you have enough time, you´ll get there. Once we were trying to get FL120 with just 2 POB in 28-181 and we were lucky the ATC vectored us underneath nice cumulus. So I delayed the turn by few seconds and with help of thermics like a glider we were good to go.
There is one factor not in this discussion yet – individual condition of the given aircraft and especially engine. While it has effect on all conditions for sure, we are less likely to notice few kts down from cruise speed. and not only the engine, also aiframe with 40years history and several crashes into the hangar door will have an effect. Not to much factor for SR20 but still.
The reason why the ceilings of aircraft are reported so differently by different people are manifold:
1. many aircraft, even of the same type and variant, perform differently due to mods (both good and bad for performance) and age related degradation (bad for performance). So this affectd older aircraft more than newer ones.
2. Pilot technique. Some people are most able at sqeezing max performance out of an aircraft than others. Ideal mixture (CHTs are normally no problem in an NA aircraft above FL100), ball centered, best rate of climb speed for the givem altitude, etc.
But the biggest factor I think is in what people consider as the “practical” ceiling of the aircraft.
First of all, cit’s a matter of patience. Sone people have the patience to wait for half an hour to get from FL80 to FL180. Other simply don’t have the patience and consider a much lower level as the practical ceiling.
Also, when talking about getting to say FL150, I guess were mostly talking about IFR (either to get above weather of or to get some MEA over the Alps; not a lot of people will fly VFR at FL150). And IFR is a totally different game. A 100 or 200 FPM climb rate is simply not helpful is most of occasions. That is because the gradient will be abysmal and therefore, the climb to say FL180 might take up to 100 miles, thus you will very likely get into cloud during these 100 miles. And in Europe, you will have ice in the clouds between say FL120 and FL160 on 90% of days. It’s simply an illusion that there will always be 100 miles after departure before the bad weather comes. So no way to climb up there at 100 fpm. Even very minor amounts of ice (let’s say what you pick up in a couple of minutes) will usually knock about 100-200 FPM off of your total residual climb rate.
I consider the practical IFR ceiling of an aircraft where the climb rates drop below 300 FPM. That’s why I often cite rather low levels as the practical ceilings of certain aircraft (comes from experience).
Under practical aspects, I think that citing the celing of an aircraft at levels where its climb rate is 100 ot even 50 FPM is bollox.
boscomantico wrote:
Under practical aspects, I think that citing the celing of an aircraft at levels where its climb rate is 100 ot even 50 FPM is bollox.
For IFR in the Eurocontrol system, 100fpm is the definition. The highest possible flight level for planning is where you still have > 100fpm climb rate. Important when you configure your autorouter aircraft profiles.
There is a certain well known public aviation figure with a normally aspirated French airplane who likes to climb for one hour with 15° pitch and the stall horn blaring at 50kts to eventually arrive at FL200 (provided there are updrafts). This ensures that every flight takes at least 7 hours 
Is it possible at all to intercept an ILS at FL200 ????
:-)
I have climbed to FL150 in a Piper Archer 2 to go over the Alps (VFR), but I don’t consider that normal Piper Archer 2 performance. So, yes, you can climb out to greater height in a SR20 if you have the patience, but it is not practical anymore higher than FL130 except for those that have all the patience in the world and don’t encounter any weather while in the climb out.
I think most pilots just climb full rich, or they lean just a little. That knocks about 30% off the ceiling.
Most instructors have no idea. The one I had for the FAA IR leaned for constant CHT
In isa+10 and 5% under MTOW it takes me 1hr to get to FL200. That is fair for the job. The forward vis is normally 50-100nm.
In isa-15 and 10% under MTOW I saw +300fpm at FL195 but Norwich could not get a popup clearance into CAS.
Flyer59 wrote:
Is it possible at all to intercept an ILS at FL200 ????
Provided you have an array of high gain Yagi antennas, yes
tomjnx wrote:
tomjnx 10-Sep-15 09:56 #69
Flyer59 wrote:
Is it possible at all to intercept an ILS at FL200 ????
Provided you have an array of high gain Yagi antennas, yes
I don’t think you need yogi antennas, just a normal equipment would do.
In Antwerp I had a valid GS indication in FL150 and about 48NM to run. I see no reason, why this wouldn’t work in FL200.
