Peter wrote:
Because the only way to fly at altitude, say FL080+, is wide open throttle and peak EGT or LOP.It would be quite daft to partially close the throttle when above say FL080, and one can’t open it anymore than wide-open.
I usually fly at FL100 unless MET conditions (including strong headwinds) make that unfeasible. My standard power setting is 65% peak EGT which is not WOT at FL100 on any aircraft I’ve flown. (Including the TB20.) Power setting tables typically show that the limit (=WOT) altitude for 65% is around FL120 in ISA conditions.
The precision of the wind forecast may vary with the location?Maybe, but I suspect you a) fly low down so can adjust the TAS to match the AR numbers (which takes out one of the variables) and/or b) got lucky. For sure, the general picture from windy.com (ECMWF; I never use GFS anymore) is broadly speaking usually in the right ballpark, but “broadly speaking” can be 10-20kt off.
I almost never adjust power to adjust TAS. I set my planned power and get the TAS I get. (Which is usually very close to book figure.) As most aircraft I fly don’t have fuel totalisers, I want to have a predictable fuel consumption. I very much doubt I get lucky on virtually every flight.
Power setting tables typically show that the limit (=WOT) altitude for 65% is around FL120 in ISA conditions.
That’s news to me, and probably explains why my plane has 20% more range than the POH 
Peter wrote:
That’s news to me
It shouldn’t be that surprising as at FL120 air pressure is about 65% of sea level air pressure.
Also, if you fly LOP, then power is reduced compared to peak EGT or ROP, so quite possibly you would need WOT at lower levels than FL120 to get 65%. If you have a constant speed prop, then the selected rpm would also matter. You could need WOT at a low rpm setting but not at a higher one.
“what if you are flying IFR to VFR airfield with no IAF like pilotrobbie does (doable in VMC, if the statement looks weird), for Stapleford EGSG, I guess that would be ETA to BPK VOR where London Control are likely to dump you? or it’s LAM overhead”
If you are flying to a VFR airfield you are VFR then the ETA is vertical the field. Of course this might be different in the UK, perhaps you can fly IFR to a VFR field.
You can file an “I” flight plan to/from a VFR-only airport in the UK, and in a number of other countries.
The AR does sometimes enforce where this is not possible but it depends on whether the country in question has supplied the data to IFPS. Also you get stuff like LDLO has tower staff sometimes (and the IAP can be used) while at other times it is unmanned and then the FP has to be a “IFR-cancel” on the way in, or a VFR dep (Z) on the way out, and the AR won’t know about the tower staffing hours.
Just guessing maybe pilotrobbie can confirm but I think he was flying on I-FPL all the way without ever cancelling IFR (if he can’t land at Stapleford due to deers or tornados on the runway his IFR FPL will be active & valid in the system but one needs to call for the pop-up en-route IFR clearance to go to the alternate)
You can file I-FPL in France to some VFR airfields as well (e.g. StNazaire-LaBaule out and return under IFR at 3kft if you wish)
Peter wrote:
The AR does sometimes enforce where this is not possible but it depends on whether the country in question has supplied the data to IFPS. Also you get stuff like LDLO has tower staff sometimes (and the IAP can be used) while at other times it is unmanned and then the FP has to be a “IFR-cancel” on the way in, or a VFR dep (Z) on the way out, and the AR won’t know about the tower staffing hours.
It’s not really the AR that decides. Just like routing decisions, this is determined by the IFPS. The IFPS will reject any flight plans with IFR departure from or arrival to an airport which has not been designated as IFR airport.
As you say, it depends on the country. In Sweden every airport is designed as IFR, except those that once were instrument airports when the IFPS was introduced and have since lost that status! Even new non-instrument airports are designated as IFR. A weird way of managing it.
Why on earth would you want to file LFRZ to LFRE and return LFRZ at 3000ft on an IFPL?
In the context of this part of the debate LFRZ does have an IFR procedure and therefore an IAF.(I haven’t checked)
LFRE does not have an IFR procedure. Therefore standard timings would be outward:- ETA LFRE would mean time overhead LFRE whereas on the return your ETA will be at the chosen IAF for LFRZ, to which in your fuel calculations in the case of LFRE you would add circuit fuel and at LFRZ you might add 15min for the procedure.
Why on earth would you want to file LFRZ to LFRE and return LFRZ at 3000ft on an IFPL?
Because you can, you can do LFRE to LFPN I-IFR at FL100 if you like anyway it’s better to fly on I-FPL than Z-FPL or Y-FPL as it gives you more options on both departures & arrivals: on departure, you can call Nantes ATC by phone to open your I-FPL and give you an IFR squawk with initial IFR clearance (on Z-FPL you need to depart VFR on 7000, call Nantes FIS while airborne and hold your breath a bit, if you send the FPL with wrong registration or wrong date/time or if something got overwritten/copied you are pretty much fried, so it’s good to get all the admin done on the ground ), for arrival, you have better control when you cancel and when to fly to your alternate
I agree on IFR fuel calculations for LFRE it’s ARP overhead & circuit while at LFRZ it’s MT NDB overhead & approach
Ok it was just that LFRZ to LFRE or vice versa I think I would just have asked Nantes for what is described here as a pop up IFR for weather. They are so close together.
