Ibra wrote:
SF25C Faulke
You mean the Falke, a touring motorglider. The Falke will do it, as any of the Rotax-driven motorgliders. Have flown in the alps with the Falke “C” 80 PS Rotax, too. Most of it with engine shut down, of course.
Regarding the “180 horse power limit” mentioned initially, I’ve done crossing of the main ridge of the alps in a 180PS Warrior in about FL100. We were 4 POB at MTOW, it was fun, but performance-wise more or less the limit. There was still some excess power to react and to establish good cruise speed.
I’ve done another crossing in a 180PS Robin DR400 in FL140, just above a cloud layer at FL130. It took 44 minutes to climb there, and I would call that a real limit. From FL120 further up I thought I would never get there, but it worked out. However you need just any bit of the rest of the engine power to maintain altitude, and quite some time to gain some form of cruise speed. It was ok, but I wouldn’ call it exactly fun to fly. Clouds were up to FL130 for only a few kilometers of flight before the main ridge – a typical accumulation of clouds in the north, where it’s impossible to get through VFR below. Again it was close to MTOW with 3 POB and luggage. Cloud tops were exactly as forecast. It was only some minutes of flying above the cloud layer, with clear sky both to the north and to the south behind the main ridge.
Both flights need a lot of experience and knowledge about weather and winds in the alps, so I don’t recommend it that way.
Of course it can be done with less weight or more lift in anything having less horsepower. So the “180PS” is not exactly an indication of a “limit”. For example I’ve also flown there with a 160PS Piper Archer, but with only 2 small kids and not much luggage had at least the feeling of plenty power in FL100. And as mentioned, any touring motorglider with 80 PS or more will still be fun in FL100.
UdoR wrote:
180PS Warrior … 160PS Piper Archer
Sorry to nitpick, but it’s the other way around. The Archer has a 180 hp engine, the Warrior 160 hp.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Sorry to nitpick, but it’s the other way around. The Archer has a 180 hp engine, the Warrior 160 hp
O.K. You made me look it up. It was an Archer II with that 180 hp engine and a Piper Cadet with 160 hp..
Peter wrote:
I can’t remember the old guide for how high you need to be but it is something like 1000ft for every 10kt of wind
That is what I was taught in my initial training. My solo cross countries for my private certificate were over and around 8000 ft terrain so it was emphasized. Unless it’s dead calm that’s what I do, meaning as a general rule on nice days 2000 ft over terrain.
Peter wrote:
I think a high performance plane is more important than going IFR – if you had to choose one of those two. But not everybody can afford one.
Climb rate is a very useful thing in a plane, both for safety and for point to point speed when you have to climb from takeoff over high terrain in your direction of flight. A couple of years ago a friend with an RV-7 took off from the infamous Mammoth California airport (7135 ft altitude) in his RV-7A in what he thought were modest gusty winds. Not long after liftoff he was unable to climb in a downdraft for an extended period, this with an aircraft that climbs at 2000 fpm at sea level and not hugely less at 9000 ft DA. Since my plane will climb at only about half that rate, my lesson from that and personal experience is that climb rate is good but nature can swat you like a bug regardless of aircraft performance, unless you are careful. It’s a simple guideline 
Obviously IFR versus VFR is non-issue for our flying, given Class E everywhere and airports on and around mountains, not just terrain en route.
UdoR wrote:
O.K. You made me look it up. It was an Archer II with that 180 hp engine and a Piper Cadet with 160 hp..
The Cadet is basically a stripped-down version of the Warrior intended for flight training. (E.g. no wheel fairings, no rear seats.)
Every Cadet I have flown has had 4 seats but no baggage door and no extended rear windows
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Every Cadet I have flown has had 4 seats but no baggage door and no extended rear windows
Really? I must admit to never having seen one IRL, but I’ve read in several places that it only had two seats.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Peter_Mundy wrote: Every Cadet I have flown has had 4 seats but no baggage door and no extended rear windowsReally? I must admit to never having seen one IRL, but I’ve read in several places that it only had two seats.
Four seats in our school, no baggage door.
Default AFM contains a W&B diagram with rear passengers.
What is the ceiling of a PA28-161?
The Warrior II has a lower MAUM than the III, but it can be raised by an STC from 2325 lbs to 2440 lbs. At standard ISA the performance graph for climb in the II shows 150 fpm at 12,000 feet, so arguably the service ceiling is slightly above. I believe the heavier III may state the service ceiling as 11,000 feet.
Performance apps seem to show a default of 12,000 feet.
Have not tested the service ceiling, but when lightly loaded (two people and fuel at tabs) climb at SL is 900 fpm.
