I take a lot of long trips in my Cessna T310R, and more than half of them involve cruising up in the high teens and low Flight Levels, simply because those are the altitudes at which my airplane is happiest, fastest, and most efficient. But from what I’ve been able to tell, the great majority of piston pilots shy away from using the high-altitude capabilities of their airplanes. Most pilots of normally aspirated airplanes seem to confine most of their flying to altitudes of 10,000’ and below, and even many pilots of unpressurized turbocharged airplanes like mine have never flown in the Flight Levels. It’s even surprising how many pilots of pressurized birds seem averse to flying much above the low teens.
That’s a shame, because it’s at the high end of the altitude spectrum that most of our airplanes achieve their best efficiency—and in many cases, their best speed as well. I’m not just talking about turbocharged airplanes. Most normally-aspirated birds are perfectly capable of cruise altitudes well into the teens.
Look at a plain-vanilla, fixed-gear, normally-aspirated Cessna Skylane:
At a low altitude like 4,000’, maximum cruise speed is 139 KTAS at 75% power. Continue climbing until the airplane “runs out of throttle” at 8,000’ and max cruise climbs to 144 KTAS. That extra 5 knots will save you 9 minutes on an 800 NM trip when you take the extra climb into account. (5:38 instead of 5:47, no big deal).
Continue climbing to 12,000’ and max cruise drops back to 139 KTAS (same as at 4,000’), but at a much more fuel-efficient 64% power (which is all you can get at that altitude with wide-open throttle). The same 800 NM trip will take 6 more minutes at 12,000’ than at 4,000’ (5:53 to be exact) because of the longer climb, but burn a whopping 12 gallons less fuel in the process—if avgas costs $5/gallon, that’s $60—and increase IFR range by a full hour and 130 NM!
How far can we take this? Don a cannula and climb to 16,000’—high enough to fly right over the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains IFR—and max cruise drops to a still-respectable 130 KTAS at a miserly 53% power. Because it takes a Skylane nearly 40 minutes to climb from sea level to 16,000’ at max gross, the 800 NM trip will take a half-hour longer than at 12,000’ (6:23), but will save 20 gallons ($100?) and increase IFR range by a full two hours compared to our 4,000’ benchmark.
| Cruise Altitude |
Max Cruise |
IFR Range |
To fly an |
|
| 4,000 | 139 K | 820 NM | 5:47 | 78 gal |
| 8,000 | 144 K | 840 NM | 5:38 | 79 gal |
| 12,000 | 139 K | 950 NM | 5:53 | 67 gal |
| 16,000 | 130 K | 1,040 NM | 6:23 | 59 gal |
Normally-aspirated, fixed-gear 182Q
(maximum gross weight, standard day, no wind,
88 gallons, 45 min reserve)
Unless you just happen to like low-and-slow, there’s no logical reason to cruise a Skylane lower than 8,000’ because doing so makes all the numbers worse: cruise speed, trip time, and range. On the other hand, climbing to 10,000’ or 12,000’ will cost you a negligible amount of time, and reward you with substantially lower fuel burn and increased range.
These calculations are all based on zero-wind, but in real life the winds aloft are often a decisive factor in determining the best altitude to choose. If you’re headed eastbound, odds are you’ll have a tailwind—and the higher you fly, the better it’ll be.
In wintertime, climbing up high to catch favorable winds can pay off spectacularly. In the low-to-mid teens, 50 knot tailwinds are commonplace and a 70 or 80 knot tailwind is possible. Even in summer, when winds tend to be relatively light, going high can pay off. Here are some typical summer winds I pulled off of DUATS:
6000 9000 12000 18000 STL 2410+18 2809+12 3110+07 2917-04 SPI 2510+18 3010+12 3211+07 2919-05 JOT 2511+17 3012+12 3116+06 2926-07 EVV 2509+17 3012+11 3216+07 3018-05 IND 2411+16 3011+11 3114+07 2922-06 FWA 2312+15 2812+10 2916+06 2926-07 CVG 2210+15 2809+11 3012+07 3021-05 CMH 2210+14 2710+10 2914+06 3026-07 CRW 2108+15 2509+10 2908+06 3225-05 AGC 2010+12 2510+09 2813+05 2930-09 EKN 1907+13 2608+09 2810+06 3028-07 PSB 1911+11 2509+08 2813+04 2930-11 EMI 9900+11 2905+09 2811+05 2927-10
Even in these docile summertime conditions, we can expect 10 to 15 knots more tailwind component at 16,000’ than at 8,000’, which almost exactly offsets the TAS advantage of the lower altitude (144K vs. 130K). By climbing up high on an eastbound trip, we’ll go just as fast, burn considerably less fuel, and increase our IFR range nearly 400 NM! Not to mention that it’s almost always smoother and cooler up high. What’s not to like?
During the winter, when the winds tend to be stronger, going high on eastbound trips tends to be an even better deal, saving both time and fuel.
For turbos, it’s even better
If you’ve got a turbocharger, the argument for flying high becomes compelling, because the higher you fly in a turbo, the higher your speed, range and efficiency—at least up to the low Flight Levels in most turbocharged airplanes. These birds really shine up in the high teens and low twenties, and pilots who don’t take advantage of this capability don’t know what they’re missing.
For example, take a look at the “Range Profile” page for my Cessna T310R:
Starting at 180 KTAS at sea level, max cruise speed at 73.6% power steadily increases with altitude to a relatively blistering 221 KTAS at FL200. (Above that altitude, available power starts dropping off fairly rapidly.)
| Cruise Altitude | Max Cruise |
IFR Range |
To fly an 800 NM Trip |
|
| 5,000 | 190 K | 860 NM | 4:14 | 143 gal |
| 10,000 | 199 K | 890 NM | 4:04 | 137 gal |
| 15,000 | 209 K | 930 NM | 3:55 | 131 gal |
| 20,000 | 221 K | 970 NM | 3:45 | 125 gal |
Turbocharged, twin-engine Cessna T310R
(73.6% cruise, maximum gross weight standard day, no wind,
163 gallons, 45 min reserve)
At the same time, range with IFR reserves climbs from 820 NM to 970 NM. Naturally, trip time and fuel burn for the proverbial 800 NM trip both drop accordingly—from 4:14 and 143 gallons at 5,000 to 3:45 and 125 gallons at FL200.
Personally, I don’t push my engines this hard. I almost always throttle back to between 60% and 65% power and settle for around 205 KTAS at FL200 at a miserly fuel burn of 26 gallons/hour, giving me a range of well over 1,000 NM with IFR reserves (or 1,200 NM if I fill my 20-gallon wing locker tank).
Once again, these figures assume no-wind conditions. Add in the wind on an eastbound trip and the results can get downright exciting. In the winter, I’ve seen my groundspeed edge above 300 knots from time to time. That’s fun! During the summer, on the other hand, I’m happy with 230 or 240 on the GPS readout.
Needless to say, you pay the piper going westbound. But if the winds aren’t too strong, it may still pay to go high rather than low. In my airplane, I gain 22 knots of true airspeed by climbing from 10,000’ to FL200. So if the headwind at FL200 is only 10 or 15 knots stronger than at 10,000’ (which is usually the case in summertime), higher is still better.
In wintertime, of course, westbound aircraft are all in the same boat, turbo or non-turbo. We bounce along at the MEA, try not to look at the groundspeed readout, hope the fillings in our teeth don’t fall out, and think about how much fun the eastbound part of the trip was (or will be).
Enjoy the high life!
If you’re one of those pilots who comes from the “I won’t climb higher than I’m willing to fall” school, you’ve got nothing to be embarrassed about. Believe me you’ve got plenty of company. But you’re also missing something really good.
Do yourself a favor: give high a try. It’s cooler and smoother up there. Your airplane flies faster and more efficiently up high. ATC will usually give you direct to just about anywhere. You’re above terrain, obstructions, and often the weather and the ice. The visibility is usually terrific. So are the tailwinds, if you’re lucky enough to be going in the right direction. Try it…you just might like it!



November 23, 2015 at 6:27 pm
Flying high is my preference, too. I also get improved radio reception, better glide range, increased terrain clearance, and often smoother air as well.
300 knot ground speed is impressive, especially on that fuel burn. When fighting the headwinds westbound, I often see speeds in the low 300’s in the G-IV, and that’s burning 400 gallons per hour in cruise. Soooo glad I’m not paying that fuel bill. That’s one big advantage of a recip: you can go low if the winds are against you. Jets, not so much.
November 24, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Thanks for the reminder Mike!
I am a 1969 C-172 driver and it has been easy for me to get into the habit of ensuring good obstacle clearance and then not looking for best fuel burn and ground speed. Even my old POH shows tens of dollars per flight of gas saved and minutes per flight by climbing from my typical cruise altitudes of 8/9,000 up to 11/12,000 instead. I confess I am also not looking at headwinds/tailwinds as much as I wish I had been (which could improve half my flights even more).
I am on a fixed airplane budget, so $20 bucks less spent on gas per flight is actually a thing for me. 😉 More importantly, this is a great lesson in staying a proficient pilot (being able to fly the entire envelope my airplane is designed for) and maybe…just maybe, this practiced skill set will keep me out of trouble some day.
Please keep up the good work pointing out the little things we all (or some of us) can do better! if you are, among other things, trying to help out the “Average Joe” small airplane pilot, then I say you are doing well. 😉
November 27, 2015 at 12:12 pm
You must factor in the cost of the Oxygen, which is not cheap or easy to get.
November 27, 2015 at 3:52 pm
You might research what it takes to roll your own oxygen refilling rig. If you use it enough, O2 can be both cheap and easy to get, at least at home base.
November 28, 2015 at 8:22 pm
Can you elaborate please? Are you talking about some plumbing widget to trans-fill little O2 tanks from a big O2 tank?
November 28, 2015 at 9:15 pm
Among other items. Big O2 tanks are fairly inexpensive to exchange if you haul it yourself. So if you get your own tank and transfill widget, the cost per fill goes down a lot, once you’ve amortized the initial equipment purchase. Google knows a lot about it.
November 30, 2015 at 5:32 pm
The oxygen IS cheap and easy to get. Any welding supply has oxygen and last time I exchanged a tall bottle it was $25 bucks. That will refill my little bottle many times over.
What did cost more was the initial purchase of a Mountain High O2D2 pulse system plus transfill rig so I can refill the bottle myself. Total outlay for that was $1300. Small change when compared to the overall cost to operate & maintain most any 4 place piston single. Small change when considering what we pay for insurance on these toys. Big benefit in terms of operational safety/performance/flexibility.
January 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm
Most major FBOs have oxygen available, and I can’t remember ever paying more than $25 to have my 22 cu.ft. bottle filled. Using Oxymizer cannulas, it lasts a long time compared to simple masks with the bag hanging from them. Although most of my flying is solo, I often fly high enough that my pulse-oximeter tells me I need to be on oxygen. Yet I still refill the tank only about every 8-10 months, a drop in the bucket compared to the other costs of flying.
November 27, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Flying non-turbos, I always fly 7,000+ eastbound and 8,000+ westbound on any flight more than an hour. Everything is better up there: ride quality, visibility, less traffic, better service from ATC, and most importantly the extra time available in case I need to make an emergency landing.
November 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm
I’m turbocharged but VFR. I find 10,500 or 11,500 the absolute best, if winds allow. Sky much less crowded, advisories always available, usually with centers, air smooth, and I feel just safer.
November 27, 2015 at 4:58 pm
There are other safety benefits to flying higher. 1 – all aircraft are required to have a transponder, so your TAS is more effective. 2 – There is less traffic, so there is less to see and avoid. 3 – Most of the aircraft up high are going somewhere, so other aircraft are more predictable (they aren’t maneuvering). And finally, if you do have a problem with your engine, you have a much longer glide distance to find a good landing spot and more time to work the problem.
November 30, 2015 at 5:25 pm
There are numerous reasons to fly higher – even above the best TAS performance altitude for your airplane. Think of it like insurance. IMHO, cost factors related to flying higher are minimal and well worth
paying for the benefit of higher altitude operation – and for a NA
airplane that would be over 8000 MSL or the altitude at which full throttle can be maintained comfortably and continuously.
For me and the way I evaluate cost/benefit and risk/reward the number ONE reason I fly high is to increase engine-out options. Glide range increases linearly with altitude, but the landing AREA increases with the SQUARE of altitude. So there’s 4 times more engine-out options from 10K than from 5K AGL not to mention the TIME you buy up there in a glide.
Even dealing with headwinds, it might cost a few minutes to take on 5 or even 10 knots more on the nose by going higher, but for me (especially at night) I’ll pay that price to maintain my engine-out options. The money spent on such “insurance” yields operational benefits and risk reduction that’s WELL worth paying in my view.