>Larry, >>Let's see if I understand... If I want better climb on a hot day or at high >altitudes, what is it that I need? OH, I know, longer wings. Darn, I think I >just flunked. OH OH, now I know, it's POWER. >Daniel R. Heath - Columbia, SC """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""
Dan, I guess my question would be how much longer would the wing have to be to make up for a 20 to 30 percent loss of power and could the present design handle that or would you have to redesign the wing to handle the extra length. Jeanette Rand once told me that the extra wing length with the premolded skins cuts down the G rating of the wing by 1/2 G. I'm assuming she meant the wing attach fittings. As I stated in my earlier post: " Longer wings should help the climb rate and the penalty for the longer wings will be felt primarily in the cruise mode and is probably not more than a few miles per hour." If if's a hot day or high altitude and I had to chose between longer wings or more power I'll take more power every time. My "more power" fix is really just an engine that would produce the same hp at 6000 feet (or whatever) that a smaller engine would produce at sea level, i.e. a 100hp 0-200 or Corvair instead of an 80 hp VW. I'd bet anyone a steak dinner that you will find more "high hp" Cessnas then "long wing" Cessnas flying in the mountains. :-) :-) Larry Flesner
