I agree it "feels" much different when actually flying it. I think Cessna may have reported this by calculation as opposed to actual measured numbers. Too many times I have climbed near 8,000 feet and found myself down to 300-400 foot per minute climb rate at Vx! I was trying to keep from pulling a number out of thin air, so I consulted a Cessna 172RG POH and used the reported cruise % BHP from the charts based on the same 2500RPM at 2000 feet and then at 10,000. Kinda sounds optimistic. Maybe when all things are brand new? Anyway, the guys looking get the point. My figures would be an ideal minimum loss, yours and Brian's say a maximum. I do know that it is an exceptional turbo system that can provide gains of more than 40% without straining the original engine, which means that our builder at 10,000 feet would still be looking at a minor loss above 8,000 until critical altitude for the turbo. My other point that I wanted to make sure didn't get missed was to consider the prop and total lift effects at altitude, so that someone doesn't think that they can just a little bit bigger engine on an existing KR, all else the same and go fly expecting that it will do the same as someone at 1,500 MSL.
YEEEEEHAWWWWW!!!! Colin & Bev Rainey KR2(td) N96TA Sanford, FL crain...@cfl.rr.com http://kr-builder.org/Colin/index.html
