We regularly see non-turbocharged piston singles cruising in the 4500-6500-foot range, even when wind and weather aren’t operational considerations. Meanwhile, a few thousand feet higher, the ride’s better—as is visibility—there’s better comm and navaid reception, and likely a lot less traffic. So, why do some pilots of personal airplanes prefer to cruise at lower-than-optimum altitudes? Why do others go as high as they reasonably can for the trip length? Is the extra time and fuel worth climbing a few more thousand feet?
It all depends, of course, on variables like terrain, weather and headwinds. But there few downsides, and several upsides, to adding a few thousand feet to what you might consider a “normal” altitude for you and your airplane. It’s common to find the extra time and fuel consumed climbing are a wash, thanks to higher block-to-block speeds. It also depends on the airplane; the calculations and considerations applying to normally aspirated engines change when turbocharging is introduced, and usually are even more in favor of climbing.
