interesting info for sure. Good write up... The numbers make perfect sense, too.
Im actually in ABQ right now, moved down here a few months ago, but havent updated my location on the Org... When I moved down here, the bike had been sitting for a while, and I hadnt been able to ride it for a bit... But when I got new tires on her and rode her for the first time here in ABQ, it definitely felt quicker than I remember. I simply attributed it to the time I had spent not in the saddle, but put into perspective, it must have been a mix of time not spent in saddle, plus ~13% extra power if your numbers are correct
... nice.
So you're saying I need a turbo, eh? Dont need to convince me!
A turbo will definitely solve the altitude sickness.
Here's where my experience with this comes from...
I used to fly a couple of different types of twin-engine airplanes for a company I worked for earlier in my career. One was a Beechcraft Baron 58 with two 285 horsepower engines. Loved that airplane...it handled like a sports car, and there weren't many piston twins out there that could outrun it - so long as one was below 7000 feet above sea level.
The other airplane type was a Piper Chieftain - with two 350 horsepower turbocharged engines. The turbochargers would allow the engines to produce the full rated 350 horsepower all the way up to and beyond the altitudes I was flying at. Flying this airplane was not nearly as much fun as the Baron because it lumbered along like a school bus. It wasn't quite as fast as the Baron either...so long as conditions didn't warrant climbing above 7000 feet or so.
When it came to flight in icing conditions though, the Chieftain was my choice hands down. Beginning at about 7000 feet, the altitude induced power loss in the Baron would allow the Chieftain, which was still capable of producing 700 horsepower thanks to the turbochargers, to begin to pull away. And climb rate at 8000 feet and above was more than twice as much with the Chieftain - again thanks to the turbochargers allowing the engines to produce full rated power while the normally aspirated Baron could only pump out about 70% of that 570 total rated horsepower at that altitude.
When one is dependent on climb rate to get through a layer of ice-laden clouds quickly, normally aspirated engines can be a significant handicap.
What sucks even more is looking out the window at the ice on the wings during an instrument approach and knowing that the only option you have left at that point is to land because there's no way the airplane will climb with the load of ice you're carrying if you happen to pop out of the clouds above the airport and find a snowplow working to clear the runway staring at you.
From first hand experience I know that a thousand foot change in altitude is equal to about a 3% power loss for a normally-aspirated engine. I've spent several thousand hours watching the physics work against my efforts to get from point A to B as quickly, safely, and efficiently as possible.
The Baron I referenced above will only produce 75% sea level rated power when at 7000 feet above sea level. By the time you get to 12,000 feet or so that power output is closer to 60% of rated. This is with throttles wide open and props set for maximum r.p.m.
I know this got a little off the original topic, but I thought it worth sharing.