 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scronje
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
 |
|
Hi Folks
I am a relatively low hour PP-ASEL(about 90 PIC, half in C-177 / 152, the
rest in Challenger AUL and gliders, total time, including dual = 160
hours). I have not been flying for several years, but am in the process of
regaining my certification.
As the only way for me to be able to fly from where I am located means
ownership, I am in the process of making a shortlist of airplanes I would
like to consider.
Part of the mission would be fairly regular flights from CTB - LWS and
back. (2-3 souls and luggage). What straight-legged 4 seaters would be up
to the task? (The actual route would be CYBU - CYXH - CTB - LWS )
Crossing those rocks would seem to exclude a C-172 and its friends. It
would seem that something of the order of a C-182 or Piper Cherokee 235
would fit the bill. Does anyone here have experience of flying this kind
of trip in, say a C-177, or PA Cherokee 180?
Would I have trouble finding insurance if I went straight to a C-182 or
PA-235? From what I have read, that should not be a big stretch for me,
and would make crossing the ridge a lot easier.\
All VFR for now, although I intend to pursue a IFR rating later.
Thank you for any and all replies.
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
You can't go wrong with a 182 - but it is a gas hog. As for complexity
- you adjust the prop RPM a couple of times, and close the cowl flaps
when you level off, and that's about it. No more difficult to fly than
a 150 (IMHO) - but quite a bit heavier.
Faster too (120 - 130 knots).
David Johnson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Galban
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:26 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
On May 15, 2:52 pm, scronje <r...@cronje.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
Crossing those rocks would seem to exclude a C-172 and its friends. It
would seem that something of the order of a C-182 or Piper Cherokee 235
would fit the bill. Does anyone here have experience of flying this kind
of trip in, say a C-177, or PA Cherokee 180?
|
I usually fly my Cherokee 180 all around the Rockies (in the summer
no less). I usually try to keep it a few hundred under gross, but
with a usable load of over 1000 lbs., that's not hard. Two guys and a
weeks worth of camping gear filling the back seat is no problem. It's
right at home in the mountains. Sure, 235 hp on the same airframe
would be better, but the 180 hp version will get the job done.
I have flown a few Cardinals in mountains. Forget the straight
C-177 (150 hp, fast wing). At minimum, you should use a C-177A, or
even better would be the C-177B. The B model has the normal wing, 180
hp, and CS prop. All good things for high density altitudes.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scronje
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
Hi John
Thank you for your response.
On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:26:34 -0700, John Galban wrote:
| Quote: | I usually fly my Cherokee 180 all around the Rockies (in the summer
no less). I usually try to keep it a few hundred under gross, but
with a usable load of over 1000 lbs., that's not hard. Two guys and a
weeks worth of camping gear filling the back seat is no problem. It's
right at home in the mountains. Sure, 235 hp on the same airframe
would be better, but the 180 hp version will get the job done.
|
What sort of climb rates are you seeing at altitude? You don't have any
online flying travelogues do you  I would love to know more about your
flying experiences in the Rockies with the 180. Where you have flown, that
sort of thing.
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Youngquist
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:23 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 May 2007, scronje wrote:
| Quote: | Part of the mission would be fairly regular flights from CTB - LWS and
back. (2-3 souls and luggage). What straight-legged 4 seaters would be
up to the task? (The actual route would be CYBU - CYXH - CTB - LWS )
Crossing those rocks would seem to exclude a C-172 and its friends.
|
I fly a club Tomahawk and 172N (160HP) based at S73, in the hills a ways
east of LWS. I don't have a whole lot of experience flying over the
really serious mountains, but I fly to Missoula occasionally. Doesn't
look like there's anything a whole lot higher from there to Cut Bank, than
there is from here to Missoula. So, based on my experience, I'd suggest
you not completely write off a 172. Something bigger & more powerful
would be nice, but a 172 is cheaper to buy and cheaper to feed.
Of course, it might depend a lot on how big those 2-3 souls are, and how
much luggage they want to take along. But I wouldn't be too concerned
about loading the 172 to gross weight and flying from here to Cut Bank.
Don't know how much mountain flying you've done, but whatever you get,
make sure you know a little about it before you make the trip, and carry
some basic survival gear. Also, whenever practical, I like to select
routes that won't take 2 days to hike into, should rescuers find it
necessary.
-Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newps
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
VFR? No problem with a 172.
Dan Youngquist wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 15 May 2007, scronje wrote:
Part of the mission would be fairly regular flights from CTB - LWS and
back. (2-3 souls and luggage). What straight-legged 4 seaters would be
up to the task? (The actual route would be CYBU - CYXH - CTB - LWS )
Crossing those rocks would seem to exclude a C-172 and its friends.
I fly a club Tomahawk and 172N (160HP) based at S73, in the hills a ways
east of LWS. I don't have a whole lot of experience flying over the
really serious mountains, but I fly to Missoula occasionally. Doesn't
look like there's anything a whole lot higher from there to Cut Bank,
than there is from here to Missoula. So, based on my experience, I'd
suggest you not completely write off a 172. Something bigger & more
powerful would be nice, but a 172 is cheaper to buy and cheaper to feed.
Of course, it might depend a lot on how big those 2-3 souls are, and how
much luggage they want to take along. But I wouldn't be too concerned
about loading the 172 to gross weight and flying from here to Cut Bank.
Don't know how much mountain flying you've done, but whatever you get,
make sure you know a little about it before you make the trip, and carry
some basic survival gear. Also, whenever practical, I like to select
routes that won't take 2 days to hike into, should rescuers find it
necessary.
-Dan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Galban
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
On May 16, 9:00 pm, scronje <r...@cronje.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
What sort of climb rates are you seeing at altitude? You don't have any
online flying travelogues do you I would love to know more about your
flying experiences in the Rockies with the 180. Where you have flown, that
sort of thing.
|
At 200 lbs. under gross and 10,000 ft. density altitude, I still see
400-500 fpm in the climb. The caveat here is that it used to be
closer to 300 before I put gap seals all around and added Hoerner
style wingtips.
Travelogue? I think I have just the thing. You can check out my
website. It's mostly backcountry airstrips and camping locations.
It's at :
http://www.johngalban.com/
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scronje
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
Hi again, John!!
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:57:51 -0700, John Galban wrote:
| Quote: | At 200 lbs. under gross and 10,000 ft. density altitude, I still see
400-500 fpm in the climb.
|
That sounds pretty impressive.
| Quote: | You can check out my
website. It's mostly backcountry airstrips and camping locations.
It's at :
http://www.johngalban.com/
|
Very neat site! Thank you. I have spent some time looking at it, and taken
a look at some of the strips you mention. Many of them are rather close
to the route I was discussing
How did you "get into" mountain flying? How much dual did you do before
you went at it alone? Some of those strips look pretty challenging, at
least in the photos.
Regards
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Galban
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
On May 19, 11:59 am, scronje <r...@cronje.ca> wrote:
| Quote: |
How did you "get into" mountain flying? How much dual did you do before
you went at it alone? Some of those strips look pretty challenging, at
least in the photos.
|
I used to throw a load of camping gear on my motorcycle and head up
to the norther Rockies on my summer vacations. When I got a plane, I
just kept doing the same, only faster (and more fun).
I started flying to easy, unobstructed fields in mountainous areas,
then slowly worked my way up to the more challenging strips. Along
the way I got a lot of good advice from experienced mountain pilots,
and read as much as I could on the subject. I never really had any
dual instruction specifically for mountain flying. Coming from AZ,
you learn a lot about flying around mountains at high density altitude
as part of your private pilot training. Nowadays, there are
specialized mountain flying programs for those interested in flying
the backcountry, like http://www.mountaincanyonflying.com/ . They
will get you up to speed much faster than my "baby steps" approach :-)
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newps
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
scronje wrote:
| Quote: |
How did you "get into" mountain flying? How much dual did you do before
you went at it alone? Some of those strips look pretty challenging, at
least in the photos.
|
I live at 3650 MSL and learned to fly here and flying and landing on
dirt strips is what a lot of us do here. Every day in the summer is a
pretty good density altitude day. I didn't know how much performance a
172 or 182 really had until I took it to the midwest. I about shit my
pants when on my first takeoff from the Minneapolis area I looked down
and saw 31 inches on the manifold pressure gauge. Around here 26 is all
you get. We constantly go out and land at off road strips, there's a
million of 'em within 50 miles of where I live. Most of the landings I
make in the mountains are at the 2500-5000 msl level so my learning was
primarily about where to fly in the valleys and becoming comfortable
skimming the treetops on final. The actual performance of the airplane
is the same as all my flying is in those density altitude conditions.
If you have an interest in it go out and start landing at the dirt
strips where you live. Pretty soon you'll start to find people who do
the same thing. More than likely there's a lot of private strips that
you never knew about because you never looked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
On May 15, 2:52 pm, scronje <r...@cronje.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Folks
I am a relatively low hour PP-ASEL(about 90 PIC, half in C-177 / 152, the
rest in Challenger AUL and gliders, total time, including dual = 160
---snip-------
Crossing those rocks would seem to exclude a C-172 and its friends. It
would seem that something of the order of a C-182 or Piper Cherokee 235
would fit the bill. Does anyone here have experience of flying this kind
of trip in, say a C-177, or PA Cherokee 180?
|
<-----Snip----->
I would look at a 180hp/CS converted 172 or even better a converted
175...
A converted 175 has the advantage of bigger fuel tanks.
fuel burn around 8.5~9 gph, lower insurance cost, lower maintence cost
wih 2 less jugs,
The 175's still have a stigma so the prices tend to be lower then a
172, however once it's converted it's the same airframe with bigger
fuel tanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scronje
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: Re: CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane? |
|
|
Hi Pat
On Sun, 20 May 2007 10:36:52 -0700, Pat wrote:
| Quote: | The 175's still have a stigma so the prices tend to be lower then a
172, however once it's converted it's the same airframe with bigger
fuel tanks.
|
When I look at Trade-A-Plane, there are "only" 12 175's available. (I
guess that's not too surprising, as 2100 odd were ever built).
Is the airframe interchangeable with the 172? The last year of production
for the 175 was 1962, so parts would probably be important from time to
time.
Seems like the 175 was really an early HawkXP that did poorly because of
the gearing issue and reduced engine life, so your suggestion makes a lot
of sense.
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
