Hey Guys,

I'm in plane-search mode after recently passing my check flight.

One of the number one uses I want for the aircraft is to be able to
make VFR flights up to Tahoe in the winter for ski trips (hopefully
regularly, as the weather permits).

As such, I have a pretty basic question-

What singles would you reccommend to be able to carry a load of 2 (or
possibly 3, with one being my very petite (105lb) Fiancee) people and a
load of baggage and Skis (the big issues imho) from The Bay Area to
Tahoe...

the plane that initially grabbed me was the Cessna 177A or B... Fixed
gear, a huge cabin (By inexpensive single standards), and 1000lbs of
payload (figure 250 each for passengers + baggage, and a
more-than-adequate 250lb fuel load).

Unfortunately, Cardinals seem to be be suffering a re-surgence of
demand lately... And the two I've looked at so far have had noticable
Wingtip Spar corrosion issues (although one owner swears he will fix it
his cost before selling).

Other options-

Piper Commanche 180... I trained in a 160, I have to say I like the
type (ergonomics and feel) FAR more than the Cessna Birds (177 is ok,
but I physically have issues properly operating the pedals of the 172
because I have such long legs, and the 182 for some reason doesn't
interest me in the slightest (something about the whole 'flying truck'
thing is completely unappealing). About once a week I completely fall
in infatuation with Moonies, with Several M20C's and M20E's being in my
45-55k price range... but then I remember that I want to be able to
share the fun with other people too:-P

I guess my question is- A- Have any of you found a comfortable/safe way
to carry skis in a Commanche 180? How about a Cherokee 180 (and if so,
how reliable is its Gear system?)

Is there any chance in hell that 3 people plus a weekends worth of gear
would fit into a M20C/E? IS there some other reason I should avoid them
(other than my natural tendency to prefer Fixed gear for
cost/maintenence reasons).

Anything else I should consider?

Thanks.

Single-engine from the California Bay area to Tahoe during
ski season [winter] requires a big enough airplane and
useful load to carry fuel, passengers, ski clothing, skis,
and survival equipment. Suggest a Cherokee Six or similar.
They is probably an STC for a tube baggage extender that
will be hung in the tail cone to carry the skis.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
| Hey Guys,
|
| I'm in plane-search mode after recently passing my check
flight.
|
| One of the number one uses I want for the aircraft is to
be able to
| make VFR flights up to Tahoe in the winter for ski trips
(hopefully
| regularly, as the weather permits).
|
| As such, I have a pretty basic question-
|
| What singles would you reccommend to be able to carry a
load of 2 (or
| possibly 3, with one being my very petite (105lb) Fiancee)
people and a
| load of baggage and Skis (the big issues imho) from The
Bay Area to
| Tahoe...
|
| the plane that initially grabbed me was the Cessna 177A or
B... Fixed
| gear, a huge cabin (By inexpensive single standards), and
1000lbs of
| payload (figure 250 each for passengers + baggage, and a
| more-than-adequate 250lb fuel load).
|
| Unfortunately, Cardinals seem to be be suffering a
re-surgence of
| demand lately... And the two I've looked at so far have
had noticable
| Wingtip Spar corrosion issues (although one owner swears
he will fix it
| his cost before selling).
|
| Other options-
|
| Piper Commanche 180... I trained in a 160, I have to say I
like the
| type (ergonomics and feel) FAR more than the Cessna Birds
(177 is ok,
| but I physically have issues properly operating the pedals
of the 172
| because I have such long legs, and the 182 for some reason
doesn't
| interest me in the slightest (something about the whole
'flying truck'
| thing is completely unappealing). About once a week I
completely fall
| in infatuation with Moonies, with Several M20C's and
M20E's being in my
| 45-55k price range... but then I remember that I want to
be able to
| share the fun with other people too:-P
|
| I guess my question is- A- Have any of you found a
comfortable/safe way
| to carry skis in a Commanche 180? How about a Cherokee
180 (and if so,
| how reliable is its Gear system?)
|
| Is there any chance in hell that 3 people plus a weekends
worth of gear
| would fit into a M20C/E? IS there some other reason I
should avoid them
| (other than my natural tendency to prefer Fixed gear for
| cost/maintenence reasons).
|
| Anything else I should consider?
|
| Thanks.
|

("Jim Macklin" wrote)
> Single-engine from the California Bay area to Tahoe during ski season
> [winter] requires a big enough airplane and useful load to carry fuel,
> passengers, ski clothing, skis, and survival
equipment.


Would a Navion fit the bill?


Montblack

Don't know about the tail cone size and whether there is a
baggage modification. It probably has the weight capacity,
but I'm not sure about the seating and baggage space.

There is always FedEx and UPS.


Just remember that you need warm survival clothes, ski wear
is not adequate for staying alive after a forced landing. I
don't recall the name, but a decade ago, maybe a little
longer the president of a pilot group made a perfect forced
landing on a lake. Everyone on the plane was uninjured and
froze to death.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Montblack" > wrote in
message ...
| ("Jim Macklin" wrote)
| > Single-engine from the California Bay area to Tahoe
during ski season
| > [winter] requires a big enough airplane and useful load
to carry fuel,
| > passengers, ski clothing, skis, and survival
| equipment.
|
|
| Would a Navion fit the bill?
|
|
| Montblack
|

On Sat, 6 May 2006 03:13:47 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Just remember that you need warm survival clothes,

My flight instructor told me: "Just remember that any crosscountry
flight is volunteering for an overnight in the woods."

And that's in New Hampshire :)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On 5 May 2006 19:07:01 -0700, "EridanMan" >
wrote:
> Anything else I should consider?

Have you considered switching to skiboards? They're short skis that
are pretty fun... You can do a lot of the things that the snowboarders
do, but tend to not fall anywhere as much... After a long day on the
slopes, it's sure nice to be carrying them instead of long skis...

http://www.skiboards.com

I switched to 'em a few years back and I don't think I'll ever go back
to long skis... Technically, they don't go as fast as long skis, but
they go faster than I'm willing to fall, so that's more than fast
enough... They are better for groomed slopes, not fresh deep powder...
Deep powder often results in a face plant...

Yeah, try ski blades. They'll fit in any GA airplane. I didn't think I'd
like them, but they are great. I bought a set for my two sons and myself
this past fall. It's like power steering was added to a regular set of
skis. And they're cheap, too.

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Hey Guys,
>
> I'm in plane-search mode after recently passing my check flight.
>
> One of the number one uses I want for the aircraft is to be able to
> make VFR flights up to Tahoe in the winter for ski trips (hopefully
> regularly, as the weather permits).
>
> As such, I have a pretty basic question-
>
> What singles would you reccommend to be able to carry a load of 2 (or
> possibly 3, with one being my very petite (105lb) Fiancee) people and a
> load of baggage and Skis (the big issues imho) from The Bay Area to
> Tahoe...
>
> the plane that initially grabbed me was the Cessna 177A or B... Fixed
> gear, a huge cabin (By inexpensive single standards), and 1000lbs of
> payload (figure 250 each for passengers + baggage, and a
> more-than-adequate 250lb fuel load).
>
> Unfortunately, Cardinals seem to be be suffering a re-surgence of
> demand lately... And the two I've looked at so far have had noticable
> Wingtip Spar corrosion issues (although one owner swears he will fix it
> his cost before selling).
>
> Other options-
>
> Piper Commanche 180... I trained in a 160, I have to say I like the
> type (ergonomics and feel) FAR more than the Cessna Birds (177 is ok,
> but I physically have issues properly operating the pedals of the 172
> because I have such long legs, and the 182 for some reason doesn't
> interest me in the slightest (something about the whole 'flying truck'
> thing is completely unappealing). About once a week I completely fall
> in infatuation with Moonies, with Several M20C's and M20E's being in my
> 45-55k price range... but then I remember that I want to be able to
> share the fun with other people too:-P
>
> I guess my question is- A- Have any of you found a comfortable/safe way
> to carry skis in a Commanche 180? How about a Cherokee 180 (and if so,
> how reliable is its Gear system?)
>
> Is there any chance in hell that 3 people plus a weekends worth of gear
> would fit into a M20C/E? IS there some other reason I should avoid them
> (other than my natural tendency to prefer Fixed gear for
> cost/maintenence reasons).
>
> Anything else I should consider?
>
> Thanks.
>

Even if you don't smoke, carry a Zippo that has just been
refilled with fluid and has spare flints. Even if you don't
like knives, carry at least two. BTW, don't carry the Zippo
in your pants pocket, the vapor will burn your skin, use
some type of belt carrier.

A handheld GPS may get you to the nearest help.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 6 May 2006 03:13:47 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >Just remember that you need warm survival clothes,
|
| My flight instructor told me: "Just remember that any
crosscountry
| flight is volunteering for an overnight in the woods."
|
| And that's in New Hampshire :)
|
|
|
| -- all the best, Dan Ford
|
| email: usenet AT danford DOT net
|
| Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
| Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
| In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

>On 5 May 2006 19:07:01 -0700, "EridanMan" >
>wrote:
>
>>Hey Guys,
>>
>>I'm in plane-search mode after recently passing my check flight.
>>
>>One of the number one uses I want for the aircraft is to be able to
>>make VFR flights up to Tahoe in the winter for ski trips (hopefully
>>regularly, as the weather permits).
>>
>>Anything else I should consider?
>

Find a storage locker in Tahoe to keep all your ski equipment at for
the winter or just carry your boots and rent skis when you get there
or build a murphy moose and take all your stuff

"soxinbox" > wrote in message
...
>I know this used to be critically important, but is this still necessary in
>today's environment with hand held GPS and cell phones with built in
>tracking. If I call 911 with exact coordinates, will I really have to wait
>the night.

It depends. Having GPS and a cell phone certainly improves your odds.
But...

Airplanes are very good at getting a person away from cell phone service.
You may not be able to contact anyone with your cell phone. This is
probably the biggest hole in your idea; cell phone coverage is still quite
limited away from urban areas in the US. Take a satellite phone if you want
near-certainty of being able to contact someone.

Of course, it's entirely possible for the GPS and/or the phone to become
disabled in the crash. There's no guarantee that any or all of your
equipment will still be usable after a crash (this is even true for the
survival equipment).

Even if you can contact someone, knowing your precise coordinates may not
ensure that you are found promptly, if you've crashed into a stand of trees
in a way that hides your position (for example). Even if you are found
promptly, rescuers may or may not be able to pick you up promptly, depending
on the weather (which might prevent aerial rescue), available equipment, and
terrain (which might prevent or dramatically slow ground-based rescue).

I have readily admit to having tempted fate myself, not always having the
necessary survival gear along to cover every eventuality. But I did so
knowing the risk. I think it would be naive to think that there's any way
for the pilot or passengers to ensure without fail a prompt rescue. There
are just too many factors not under the control of the pilot or passengers.
One can improve the chances of a prompt rescue, but there's always a way for
those chances to fail.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> Airplanes are very good at getting a person away from cell phone
> service. You may not be able to contact anyone with your cell phone.
> This is probably the biggest hole in your idea; cell phone coverage is
> still quite limited away from urban areas in the US. Take a satellite
> phone if you want near-certainty of being able to contact someone.

Any advantage to having a satellite phone and a handheld GPS versus a 406
MHz ELT (the ones capable of being detected by satellites)? I would think
the ELT accomplishes almost the same purpose and is designed to handle some
crashes, whereas a satellite phone and GPS unit likely aren't all that
rugged.

Hello,

We have a Mooney M20E (actually for sale... info at
www.internetworks.ca/vmr -- but thats not why i'm posting).... but i
think you'll be hard pressed to get any amount of gear into this plane.
Last year my girlfriend and I went to Osh Kosh in it... and we had the
back seat and the storage area full. There wouldn't have been room for
a 3rd person -- perhaps your 105lb fiancee... but certainly not 160cm
skis and winter clothing. Maybe you can get ski tubes for them... but
when people ask me if its a 4 place aircraft, I tell them its 4 place
if the 2 in the back are either children or amputees.

Good luck in your search.

-dr

If the weather is bad, if the snow pack is deep and roads
are blocked, if the sun has gone down, if the rescue teams
is already busy,if ... They don't have cellphone towers
in all areas of the mountains so you may not be able to call
in your LAT/LON.

When it is cold, you can freeze to death in just a few
hours. But hey, suit yourself.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"soxinbox" > wrote in message
...
|I know this used to be critically important, but is this
still necessary in
| today's environment with hand held GPS and cell phones
with built in
| tracking. If I call 911 with exact coordinates, will I
really have to wait
| the night. I know I am going to get a lot of people
commenting on this, so I
| am bracing for the onslaught.
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:dUY6g.17764$ZW3.14542@dukeread04...
| > Don't know about the tail cone size and whether there is
a
| > baggage modification. It probably has the weight
capacity,
| > but I'm not sure about the seating and baggage space.
| >
| > There is always FedEx and UPS.
| >
| >
| > Just remember that you need warm survival clothes, ski
wear
| > is not adequate for staying alive after a forced
landing. I
| > don't recall the name, but a decade ago, maybe a little
| > longer the president of a pilot group made a perfect
forced
| > landing on a lake. Everyone on the plane was uninjured
and
| > froze to death.
| >
| >
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| > --
| > The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| > But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| > some support
| > http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
| > See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
| >
| >
| > "Montblack" > wrote in
| > message ...
| > | ("Jim Macklin" wrote)
| > | > Single-engine from the California Bay area to Tahoe
| > during ski season
| > | > [winter] requires a big enough airplane and useful
load
| > to carry fuel,
| > | > passengers, ski clothing, skis, and survival
| > | equipment.
| > |
| > |
| > | Would a Navion fit the bill?
| > |
| > |
| > | Montblack
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 May 2006 19:07:01 -0700, "EridanMan" >
> wrote:
>
>>Hey Guys,
>>
>>I'm in plane-search mode after recently passing my check flight.
>>
>>One of the number one uses I want for the aircraft is to be able to
>>make VFR flights up to Tahoe in the winter for ski trips (hopefully
>>regularly, as the weather permits).
>>
>>Anything else I should consider?
>
> A good mountain flying course.

A good survival kit and practice using it. I fly in Colorado and don't
think about doing any point-to-point trip without one. I got mine from
www.preparedpilot.com. It's a pretty good kit as sold. I even had the
opportunity to go on an FAA-sponsored survival seminar (one of their Wings
programs here) and try the thing out. Not bad all things considered and it
only weighs about 8 pounds without full water bottles. After my experience,
I made a few adjustments to the kit but that's just me. I consider it money
well spent. After all, we all know that the time the bad stuff happens is
when you're least prepared. I figure that by being prepared, I just
increased the odds of ever needing the thing!

"Robert Barker" > wrote

> A good survival kit and practice using it. I fly in Colorado and don't
> think about doing any point-to-point trip without one. I got mine from
> www.preparedpilot.com. It's a pretty good kit as sold.

How do you have it positioned, to assure that you will be able to get it out
quickly, in case of a crash requiring a rapid exit?
--
Jim in NC

soxinbox wrote:

> I know this used to be critically important, but is this still necessary in
> today's environment with hand held GPS and cell phones with built in
> tracking. If I call 911 with exact coordinates, will I really have to wait
> the night. I know I am going to get a lot of people commenting on this, so I
> am bracing for the onslaught.


As long as you crash in an area with digital service, otherwise the GPS
in the phone won't do you any good.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Barker" > wrote
>
>> A good survival kit and practice using it. I fly in Colorado and don't
>> think about doing any point-to-point trip without one. I got mine from
>> www.preparedpilot.com. It's a pretty good kit as sold.
>
> How do you have it positioned, to assure that you will be able to get it
> out quickly, in case of a crash requiring a rapid exit?
> --
> Jim in NC

The fanny pack version at preparedpilot is pretty small and can just sit in
the back seat. My current version is a little larger and I have it in the
baggage area. From what I can find, few GA incidents involve fire and if
they do, it serves as a pretty good signal. If no fire is involved, getting
to the kit is pretty simple... Just in case, I don't have everything in one
basket. I always keep a pocket knife on me. I took the small preparedpilot
mini kit out of the main kit and keep that in my headset bag along with my
small flashlights, and portable radio. I also have some steel wool in a
double ziplock bag. Steel wool with the 9volt battery in my headset (ANR)
will start a decent fire at any altitude since the matches and windproof
lighter are in my other kit.

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Robert Barker" > wrote
>
> > A good survival kit and practice using it. I fly in Colorado and don't
> > think about doing any point-to-point trip without one. I got mine from
> > www.preparedpilot.com. It's a pretty good kit as sold.

> How do you have it positioned, to assure that you will be able to get it out
> quickly, in case of a crash requiring a rapid exit?

If it ain't on ya, it going out the door with ya!

"Robert Barker" > wrote

> I took the small preparedpilot mini kit out of the main kit and keep
> that in my headset bag along with my small flashlights, and portable
> radio. I also have some steel wool in a double ziplock bag. Steel wool
> with the 9volt battery in my headset (ANR) will start a decent fire at any
> altitude since the matches and windproof lighter are in my other kit.

It sounds like it is pretty well covered, if you get the bag out with you.
--
Jim in NC

Montblack wrote:

> Would a Navion fit the bill?
>

The Navion has plenty of bulk available. You might even get
the skis in an unmodified plane. The depth of the baggage
compartment is about three feet and the rear seats (at least
in my B model) will fold down to extend that into the passenger
compartment and you can further carry longer skis up between
the front seats.

Is there any way to leave the skis in Tahoe? You're certainly not going to
get much use out of them in the Bay Area. That would open you up to many
more choices in aircraft.


"EridanMan" > wrote in message
> One of the number one uses I want for the aircraft is to be able to
> make VFR flights up to Tahoe in the winter for ski trips (hopefully
> regularly, as the weather permits).

> What singles would you reccommend to be able to carry a load of 2 (or
> possibly 3, with one being my very petite (105lb) Fiancee) people and a
> load of baggage and Skis (the big issues imho) from The Bay Area to
> Tahoe...

> Anything else I should consider?
>
> Thanks.
>

I have been following this thread and the best suggestion made so far is for
the pilot to take a serious mountain flying course. Hopefully one that would
include 4 place aircraft in the 180-300hp range. Both Truckee and South Lake
Tahoe can be pretty unforgiving both in summer and winter (albeit for
different reasons). I have experienced -500fpm rate of climb in a C182 with
1/2 fuel and two on board 65Knot IAS in May departing Truckee due to
mountain wave activity. From the bay area to Tahoe door to door is about the
same amount of time whether you drive or fly. If the roads are closed due to
a storm I don't think you want to be in a C172, arrow or Navion above those
roads.
Howard
C182P

On 2006-05-06, Peter Duniho > wrote:
> "soxinbox" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I know this used to be critically important, but is this still necessary in
>>today's environment with hand held GPS and cell phones with built in
>>tracking. If I call 911 with exact coordinates, will I really have to wait
>>the night.
>
> It depends. Having GPS and a cell phone certainly improves your odds.
> But...

How about a handheld aviation radio? It's likely you are going to be in
reasonably frequent line-of-sight from an airliner.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-05-08, Howard Nelson > wrote:
> different reasons). I have experienced -500fpm rate of climb in a C182 with
> 1/2 fuel and two on board 65Knot IAS in May departing Truckee due to

From someone who flies gliders - do NOT fly slowly in sink. It will just
prolong the amount of time you spend in the sink (resulting in a greater
altitude loss). You will of course have to work out the speed to fly for
your particular aircraft -vs- the observed sink rate to determine the
best speed to fly.

For example, imagine a plane that climbs at 1000 fpm in still air at
60kts, and 700 fpm at 120kts.

You're at full power and in sink at 60kts, and you're showing 500fpm
down. Imagine the sink lasts for 4 miles. It'll take you 4 minutes (1
mile per minute) to get through, and you will lose 2000 feet. The air is
sinking at 1500fpm.

If you instead fly this particular plane at 120 knots through the same
sink, you'll only spend 2 minutes to get through it, and your rate of
descent will be 800 fpm - and you'll come out of the sink having lost
1600 feet (and therefore be 400 feet higher than if you'd flown through
the sink slowly).

The example here is obviously contrived (for easy calculation) - but you
can work out some scenarios based on the performance of your plane to
figure out the best speed to fly in sink.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-05-08, Howard Nelson > wrote:
> > different reasons). I have experienced -500fpm rate of climb in a C182
with
> > 1/2 fuel and two on board 65Knot IAS in May departing Truckee due to
>
> From someone who flies gliders - do NOT fly slowly in sink. It will just
> prolong the amount of time you spend in the sink (resulting in a greater
> altitude loss). You will of course have to work out the speed to fly for
> your particular aircraft -vs- the observed sink rate to determine the
> best speed to fly.
>
> For example, imagine a plane that climbs at 1000 fpm in still air at
> 60kts, and 700 fpm at 120kts.
>
> You're at full power and in sink at 60kts, and you're showing 500fpm
> down. Imagine the sink lasts for 4 miles. It'll take you 4 minutes (1
> mile per minute) to get through, and you will lose 2000 feet. The air is
> sinking at 1500fpm.
>
> If you instead fly this particular plane at 120 knots through the same
> sink, you'll only spend 2 minutes to get through it, and your rate of
> descent will be 800 fpm - and you'll come out of the sink having lost
> 1600 feet (and therefore be 400 feet higher than if you'd flown through
> the sink slowly).
>
> The example here is obviously contrived (for easy calculation) - but you
> can work out some scenarios based on the performance of your plane to
> figure out the best speed to fly in sink.

Understand what you are saying but this was on departure at about 1000ft
AGL. Perhaps something could have been done differently but at the time we
were trying to balance rate of climb (which was negative) with stall speed.
Luckily (which is not anything to depend on) after about 30-60 secs the -500
fpm turned into +1500fpm. This was not an especially hot day (maybe 60f).
The point I was making is that any non turbo single in the Tahoe basin may
rapidly reach the limits of it's performance envelope. We were enroute home
from Idaho to the bay area and did not follow a mountain flying rule that
had been taught to me by my mountain flying instructor. That was "in the
summer in the mountains be on the ground between 1000 and 1600hrs".

Howard

I have helped build a Murphy Moose, and you better know what you are
doing. That is no easy chore!

Ross
KSWI

Drew Dalgleish wrote:

>>On 5 May 2006 19:07:01 -0700, "EridanMan" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey Guys,
>>>
>>>I'm in plane-search mode after recently passing my check flight.
>>>
>>>One of the number one uses I want for the aircraft is to be able to
>>>make VFR flights up to Tahoe in the winter for ski trips (hopefully
>>>regularly, as the weather permits).
>>>
>>>Anything else I should consider?
>>
>
> Find a storage locker in Tahoe to keep all your ski equipment at for
> the winter or just carry your boots and rent skis when you get there
> or build a murphy moose and take all your stuff

On 2006-05-08, Howard Nelson > wrote:
> Understand what you are saying but this was on departure at about 1000ft
> AGL. Perhaps something could have been done differently but at the time we
> were trying to balance rate of climb (which was negative) with stall speed.

Even so (of course this is hindsight - don't take this for being
critical, you only know what you know at the time!) under most
circumstances [0], speed up in sink. Especailly don't fly on the ragged edge
of stall speed - you're not only flying slowly, but slower than best
rate of climb speed and the added dangers of stall). As I was saying -
the speed to fly will of course depend on the L/D of your particular
aircraft.

Even when low to the ground (especially when low to the ground) speeding
up in sink is important. Even if it only nets you 10 feet - that can be
the difference between being in the treetops and merely collecting some
foliage in your landing gear.

Had I not sped up in sink in my glider this weekend when I was at around
1000' AGL, I'd have been landing in a field not at the airport!

[0] Obstructions may be a circumstance where you would NOT want to speed
up!

> had been taught to me by my mountain flying instructor. That was "in the
> summer in the mountains be on the ground between 1000 and 1600hrs".

Having flown in the mountains in the summer in an underpowered aircraft,
I can entirely agree. Doubly so if it's windy.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-05-08, Howard Nelson > wrote:
> > Understand what you are saying but this was on departure at about 1000ft
> > AGL. Perhaps something could have been done differently but at the time
we
> > were trying to balance rate of climb (which was negative) with stall
speed.
>
> Even so (of course this is hindsight - don't take this for being
> critical, you only know what you know at the time!) under most
> circumstances [0], speed up in sink. Especailly don't fly on the ragged
edge
> of stall speed - you're not only flying slowly, but slower than best
> rate of climb speed and the added dangers of stall). As I was saying -
> the speed to fly will of course depend on the L/D of your particular
> aircraft.
>
> Even when low to the ground (especially when low to the ground) speeding
> up in sink is important. Even if it only nets you 10 feet - that can be
> the difference between being in the treetops and merely collecting some
> foliage in your landing gear.
>
> Had I not sped up in sink in my glider this weekend when I was at around
> 1000' AGL, I'd have been landing in a field not at the airport!
>
> [0] Obstructions may be a circumstance where you would NOT want to speed
> up!

Excellent advice. Everything you say makes perfect sense. I will try to heed
it if I find myself in a similar situation again.
Thanks
Howard

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> How about a handheld aviation radio? It's likely you are going to be in
> reasonably frequent line-of-sight from an airliner.

As a substitute for carrying survival gear? I don't think that's a
reasonable exchange.

First, you'll have to define "likely". A friend of mine was rescued via
helicopter when he landed in a remote lake with his seaplane, but couldn't
get it started again later (starter had failed). Using the airplane's
radio, he was eventually able to reach an airplane passing overhead (I don't
recall if it was an airliner or not).

But it took awhile, and in the end it was a bit of luck involved. The lake
where he landed is a small mountain lake, with steep slopes all around.
Line-of-sight is only about a 60-80 degree cone straight up. The lake is
not far laterally from one of the airways leading to Sea-Tac airport (the
nearest commercial airport), and even then it took awhile before an airplane
came close enough to being overhead to be contacted by radio. Even once the
airplane overhead was contacted, getting an accurate message relayed to
someone who could come pick them up was non-trivial.

He probably also benefited from the additional power of the airplane's
radio. A handheld would probably have reduced the volume of airspace in
which a potential contact could be found. Had he been in a more remote
location, there may not have been any airline traffic going overhead, ever.

So...could you take advantage of a handheld aviation radio? Perhaps. But
I'd say it's more akin to being stranded on a deserted island and relying on
a bonfire to alert a passing ship.

IMHO, one of the best things a person can do, beyond having a good, reliable
ELT with them is to have filed an accurate flight plan with someone who will
come looking for you if you don't arrive on time. There are few forms of
communications that are highly reliable when you're in a remote location.
Expecting to be able to contact someone after the crash seems optimistic to
me.

And of course, while you're waiting for the person who knows you've crashed
to actually find and rescue you, you'll probably want the appropriate
survival gear to keep yourself alive until you're rescued.

Pete

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Any advantage to having a satellite phone and a handheld GPS versus a 406
> MHz ELT (the ones capable of being detected by satellites)?

Any advantage? Sure...the 406 Mhz ELTs don't let you speak to anyone.
That's an advantage. :)

That said, I'd agree that having a 406 Mhz ELT is a pretty good solution, at
least with respect to being found. As you note, it's probably built
sturdier than a phone and/or handheld GPS would be. Even if the ELT doesn't
have GPS input, triangulating a 406 Mhz ELT is supposed to be relatively
rapid.

Even so, I don't see a 406 Mhz ELT as being a substitute for survival gear.
As already noted, even if someone knows exactly where you are, they may not
be able to get to you right away. And survival gear would include first-aid
equipment, which would be important whether or not you need to stay the
night.

Pete

Thank you everyone - a lot of great responses-

I'm already scheduled to spend two weekends at the end of the month
with a very experienced mountain instructor. I'm also obsessive about
safety (and a rather avid outdoorsman), so I would not dream of flying
outside of the bay area (if not above a major interstate) without an
'unexpected camping trip' pack that I'm currently putting together
(half dozen MRE's, tent, blankets, GPS, ELT, handheld radios, butane
stove+pot, etc, all in a single bag secured with heavy-duty velcro.)

As for planes... The Cardinal is still tempting, as is the Navion (with
the Cherokee-6 being my dream)... unfortunately, my current budget
doesn't allow for examples of either of those that I would be willing
to fly. Fortunately I'm patient, I'll wait until I have the money and
spring for a ship that will suit my needs.

Thanks again:)

-Scott

Don't forget some space blankets in your pockets.

Before I bought an airplane, try a rental of a similar
model, to know what it will do. Renting a 6 place cargo
hauler for one or two trips a year and owning an Cardinal
for the other 50 weeks is probably less cash out of pocket.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Thank you everyone - a lot of great responses-
|
| I'm already scheduled to spend two weekends at the end of
the month
| with a very experienced mountain instructor. I'm also
obsessive about
| safety (and a rather avid outdoorsman), so I would not
dream of flying
| outside of the bay area (if not above a major interstate)
without an
| 'unexpected camping trip' pack that I'm currently putting
together
| (half dozen MRE's, tent, blankets, GPS, ELT, handheld
radios, butane
| stove+pot, etc, all in a single bag secured with
heavy-duty velcro.)
|
| As for planes... The Cardinal is still tempting, as is the
Navion (with
| the Cherokee-6 being my dream)... unfortunately, my
current budget
| doesn't allow for examples of either of those that I would
be willing
| to fly. Fortunately I'm patient, I'll wait until I have
the money and
| spring for a ship that will suit my needs.
|
| Thanks again:)
|
| -Scott
|

On 2006-05-08, Peter Duniho > wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How about a handheld aviation radio? It's likely you are going to be in
>> reasonably frequent line-of-sight from an airliner.
>
> As a substitute for carrying survival gear? I don't think that's a
> reasonable exchange.

No, of course not. As an addition to carry survival gear. A modern
handheld aviation radio is not big enough to displace survival gear.
However, it may get you in contact with someone much faster if you
happen to crash outside of mobile phone service.

> IMHO, one of the best things a person can do, beyond having a good, reliable
> ELT with them is to have filed an accurate flight plan with someone who will
> come looking for you if you don't arrive on time. There are few forms of
> communications that are highly reliable when you're in a remote location.
> Expecting to be able to contact someone after the crash seems optimistic to
> me.

That's why no one is suggesting that it's expected. However, I think the
more options you have the better, and if you can carry a portable radio
- why not? It's another option.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> Expecting to be able to contact someone after the crash seems optimistic
>> to
>> me.
>
> That's why no one is suggesting that it's expected.

By posting your message in reply to my post, and in reply to this tangent of
the thread, YOU suggested that it's expected.

You might think about being more clear about your point. This tangent in
this thread started out about whether to carry survival gear or not. All of
my replies have been on that topic. You replied to one of my replies, with
the implication that you were asking about how a handheld aviation radio
relates to the question of carrying survival gear.

> However, I think the
> more options you have the better, and if you can carry a portable radio
> - why not? It's another option.

If all you're asking is whether a handheld radio is a useful tool, you might
want to start a different thread. Though, the answer is obviously "yes".
Even if you don't wind up crashing, you could still have an electrical or
radio failure (a more likely reason to need a handheld, IMHO). Just as
having modern avionics, seatbelts, fuel, wings, and a host of other things
is useful. But the question of whether any of those things is useful
doesn't really fit in here. We're talking about whether some form of
communications is sufficient for negating the need for survival equipment.

When you depart the topic, it's pretty hard for people to figure out what
you're really asking.

Pete

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-05-08, Peter Duniho > wrote:
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> How about a handheld aviation radio? It's likely you are going to be in
>>> reasonably frequent line-of-sight from an airliner.
>>
>> As a substitute for carrying survival gear? I don't think that's a
>> reasonable exchange.
>
> No, of course not. As an addition to carry survival gear. A modern
> handheld aviation radio is not big enough to displace survival gear.
> However, it may get you in contact with someone much faster if you
> happen to crash outside of mobile phone service.

According to all the experts I've talked to, including members of the CAP
here in the Rockies, a radio is a good option. A plane equipped with one of
the new 406 ELTs is also a good option. They also say that the survival
rate of the plane-mount ELTs in a big crash is not high. The best thing,
I'm told, is a personal locator beacon (or ELT) with GPS. There aren't many
of these with GPS but the ACR one is supposed to be top of the line.
They'll cut down the search pattern to just a few miles rather than hundreds
of miles... Barring nasty weather, we're talking recovery in 20 hours or so
versus many days... I've given my family hints along this line for ideas
for Christmas and/or birthdays for me... ;-)

..............
As for planes... The Cardinal is still tempting, as is the Navion (with
the Cherokee-6 being my dream)... unfortunately, my current budget
doesn't allow for examples of either of those that I would be willing
to fly. ..................

-Scott

When you do get ready to spend money, take a look at the 206 with a cargo pod (or 336/337 w/ pod if you want a twin). The pod will fit most of the modern shaped skiis and up to 300# of the bulky, light outwear. The pod is available after market; however, it is less expensive to buy a plane that already has one. We take numerous family (5 people big and small) ski trips every winter and the 206 fits the bill for most of them.

The Pod is hard to beat, especially for skiers, and really sets the 206 apart from the crowd. The 300 ponies help when flying high and heavy.

CJS

"Rowsign" > wrote in message
...
>
> EridanMan Wrote:
>> ..............
>> As for planes... The Cardinal is still tempting, as is the Navion
>> (with
>> the Cherokee-6 being my dream)... unfortunately, my current budget
>> doesn't allow for examples of either of those that I would be willing
>> to fly. ..................
>>
>> -Scott
>
> When you do get ready to spend money, take a look at the 206 with a
> cargo pod (or 336/337 w/ pod if you want a twin). The pod will fit most
> of the modern shaped skiis and up to 300# of the bulky, light outwear.
> The pod is available after market; however, it is less expensive to buy
> a plane that already has one. We take numerous family (5 people big and
> small) ski trips every winter and the 206 fits the bill for most of
> them.
>
> The Pod is hard to beat, especially for skiers, and really sets the 206
> apart from the crowd. The 300 ponies help when flying high and heavy.
>
> CJS
>
>
> --
> Rowsign

The guys at ATG are saying that the're gonna offer a belly pod on the
Javelin that will attach to some hardpoints there... Should accept a few
pairs of skis to go with the 2 bags of golf clubs that fit in the
compartment behind the back seat... Anyone got an extra 2.5mil? ;-)