WAC vs Sectional

[[email protected]]

I currently subscribe to the Airchart IFR and sectional service. I was
looking at changing to the WAC and IFR service.

What exactly is the difference between the WAC and sectional charts?
Do the WACs show all the MOAs/restricted/etc areas? Are all the same
airports listed?

Thanks

[Paul kgyy]

I tried WACs a while back but found insufficient detail for good visual
orientation, and went back to sectionals. The WACs are handy for
planning because of their larger scale but that's about it. I also use
Low Altitude En Route charges for IFR in combination with the
sectionals.

[George Patterson]

" wrote:
>
> What exactly is the difference between the WAC and sectional charts?

Thw WAC charts are 1:1,000,000 scale. Sectionals are 1:500,000 scale (twice as
large).

> Do the WACs show all the MOAs/restricted/etc areas?

Yes.

> Are all the same airports listed?

Most private strips are not shown on the WACs. Also missing are airspace details
for controlled fields and radio frequency information. Most of those magenta
circles you're used to seeing on a sectional aren't on a WAC. In congested
areas, you'll see notes on the WAC to use the sectional -- for example, the note
"for flights at and below 4400 MSL see charlotte VFR sectional chart" may be
found on the WAC near RDU. This is your clue that the RDU airspace extends to
4,400'.

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

[Doug]

There are lots of little differences. All the restricted, MOA stuff is
on the WAC's. But not the Class E surface area airports (special vfr?).
All the airports are there, but not the 3 or 4 letter ID's. With a
GPS, it is enough. Only thing I can't find is those Class E surface
areas with my WACs or GPS.

[Robert M. Gary]

If you like to tool around C and B airspace VFR you won't like the WAC.
It doesn't show you the entire wedding cake. It just shows you the
outer area, it doesn't show you the side area at all.

-Robert


wrote:
> I currently subscribe to the Airchart IFR and sectional service. I
was
> looking at changing to the WAC and IFR service.
>
> What exactly is the difference between the WAC and sectional charts?
> Do the WACs show all the MOAs/restricted/etc areas? Are all the same
> airports listed?
>
> Thanks

[Maule Driver]

If you like to tool around IFR, the combination is perfect. I use the WAC
for IFR GPS direct work. I can fly around the SE US (except for FL) using
nothing else when IFR. A lot less chart flipping with the WAC - even in my
slow steed.

But you need the Sectionals for VFR around the Class B/C
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I currently subscribe to the Airchart IFR and sectional service. I was
> looking at changing to the WAC and IFR service.
>
> What exactly is the difference between the WAC and sectional charts?
> Do the WACs show all the MOAs/restricted/etc areas? Are all the same
> airports listed?
>
> Thanks
>

[Denny]

Try to Howie Keefes Aircharts... I have used every chart type/service
out there at one time or another, and Howie wins hands down, 95% of the
time...

Denny

[Doug]

The Aircharts have all the Class B and Class C areas on sectionals in
the back.

[jsmith]

The new issues later this year will have the identifiers added.

Doug wrote:
> There are lots of little differences. All the restricted, MOA stuff is
> on the WAC's. But not the Class E surface area airports (special vfr?).
> All the airports are there, but not the 3 or 4 letter ID's. With a
> GPS, it is enough. Only thing I can't find is those Class E surface
> areas with my WACs or GPS.
>

[RST Engineering]

Most of my students transition from sectionals to WACs at about 800-1000
hours PIC and never look back. Howie Keefe's stuff is really good,
especially as he reprints the terminal area and Class B charts in the back.
I've never needed anything but these and the frequency info in the GPS.

Jim



>
> What exactly is the difference between the WAC and sectional charts?
> Do the WACs show all the MOAs/restricted/etc areas? Are all the same
> airports listed?
>
> Thanks
>

[Jose]

> Most of my students transition from sectionals to WACs at about 800-1000
> hours PIC and never look back.

I'd say more important is the altitude at which one flies. Low to the
ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless. Up where
you need oxygen, sectionals may lose their appeal.

Jose
r.a.misc trimmed
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Doug wrote:
>
> The Aircharts have all the Class B and Class C areas on sectionals in
> the back.

What do you mean by "air chart"? I'm looking at a 1994 WAC CG-21, which covers
the area from Philadelphia to most of South Carolina. It does not have anything
special for the Class B and C airports. Is this something new in the last 10
years?

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[andrew m. boardman]

> wrote:
>I currently subscribe to the Airchart IFR and sectional service. I was
>looking at changing to the WAC and IFR service.

I also use the Aircharts service, and switched from WACs to the sectional
service this past year. I fly in some fairly cluttered areas, and even
with the class B/C sectional extracts the WAC atlas was just not cutting
it, detail-wise, for my VFR flying; fewer frequencies, and no identifiers
or pattern info. For high-altitude IFR flying it was fine, but in that
case it's really only a situational awareness aid.

Since you're a current subscriber, you can probably get a sectional atlas
from them either for the asking or at minimal cost.

Did anyone ever get use from the now-discontinued Sky Prints atlas? I
never really saw the point. (If I could get a bound atlas with sectional
charts for 300nm from either coast and WACs for everything else, I'd be a
happy camper.)

[Dave S]

He is referring to a commerical product that comes in a big book. It has
the entire US in WAC charts, with Sectional detail of all Class C and
B airspace. It is updated by subscription.

They also sell sectional charts in big books (east and west versions) as
well as IFR LO charts for the whole country.

http://www.airchart.com/

Dave

George Patterson wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
>
>>The Aircharts have all the Class B and Class C areas on sectionals in
>>the back.
>
>
> What do you mean by "air chart"? I'm looking at a 1994 WAC CG-21, which covers
> the area from Philadelphia to most of South Carolina. It does not have anything
> special for the Class B and C airports. Is this something new in the last 10
> years?
>
> George Patterson
> He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
> adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[Jay Honeck]

> The new issues later this year will have the identifiers added.

This is a great victory for EAA and AOPA, which have been clamoring for this
addition for a long time.

Adding the airport identifiers to WACs will make them much more usable,
IMHO. I will probably switch to using them exclusively after this change
takes place, since that has always been my biggest objection to using them
in the past.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'd say more important is the altitude at which one flies. Low to the
> ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless. Up where you
> need oxygen, sectionals may lose their appeal.

True. But on a long cross country, even in the middle altitudes, WACs are
so much nicer to deal with.

In the past, we would carry sectionals for reference, but use WACs for
planning and in-flight use. Now, with the airport identifiers being added
to them, the sectionals will become superfluous.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> In the past, we would carry sectionals for reference, but use WACs for
> planning and in-flight use. Now, with the airport identifiers being added
> to them, the sectionals will become superfluous.

I'll stay with sectionals. I want the radio frequency info.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[Jose]

>>I'd say more important is the altitude at which one flies. Low to the
>>> ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless. Up where you
>>> need oxygen, sectionals may lose their appeal.
>
>
> True. But on a long cross country, even in the middle altitudes, WACs are
> so much nicer to deal with.

I guess you don't fly low cross countries. I like to go CT to FL at
five hundred feet. A thousand over some parts. A WAC won't cut it
there. :)

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> I guess you don't fly low cross countries. I like to go CT to FL at five
> hundred feet. A thousand over some parts. A WAC won't cut it there. :)

What're you flying, Jose?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> What're you flying, Jose?

A Dakota.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[jsmith]

And I thought I was the only one that did that (500 ft AGL, that is)!!!

Jose wrote:
> I guess you don't fly low cross countries. I like to go CT to FL at
> five hundred feet. A thousand over some parts. A WAC won't cut it
> there. :)

[Jose]

> And I thought I was the only one that did that (500 ft AGL, that is)!!!

The view is awesome, especially in fall, over rolling hills. But keep
a sharp eye for cell towers!

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Butler]

Jose wrote:
>> And I thought I was the only one that did that (500 ft AGL, that is)!!!
>
>
> The view is awesome, especially in fall, over rolling hills. But keep a
> sharp eye for cell towers!

Do you use cruise power, or do you slow down to give yourself more time to react
to obstacles and populated areas?

Dave

[Jose]

> Do you use cruise power, or do you slow down to give yourself more time to react to obstacles and populated areas?

There's plenty of time at cruise power to react. A dakota only does
140 on a good day. Maybe 160 with a tail wind. (Tail winds are
mainly a myth. :) It takes twenty seconds or more to cover a mile.

This is obviously not the kind of flying you hand over to George while
you make a ham sandwich, and I wouldn't do this in two miles and mist,
but by focusing on the high-definition wraparound panoramic plexiglass
screen (HDWPPS) one can easily avoid tilting at windmills.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[jsmith]

At 75 MPH/2100 RPM, the world goes by SLOWLY!!!
My next biggest obstacle (after towers) are buzzards riding the thermals.
As for populated areas, I read the water towers to figure out where I am.
Of course, in the summer, the topless sunbathers sometimes wave as I
pass by.

Dave Butler wrote:
> Do you use cruise power, or do you slow down to give yourself more time
> to react to obstacles and populated areas?

[Blueskies]

"Jose" > wrote in message m...
>> Do you use cruise power, or do you slow down to give yourself more time to react to obstacles and populated areas?
>
> There's plenty of time at cruise power to react. A dakota only does 140 on a good day. Maybe 160 with a tail wind.
> (Tail winds are mainly a myth. :) It takes twenty seconds or more to cover a mile.
>
> This is obviously not the kind of flying you hand over to George while you make a ham sandwich, and I wouldn't do this
> in two miles and mist, but by focusing on the high-definition wraparound panoramic plexiglass screen (HDWPPS) one can
> easily avoid tilting at windmills.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


HDWPPS - I like that!

[Jay Honeck]

>> What're you flying, Jose?
>
> A Dakota.

You fly a Dakota, cross-country, at 500 feet?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> Do you use cruise power, or do you slow down to give yourself more time
>> to react to obstacles and populated areas?
>
> There's plenty of time at cruise power to react. A dakota only does 140
> on a good day. Maybe 160 with a tail wind. (Tail winds are mainly a
> myth. :) It takes twenty seconds or more to cover a mile.

This sounds crazy to me. What do you do in the vicinity of airports? Or do
you only fly this way over unpopulated areas? (Since you joke about dodging
cell towers, it doesn't sound like it.)

Have you calculated your glide range from 500 feet? When that big fan
sputters to a halt, your choice will be to land straight ahead, or maybe 30
degrees off either side...

I guess I thought you were joking.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> You fly a Dakota, cross-country, at 500 feet?

I like to. But it's usually more like 1000. There are many more
towers now than there used to be, and the East coast is more dense
than the Mojave desert. (I used to fly up and down the desert like
that twenty years ago before there =were= cell phones - I probably
picked up an extra ten or twenty knots just from pitching down into
the rising heated air.)

I plan the flight very carefully, checking the sectional for towers
(knowing they aren't all there), for airports and frequencies,
terrain, parachute drop zones, and anything else that might be
significant that low. It's all written out in a log ahead of time,
plotted on the sectional, obstacles circled (they make good landmarks
actually), quadrant minimum altitudes logged, and I make sure I have
good visibility to do it in, and a high enough ceiling to climb if I
need to.

Planning a long flight like that can take as long as actually flying
it - there's a lot I can ignore at 8000 feet that is critical on the
deck. To do it without detailled planning like that, in low viz,
under scud, is suicide. But on a nice day with careful planning, it
is not only (relatively) safe, it is excellent XC practice. I have
the GPS on in case I need it, but turned to a text page so I don't
cheat. At that altitude you can't see the whole world below you, so
you'd better hold a good course, pick good landmarks, be on top of
your timing, and pay attention.

Try it. Practice it. It may save your butt one day.

> Have you calculated your glide range from 500 feet?

The fan stops, yes, I have fewer options. Of course, it's much safer
to fly as a passenger in a jetliner. We fly little airplanes because
the joy of flight is worth the risk. There are tradeoffs all over
aviation.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> The probability of the "fan sputtering to a halt" is probably no
> greater than a truck running you off the road at 75 miles an hour.

....unless you run out of gas. Preflight planning again. Critical.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> You fly a Dakota, cross-country, at 500 feet?
>
>
> I like to. But it's usually more like 1000. There are many more towers
> now than there used to be, and the East coast is more dense than the
> Mojave desert. (I used to fly up and down the desert like that twenty
> years ago before there =were= cell phones - I probably picked up an
> extra ten or twenty knots just from pitching down into the rising heated
> air.)

And where did that rising heated air come from? If you were flying in a
straight line, then you likely aren't netting any gain from thermals as
you also are flying through the corresponding downdrafts.

Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> And where did that rising heated air come from? If you were flying in a
> straight line, then you likely aren't netting any gain from thermals as
> you also are flying through the corresponding downdrafts.

In fact, he was missing his opportunity. As has been discussed here before,
in rising air the right thing to do is slow down and let it carry you up.
Then you dive as you fly through the descending air you're sure to find
(which you mention).

He can either take the assistance as fuel savings, or trade that for a
higher power setting that will get him to his destination faster. But by
diving in the updrafts, he's throwing away any possible savings, and
probably comes out behind when he has to slow down to maintain altitude in
the downdrafts.

Pete

[Jose]

> And where did that rising heated air come from?

The sun heats the ground. The ground heats the air. The air expands
and goes up. Cooler air comes in from the outside of the desert, not
from above me.

Sure, there are some downdrafts, but the net is up.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> If a column air is rising, adjacent air is descending.
>
> You don't get something for nothing.

It's not for nothing, it's from the sun. But I guess I should take
some glider lessons and learn the ins and outs of thermals.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

jsmith wrote:
>
> As for populated areas, I read the water towers to figure out where I am.

I used to do that. It's amazing how many towns are named "Municipal Water
Department."

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[RST Engineering]

Horsepuckey.

Jim



Low to the
> ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless.

[RST Engineering]

Excuse me, "moron", but the fan sputtered to a halt at 10,500 over Faceless
Wyoming on the way home from Oshkosh last year.

Second engine failure in 5,000 hours of flying. Why don't you regale us
with your experiences of engine failure?

Jim


> wrote in message
...
> Let me reword this.
>
> The probability of the "fan sputtering to a halt", unless you are a
> moron and run out of gas, is probably no greater than a truck
> running you off the road at 75 miles an hour.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> The air leaving the earth's surface has to be replaced from below with
> more air, since nature abhors a vacuum, as we all know.
>
> The replacing air has to come from the air surrounding the rising
> column,.

Well, to be fair...it doesn't HAVE to come from the air surrounding the
rising column. Theoretically, the in-fill air supplying the rising column
could be coming from 1000 miles away, traveling along the surface the entire
distance, leaving all air at altitude undisturbed.

Of course, this never happens. But it *could*. :)

Pete

[kage]

Priceless turds from RST Engineering, who maintains his own airplane but
can't keep the engine running.

I'd prefer you and your ego problem to not stand upwind from my airplane.
Even though in your own mind your **** don't stink!

Karl


"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Excuse me, "moron", but the fan sputtered to a halt at 10,500 over
> Faceless Wyoming on the way home from Oshkosh last year.
>
> Second engine failure in 5,000 hours of flying. Why don't you regale us
> with your experiences of engine failure?
>
> Jim
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Let me reword this.
>>
>> The probability of the "fan sputtering to a halt", unless you are a
>> moron and run out of gas, is probably no greater than a truck
>> running you off the road at 75 miles an hour.
>
>

[[email protected]]

Now that would be one hell of a thermal.



On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:36:12 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>> The air leaving the earth's surface has to be replaced from below with
>> more air, since nature abhors a vacuum, as we all know.
>>
>> The replacing air has to come from the air surrounding the rising
>> column,.
>
>Well, to be fair...it doesn't HAVE to come from the air surrounding the
>rising column. Theoretically, the in-fill air supplying the rising column
>could be coming from 1000 miles away, traveling along the surface the entire
>distance, leaving all air at altitude undisturbed.
>
>Of course, this never happens. But it *could*. :)
>
>Pete
>
>

[[email protected]]

I was merely speaking of the probabbility of complete engine failure
compared to the risk of driving. However, you seem to be taking this
personally. Did you run out of gas?




On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:13:01 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Excuse me, "moron", but the fan sputtered to a halt at 10,500 over Faceless
>Wyoming on the way home from Oshkosh last year.
>
>Second engine failure in 5,000 hours of flying. Why don't you regale us
>with your experiences of engine failure?
>
>Jim
>
>
> wrote in message
...
>> Let me reword this.
>>
>> The probability of the "fan sputtering to a halt", unless you are a
>> moron and run out of gas, is probably no greater than a truck
>> running you off the road at 75 miles an hour.
>

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
>
> I was merely speaking of the probabbility of complete engine failure
> compared to the risk of driving. However, you seem to be taking this
> personally. Did you run out of gas?
>

Nope one of his cylinders blew. In far less hours of flying than Jim
I've had a couple of failures (one total and a mag failure where I couldn't
get more than 19" which is about the minimum to bumble along in level
flight at the clean stall speed).

I've also in the past year got my Suburban totalled by a moving van.
My first car was also wrecked by a truck that crossed the center line
on a two lane highway.

So I can't vouch for the relative probabilities of these things, but
I still want to make sure I have the option of the NEAREST airport.

(and much as I was thinking about replacing the 'burban with something
smaller and fuel efficient before the accident, I decided to go out
and get another full size truck to replace it).

[[email protected]]

Recently two people were killed not far from here with an oil-covered
windscreen trying to make it to the nearest airport with about 20
miles of level seaside beach well within reach.

I also know a cropduster who easily survived 14 engine failures. He
worked for a guy (he now owns the business) who, it is safe to say,
was not dedicated to maintenance of his aircraft. Since all the
engine failures were over alfalfa fields, there was never any serious
problem.

The point is, there are options besides the NEAREST airport, some of
them a whole lot more desirable. Flying at 500-1000 feet along most
of the eastern seaboard shouldn't be considered any more hazardous
than your next outing among the road -ragers along Interstate 95 in
heavy traffic, if you ask me.



On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:38:03 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>So I can't vouch for the relative probabilities of these things, but
>I still want to make sure I have the option of the NEAREST airport.

[Joe Johnson]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>

> I used to do that. It's amazing how many towns are named "Municipal Water
> Department."
>
This whole thread has been pretty funny, but this one had me ROFL. Thanks,
George!

[Jay Honeck]

> So I can't vouch for the relative probabilities of these things, but
> I still want to make sure I have the option of the NEAREST airport.

Three young Iowans were killed last week in the Milwaukee area, while
driving on I-94. The driver (the only survivor) tried to pass a snow plow
(which, on a freeway, isn't all that unusual), lost control, hit the back of
the plow, and careened sideways into a bridge abutment.

Just like *that* three 20-somethings gone, in the blink of an eye. All
that potential (these were great kids -- all recent UI college grads, all
well employed), all those future headaches, heartaches, and triumphs,
gone...

The parents, relatives and friends are, of course, devastated.

So, we all know life isn't fair, and Father Death tends to deal random blows
to all concerned. That said, flying cross-country at 500 AGL, just because
the view is better, strikes me as tempting fate a wee bit too much.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> That said, flying cross-country at 500 AGL, just because
> the view is better, strikes me as tempting fate a wee bit too much.

I fail to see what passing a snowplow and dramatizing the resulting
tragedy has to do with aviation.

In any case, the same can reasonably be said of jumping out of a
perfectly good airplane is also tempting fate a wee bit too much, as
is climbing a mountain on foot, flying single pilot night IFR in the
Pathfinder, or doing aerobatics.. In fact, one very experienced
member of my flying club maintains that the autopilot should be used
all the time, and to hand fly puts passengers in grave danger.

I won't even =mention= what the life-shortening stress of running an
aviation-themed hotel as opposed to taking some nice, safe job such as
chartered accountancy does to your poor wife and children when you are
raced to the hospital with a heart attack after the last guest stiffed
the maids, who then quit en masse just before the big convention. Who
will comfort them at the gravesite? Your relatives and friends will
be any less devastated?

Just like *that*, all your life's dreams gone, in the blink of an eye.

That said, I ask you - why do you fly in those dangerous crazy
contraptions in the first place? I've read some of the stories you've
posted, and while I wouldn't call them "crazy", some of them have
given me pause to wonder.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> That said, flying cross-country at 500 AGL, just because
> the view is better, strikes me as tempting fate a wee bit too much.


I've done that before for other reasons (low ceilings, high winds)
over suitable terrain. I actually felt more comfortable with regard to
emergency options when flying 500-700 ft. over Kansas or central
Alberta than I usually do when flying 3,000 AGL over the mountainous
terrain I usually fly over.

Most of Kansas, for example, is one huge emergency landing site as far
as the eye can see.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[jsmith]

A mile to a mile-and-a-quarter per 1000 feet altitude.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Have you calculated your glide range from 500 feet? When that big fan
> sputters to a halt, your choice will be to land straight ahead, or maybe 30
> degrees off either side...

[jsmith]

Okay, what was the MSL ground elevation where you ended up? ;-)

RST Engineering wrote:
> Excuse me, "moron", but the fan sputtered to a halt at 10,500 over Faceless
> Wyoming on the way home from Oshkosh last year.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> And where did that rising heated air come from?
>
>
> The sun heats the ground. The ground heats the air. The air expands
> and goes up. Cooler air comes in from the outside of the desert, not
> from above me.
>
> Sure, there are some downdrafts, but the net is up.

Sorry, but not even most deserts heat that uniformly.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> If a column air is rising, adjacent air is descending.
>>
>> You don't get something for nothing.
>
>
> It's not for nothing, it's from the sun. But I guess I should take some
> glider lessons and learn the ins and outs of thermals.


I think we know the ins and outs of thermals quite well. Why do you
think gliders spiral around in the thermals rather than flying straight
through them?


Matt

[Morgans]

> wrote

> I think the glider cross country distance record of some 700+ miles,
> if I'm not mistaken, was flown at no more than 400' agl or so.

OK, I'll bite! What kind of flight/ circumstances allow a glider to travel
that distance, at that low level?
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Rapoport]

The distance glider records are now mostly flown in mountain wave conditions
and well into the flight levels. I've never heard of any distance gliding
record being flown at 400agl.

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:15:57 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>>So, we all know life isn't fair, and Father Death tends to deal random
>>blows
>>to all concerned. That said, flying cross-country at 500 AGL, just
>>because
>>the view is better, strikes me as tempting fate a wee bit too much.
>
>
> I think the glider cross country distance record of some 700+ miles,
> if I'm not mistaken, was flown at no more than 400' agl or so.

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> > wrote
>
> > I think the glider cross country distance record of some 700+ miles,
> > if I'm not mistaken, was flown at no more than 400' agl or so.
>
> OK, I'll bite! What kind of flight/ circumstances allow a glider to travel
> that distance, at that low level?

The flight started on a ridge of the Appalachians. The pilot followed the ridges
down to Tennessee, staying on the western side about 50' AGL. That way he stayed
in a constant updraft. The article I read said the turbulence was brutal.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually, distance records are now set with waves and usually in South
America. The current record flights are almost 1500nm.

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
...
>
> Altitude records are set with waves.
>
> Distance records are done with ridge soaring.
>
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 01:38:30 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>The distance glider records are now mostly flown in mountain wave
>>conditions
>>and well into the flight levels. I've never heard of any distance gliding
>>record being flown at 400agl.
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:15:57 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, we all know life isn't fair, and Father Death tends to deal random
>>>>blows
>>>>to all concerned. That said, flying cross-country at 500 AGL, just
>>>>because
>>>>the view is better, strikes me as tempting fate a wee bit too much.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the glider cross country distance record of some 700+ miles,
>>> if I'm not mistaken, was flown at no more than 400' agl or so.
>>
>

[[email protected]]

I don't know about South America, Europe, Japan, Russia or China.

In the U. S., distance records are set on the east coast. If they
were set with waves, they would be set on the west coast, where all
the really great wave soaring exists.

The U. S. out and back distance record was set by Tom Knauff, out of
PA, in 1983, I believe, and as far as I know, that record still
stands.


On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 03:22:30 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Actually, distance records are now set with waves and usually in South
>America. The current record flights are almost 1500nm.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
> wrote in message
...
>>
>> Altitude records are set with waves.
>>
>> Distance records are done with ridge soaring.
>>
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 01:38:30 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>The distance glider records are now mostly flown in mountain wave
>>>conditions
>>>and well into the flight levels. I've never heard of any distance gliding
>>>record being flown at 400agl.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>MU-2
>>>
>>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:15:57 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So, we all know life isn't fair, and Father Death tends to deal random
>>>>>blows
>>>>>to all concerned. That said, flying cross-country at 500 AGL, just
>>>>>because
>>>>>the view is better, strikes me as tempting fate a wee bit too much.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the glider cross country distance record of some 700+ miles,
>>>> if I'm not mistaken, was flown at no more than 400' agl or so.
>>>
>>
>

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> The flight started on a ridge of the Appalachians. The pilot followed the
ridges
> down to Tennessee, staying on the western side about 50' AGL. That way he
stayed
> in a constant updraft. The article I read said the turbulence was brutal.

I suspected that. I bet he was higher than 400 feet, at times, and well
above 50 almost all the time. Steepness in places at that altitude would
have put a wing into a mountain!
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> That said, I ask you - why do you fly in those dangerous crazy
> contraptions in the first place? I've read some of the stories you've
> posted, and while I wouldn't call them "crazy", some of them have given me
> pause to wonder.

Hey -- you'll get no where with me imitating my mother-in-law!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Everett M. Greene]

" > writes:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > That said, flying cross-country at 500 AGL, just because
> > the view is better, strikes me as tempting fate a wee bit too much.
>
> I've done that before for other reasons (low ceilings, high winds)
> over suitable terrain. I actually felt more comfortable with regard to
> emergency options when flying 500-700 ft. over Kansas or central
> Alberta than I usually do when flying 3,000 AGL over the mountainous
> terrain I usually fly over.
>
> Most of Kansas, for example, is one huge emergency landing site as far
> as the eye can see.

You left out Oklahoma, most of Texas, Nebraska, the Dakotas,
eastern Montana, Saskatchewan, eastern Alberta,...

[George Patterson]

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:
>
> You left out Oklahoma, most of Texas, Nebraska, the Dakotas,
> eastern Montana, Saskatchewan, eastern Alberta,...

Lots of flat land in East Tennessee too. Of course, it's mostly vertical.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[RST Engineering]

Just a little over 7000.

Jim


"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, what was the MSL ground elevation where you ended up? ;-)
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> Excuse me, "moron", but the fan sputtered to a halt at 10,500 over
>> Faceless Wyoming on the way home from Oshkosh last year.
>