CTB - LWS : Plane for the mission? Pilot for the plane?

[scronje]

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

[Dave[_5_]]

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

[John Galban]

On May 15, 2:52 pm, scronje > wrote:
>
> 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)

[scronje]

Hi John

Thank you for your response.

On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:26:34 -0700, John Galban wrote:

> 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

[Dan Youngquist]

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

[Newps]

VFR? No problem with a 172.




Dan Youngquist wrote:

> 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

[scronje]

Hi Dan

On Thu, 17 May 2007 15:23:03 -0700, Dan Youngquist wrote:

> but I fly to Missoula occasionally.

What altitudes do you typically fly at?

> 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,

Good point, and already on my "to-do" list. I don't have any mountain
experience. I understand there is an operation out of Calgary that offers
training.

Thank you for your response!

Steve

[John Galban]

On May 16, 9:00 pm, scronje > wrote:
>
> 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)

[scronje]

Hi again, John!!

On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:57:51 -0700, John Galban wrote:

> At 200 lbs. under gross and 10,000 ft. density altitude, I still see
> 400-500 fpm in the climb.

That sounds pretty impressive.

> 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

[John Galban]

On May 19, 11:59 am, scronje > wrote:
>
> 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)

[Newps]

scronje wrote:


>
> 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 **** 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.

[Pat]

On May 15, 2:52 pm, scronje > wrote:
> 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.

[scronje]

Hi Pat

On Sun, 20 May 2007 10:36:52 -0700, Pat wrote:

> 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

[Dan Youngquist]

On Fri, 18 May 2007, scronje wrote:
>> but I fly to Missoula occasionally.
>
> What altitudes do you typically fly at?

Sorry for the slow response, have been pretty busy lately.

Along that route, usually 10,500 - 11,500. It's not necessary to go that
high -- the pass is 5235 -- but that puts you above all the terrain near
the route, and way above most of it. Over that sort of terrain, I like to
go as high as practical to maximize options in case of a problem.
Actually, once you get up there, you see that there are a lot more options
for an emergency landing than one might imagine. That is, the airplane
may not go anywhere under its own power again, but you'd have a good
chance of walking out.

> Good point, and already on my "to-do" list. I don't have any mountain
> experience. I understand there is an operation out of Calgary that
> offers training.

When you're a mile above the mountains, of course it's not really mountain
flying. But, you still have to get in/out of airports along the way, and
you need to be prepared for an emergency. I would say, don't be afraid to
make the trip without formal mountain flying training; but read up on it
first, and err on the side of caution when choosing your routes, planning
fuel stops, and making weather decisions, taking into account your skill,
knowledge, and comfort level.

AOPA has some reading material on their website:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/safety_topics.html?pl=TP12#mountain

-Dan

[Newps]

Dan Youngquist wrote:


> Along that route, usually 10,500 - 11,500. It's not necessary to go
> that high -- the pass is 5235 -- but that puts you above all the terrain
> near the route, and way above most of it.


Well what fun is that? Your missing out on a lot of terriffic scenery.
Sail over the pass at 6000 or 6500 assuming the wind allows.


Over that sort of terrain, I
> like to go as high as practical to maximize options in case of a
> problem. Actually, once you get up there, you see that there are a lot
> more options for an emergency landing than one might imagine. That is,
> the airplane may not go anywhere under its own power again, but you'd
> have a good chance of walking out.

There's a lot more flat areas there than the chart would have you believe.

[Dan Youngquist]

On Wed, 23 May 2007, Newps wrote:

> Well what fun is that? Your missing out on a lot of terriffic scenery.
> Sail over the pass at 6000 or 6500 assuming the wind allows.

True... but over the terrain in question, at that altitude, your ONLY
emergency landing options are the highway and its immediate surroundings,
which in that area are NOT good options. Anyone who's driven that stretch
of Hwy.12 knows what I'm talking about; west of the pass it's 80 miles of
twisting & turning with hardly a straight stretch long enough to think
about passing in a car, much less landing an airplane. (East of the pass
it's much straighter & flatter.) Being up a ways over the surrounding
terrain drastically improves your choices, and hence your chance of
surviving an emergency landing. Less scenic, but safer. Besides, I see
terrific scenery every time I look out the window. :) As I type this, I'm
looking at mountains 70 miles away. And every time I fly, usually the
first thing I do is climb out of a narrow 2000 ft. deep valley.

> There's a lot more flat areas there than the chart would have you
> believe.

Well, "flat" isn't generally the first word that springs to mind when I'm
flying over it. I'd go with something closer to, some spots that are bare
enough, and close enough to level, and long enough, to have a pretty good
chance of getting an airplane on the ground without killing yourself.
But, there are lots of mountains where even that's not true.

A couple years ago a guy went down about 25 miles SE of here because of a
mechanical problem, while flying IFR from Jackson Hole to Lewiston. By
the time he broke out of the cloud layer he didn't have a whole lot of
good choices of landing spot. Destroyed the airplane and messed him up
pretty bad, so moving very far was out of the question. The plane flipped
over and broke off the ELT antenna. The weather was really nasty that
week so they couldn't get search planes up. Took them 2 days to find him,
and even then it was just pure luck -- friend of mine driving on a logging
road where the sheriff didn't think they should even be looking. Radar
coverage stops at around 9000 there, I believe, so they didn't really know
where he was. There's a lot of really remote, rugged country around here,
and the terrain & vegetation are such that without a working ELT, it would
be really easy for an airplane to disappear without a trace even if they
knew you were inside a few square mile area. Best argument I know for
having a handheld radio (with good batteries), and preferably a PLB as
well. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050516X00620&key=1

I tried to get flight following on the way home from Missoula once.
Didn't get it because, at 12,500, I was below radar most of the way.

All that to say, in mountains, it pays to be a bit cautious when making
decisions of route, altitude, weather, etc.

-Dan