Brief Hot Springs report

A Lieberman wrote:
On 22 Apr 2006 10:32:32 -0700, Wiz wrote:

Oops - forgot the link to the photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/5572722...7594113899664/

Thanks for posting your experiences Wiz! Great approach pic as well!

With a density altitude of 5200, how did your plane perform on take off?

How high did you go with such a high density altitude for your ride back
home?

Huh? 5200 is high density?
OK, for coastal people, this may be unusual, but for most of the US,
with "ground" averaging 1000-4000 MSL, is 5200 unusual?

"Blanche Cohen" wrote in message
...
With a density altitude of 5200, how did your plane perform on take off?

How high did you go with such a high density altitude for your ride back
home?

Huh? 5200 is high density?

5200' certainly is "high density altitude" when it comes to takeoffs. It's
not as high as you can get, of course, but it's plenty high to cause a
significant increase in takeoff distance requirements (power loss, increased
true airspeed).

For cruise, you're right. But the way I read the question, since the
takeoff altitude was 5200', the question is asking what cruise altitude was
chosen. In most of the US, 5200' itself is a high enough cruise altitude.
Granted, even flat-landers fly higher than that often enough, but even so,
seems like a reasonable enough question from an inexperienced pilot.

In the area in question (Appalachians, and otherwise ground elevations 500'
and lower), 5200' is a pretty high airport, and I can believe most pilots
get only that high (or slightly higher) for cruise around there. Heck, here
in the Puget Sound area, if I'm not crossing a mountain and my trip is less
than an hour or so, I rarely climb higher than 3000'.

Anyway, I guess that's a long way of saying that the previous poster's
questions seemed reasonable to me.

Pete