Carrying Skis in a Single...

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.

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 2006-05-08, 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

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