Why didn't the Cessna 337 make it?

If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.

According to ?

However, the USGS says there is no official definition as to what makes
a mountain a mountain and not merely a hill - it seems to be locally
defined.

My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

"Ken Reed" wrote in message
link.net...
My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.

Anyone, in the west or otherwise, who discounts a 2700' protrustion from
level ground as "not even a good sized hill" is foolish (and arrogant).

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Ken Reed" wrote in message
link.net...

My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.


Anyone, in the west or otherwise, who discounts a 2700' protrustion from
level ground as "not even a good sized hill" is foolish (and arrogant).

True, but they also claim that their 7,000 feet high mountains are
14,000 feet high. To me a mountain starts at this base elevation, not
at sea level. :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
True, but they also claim that their 7,000 feet high mountains are 14,000
feet high. To me a mountain starts at this base elevation, not at sea
level. :-)

Yup...that's one of the reasons their arrogance is unfounded. When the
first 6000-7000' of elevation gain is a broad plain hundreds of miles long,
it doesn't make much sense to claim the full elevation above sea level as
the height of your mountain. Note, of course, that this doesn't apply to
density altitude effects, and of course some of the western mountains do
rise faster than that, such as the Sierras, Cascades, and Siskiyous.

I say this as a west-coast resident myself with mountains that have 10,000'
peaks less than 30-40 miles from sea-level terrain (Cascades and Olympics).
If there were any justification for the arrogance, surely I would be
warranted to join in.

But there's just no reason to question the seriousness of a 2700' elevation
change as irrelevant. Even around here, we have plenty of "mountains" in
the 2000-3000' range, they even have the word "mountain" in their names
(Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, Tiger Mountain), and they can be serious
impediments to navigation to the pilot who's not paying attention.
Turbulence, local visibility effects, and when the wind's high enough you
can even get lenticulars and wave/rotors.

The pilot who laughs at the idea of calling a 2700' elevation peak a
"mountain" is likely to regret that cavalier attitude eventually.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

The pilot who laughs at the idea of calling a 2700' elevation peak a
"mountain" is likely to regret that cavalier attitude eventually.

Yes, I think flying into a mountain of any height is pretty much equally
deadly.

MAtt

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:57 GMT, Ken Reed wrote:

If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.

According to ?

However, the USGS says there is no official definition as to what makes
a mountain a mountain and not merely a hill - it seems to be locally
defined.

My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.

And from Michigan we'd be saying we didn't know Arkansas had mountains
that high. Those prarie states are not flat! They are long rolling
hills. Michigan is flat in most places and most of that is swamp.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

Michigan was bulldozed by a few billion tons of ice as were
all the central states down to about the Ohio River.



"Roger" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:57 GMT, Ken Reed
wrote:
|
| If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's
a mountain.
|
| According to ?
|
| However, the USGS says there is no official definition
as to what makes
| a mountain a mountain and not merely a hill - it seems
to be locally
| defined.
|
| My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a
mountain but
| those of us in the west think that's not even a good
sized hill.
|
| And from Michigan we'd be saying we didn't know Arkansas
had mountains
| that high. Those prarie states are not flat! They are
long rolling
| hills. Michigan is flat in most places and most of that is
swamp.
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
|
|
| ---
| Ken Reed
| M20M, N9124X

On 2006-06-07, Ken Reed wrote:
My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.

Call it what you want - but it's irrelevant - it hurts just as much if
you have to make a forced landing in rugged terrain that's only 2700ft
high as it does making a forced landing in the Rockies. A 2700 ft high
mountain still causes mountain wave to reach into the flight levels
(Scottish soaring clubs get into the 30,000s off mountains that size).
It still causes rotor. It still causes localized weather. It still must
be treated with great respect, as the crew of a US B17 found out when
they made a navigational error and ploughed into the side of the Isle of
Man in IMC, thinking they were over open water. Of course, the crew
probably didn't have time to think "what's that crashing noise?" because
they were killed instantly when they piled into the sheer side of North
Barrule, a mere pimple of only 1700 feet.

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