lowest altitude route

[Clark1961]

Yes, and I was pretty amazed until I notice the one I saw had an O-360 conversion. 180 hp on that little airframe did pretty good.

Thanks for sharing that. The poster who wishes to be considered a master and calls himself Bader is very good at neglecting details. He could have saved himself a lot of embarassment yesterday and typing today if he'd have just admitted his errors yesterday.

 

[alfadog]

...calls himself Bader...

I just kinda assumed that was his name. And if it is, he certainly has some qualification to at least attempt to address a question here.

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/

 

[EdFred]

Since I was bored, I scoured the terrain maps from the WY border to well south of I-70. The advice given by Bader on "just follow 70 and go around the "hill" was the worst in this thread. If you can get to Lake Granby it's cake from there like Clark said. But I don't see a place to cross between there and Erie that the terrain isn't at least 11,500' I followed every valley, and pretty much every one of them end with a ridge to at least 12,000'. Lowest altitude "directish" I wouldn't go any less than 13,500' and that's not really low.

Weather not being factored in, and if I were doing this in a 172. I'd head toward Mt McConnell, and follow Poudre Canyon Hwy to Chambers Lake, southeast towards Trap Lake and Peterson Lake, south to Long Draw Resevoir, across La Poudre Pass and pick up the Colorado River all the way to Grand Junction. Might have to get up to 11,500 for a bit, but that looks to be the lowest route without going all the way to WY.

 

[Everskyward]

I just kinda assumed that was his name. and if it is, he certainly has some qualification to at least attempt to address a question here.

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/

Anyone can attempt to answer a question. Just because you have a pocketful of ratings doesn't make you right.

 

[alfadog]

Anyone can attempt to answer a question. Just because you have a pocketful of ratings doesn't make you right.

That is true. It was just the "calls himself" thing that struck me as an odd turn of phrase. Wasn't sure what point you were the poster was trying to make there.

 

[NoHeat]

Is there some site or software that can find the lowest altitude route?

Not sure if anybody answered this.

The AOPA flight planner can do this, but only if you stay on airways. It makes sure that you always stay above the MEA (minimum enroute altitude) for IFR flight, which is often higher than the minimum needed for terrain clearance.

Just as a test, I entered your airports, and I specified 11,500 feet on airways. It generated a route that went up to the middle of wyoming (MBW and CKW VORs) in order to go around the range in Colorado.

There's a bug in the software, though -- after you create a new route, if you change the altitude it will quit checking to see if the altitude is high enough, so you always have to create a new route every time you want to see what you'll get at a new altitude.

If you're an AOPA member, just look for the Flight Planning tab on the home page.

 

[alfadog]

Since I was bored, I scoured the terrain maps from the WY border to well south of I-70. The advice given by Bader on "just follow 70 and go around the "hill" was the worst in this thread. If you can get to Lake Granby it's cake from there like Clark said. But I don't see a place to cross between there and Erie that the terrain isn't at least 11,500' I followed every valley, and pretty much every one of them end with a ridge to at least 12,000'. Lowest altitude "directish" I wouldn't go any less than 13,500' and that's not really low.

Weather not being factored in, and if I were doing this in a 172. I'd head toward Mt McConnell, and follow Poudre Canyon Hwy to Chambers Lake, southeast towards Trap Lake and Peterson Lake, south to Long Draw Resevoir, across La Poudre Pass and pick up the Colorado River all the way to Grand Junction. Might have to get up to 11,500 for a bit, but that looks to be the lowest route without going all the way to WY.

Yes, this is not the first time I have seen advice offered to a newbie from the standpoint of an old hand. Whether Mr. Bader could successfully follow the I-70 route is quite irrelevant to a pilot who writes "Looks like I will be signing up for the mountain course. I did just get my PPL and nowhere near the 125 required for the mountain xc." That info did not come until later but I think the initial post rather indicated that this was not an expert mountain pilot.

So I do not think Mr. Bader wrong in offering his advice and, it certainly looks interesting for what it is. I would certainly like to fly with him in the mountains, I like his attitude. Just not for this OP. Better would have been to use that experience to craft a solution better suited to the OP's abilities.

 

[DouglasBader]

So you are backing off your previous statement?

I am not.

I did not.

I will not.

You may put words in your own mouth, and not mine.

The poster who wishes to be considered a master and calls himself Bader is very good at neglecting details. He could have saved himself a lot of embarassment yesterday and typing today if he'd have just admitted his errors yesterday.

I am a master at nothing, and have made no such statement. The only person who has called me such is you. Accordingly, you'll do well to speak for yourself and not for me. Are you able?

I am not embarrassed, and made no errors yesterday, nor today.

My comments have been accurate and correct, and continue to be so. I'm also able to speak for myself, thanks.

 

[EdFred]

I am not.

I did not.

I will not.

You may put words in your own mouth, and not mine.



I am a master at nothing, and have made no such statement. The only person who has called me such is you. Accordingly, you'll do well to speak for yourself and not for me. Are you able?

I am not embarrassed, and made no errors yesterday, nor today.

My comments have been accurate and correct, and continue to be so. I'm also able to speak for myself, thanks.

Really? Telling someone to follow I70 and just "go around the hill" in a 172 is not an error. That's a bit more than "a hill."

 

[Everskyward]

I'm very well aware of the routing, having flown it many times. Simply because the cars go through the tunnel doesn't mean you need to follow them every second of their journey. You can always go around the big hill.

Really? Telling someone to follow I70 and just "go around the hill" in a 172 is not an error. That's a bit more than "a hill."

Here's the "big hill" you need to go around. In your 172. The elevation of the roadway at the tunnel is about 11,000 feet.

 

[EdFred]

Looks more like a wall than a hill, but I also kinda figured that considering the terrain maps.

Now if it were something more like this,

I could see following that advice.

 

[Palmpilot]

From the chart in post #36, it looks like "going around the hill" in this case means flying through 11,990 foot Loveland Pass. I've never had any trouble getting through a pass of that height in the Sierras, but Ive always done it in benign wind conditions. It sounds like those conditions may be more rare in the Colorado Rockies.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Here's the "big hill" you need to go around. In your 172. The elevation of the roadway at the tunnel is about 11,000 feet.

11,158 according to the sign which I believe is in this picture, but clearly not visible.

It should be noted that the "go around" method would involve taking a left right about where the picture is. US 6, which is the road through Loveland Pass, is the one that snakes around and goes across the bottom of the picture.

Still, a lot of altitude for many planes, and not much in the way of outs.

 

[murphey]

Looks more like a wall than a hill, but I also kinda figured that considering the terrain maps.

Now if it were something more like this,

I could see following that advice.

From someone who used to ski at Loveland all the time (would get back just in time to teach my 5:30 pm MW class in my ski clothes) it's a Wall. A BIG Wall. Standing at the bottom lift, first timers are absolutely overwhelmed by it. The ski area is actually in a bowl.

You are skiing on top of the tunnel, BTW. If you're willing to hike/climb to the top of the edge, you're on the Continental Divide. On a clear day, just about see the smudge that's Denver and an incredible view looking west.

That hike is definitely a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Once my lifetime was enough.

 

[Clark1961]

I am not.

I did not.

I will not.

You may put words in your own mouth, and not mine.



I am a master at nothing, and have made no such statement. The only person who has called me such is you. Accordingly, you'll do well to speak for yourself and not for me. Are you able?

I am not embarrassed, and made no errors yesterday, nor today.

My comments have been accurate and correct, and continue to be so. I'm also able to speak for myself, thanks.

Well, you certainly type in circles quite well. You're spinning like the proverbial top. Maybe someday you'll be able to look back and see that you have made serious errors. Perhaps not. Good luck and blue skies.

ps: Here's a little hint for you, if you don't like to be questioned and have your bad advise pointed out, don't post on the internet. As long as you continue to claim to be perfect as you have done in the post quoted above, folks will continue to point out your errors. Sorry dude, that's just the way it is.

 

[Clark1961]

Since I was bored, I scoured the terrain maps from the WY border to well south of I-70. The advice given by Bader on "just follow 70 and go around the "hill" was the worst in this thread. If you can get to Lake Granby it's cake from there like Clark said. But I don't see a place to cross between there and Erie that the terrain isn't at least 11,500' I followed every valley, and pretty much every one of them end with a ridge to at least 12,000'. Lowest altitude "directish" I wouldn't go any less than 13,500' and that's not really low.

Weather not being factored in, and if I were doing this in a 172. I'd head toward Mt McConnell, and follow Poudre Canyon Hwy to Chambers Lake, southeast towards Trap Lake and Peterson Lake, south to Long Draw Resevoir, across La Poudre Pass and pick up the Colorado River all the way to Grand Junction. Might have to get up to 11,500 for a bit, but that looks to be the lowest route without going all the way to WY.

Poudre pass is okay. Mari, Blanche, and I took that route back from SBS one year. Go just a little further north and the whole trip can be done at 10,500.

Hint to Master Bader: The route described *is* going around the hill. While you were so busy trying to make a point you missed that other folks had given the solution you were pontificating upon.

 

[murphey]

Poudre pass is okay. Mari, Blanche, and I took that route back from SBS one year. Go just a little further north and the whole trip can be done at 10,500.

Hint to Master Bader: The route described *is* going around the hill. While you were so busy trying to make a point you missed that other folks had given the solution you were pontificating upon.

I really need the popcorn icon...where is it?

 

[Everskyward]

I really need the popcorn icon...where is it?

 

[denverpilot]

Yes, and I was pretty amazed until I notice the one I saw had an O-360 conversion. 180 hp on that little airframe did pretty good.

I was going to let that one go...

 

[bluerooster]

Interesting thread.

I am planning to fly from CO to FO5, in July. Never flown in the high country, and may only be a one way trip. I plan to make the best of it. I'll be getting a few hours of mountian flying instruction prior to heading out.
Where I live, the highest "mountian" doesn't even come close to the field elevation of the airport in the valley in CO where I'll be departing from.

There are two routes that I could take; one, follow the valley south (Wide, relatively flat) then turn east once I can clear the hills. about 80nm outta the way, but relatively low enroute altitude. Or take the pass, (high and narrow) and find lower terrain in about 15-20 min. The valley I can take at ~11k'msl, the pass requires about 13k' and is kinda narrow.
I plan to take the pass with an instructor as part of mountian flying curriculum, to find out exactly what surprizes that direction holds.

 

[DouglasBader]

The route described *is* going around the hill.

Exactly. Nobody said it was a left at the road before the pass. Going around may be a big detour. That's life. Get over it.

Telling someone to follow I70 and just "go around the hill" in a 172 is not an error.

There's no error. You'd have to be a bloody idiot to think that a detour of a few feet is necessary, or that you'd be staying over the road.

Yes, and I was pretty amazed until I notice the one I saw had an O-360 conversion. 180 hp on that little airframe did pretty good.

180 hp isn't much when you consider it's hauling gliders to altitude. Out of Telluride, that's good by any standard. You didn't really think it had an O-200 in it, did you?

Perhaps you've never done any towing with a 150 with a bigger engine. I have. When you get a load behind the aircraft, that bigger engine doesn't amount to a lot more, especially when you're already starting out over nine thousand feet above sea level.

 

[EdFred]

Careful when walking backwards.

 

[murphey]

Interesting thread.

I am planning to fly from CO to FO5, in July. Never flown in the high country, and may only be a one way trip. I plan to make the best of it. I'll be getting a few hours of mountian flying instruction prior to heading out.
Where I live, the highest "mountian" doesn't even come close to the field elevation of the airport in the valley in CO where I'll be departing from.

There are two routes that I could take; one, follow the valley south (Wide, relatively flat) then turn east once I can clear the hills. about 80nm outta the way, but relatively low enroute altitude. Or take the pass, (high and narrow) and find lower terrain in about 15-20 min. The valley I can take at ~11k'msl, the pass requires about 13k' and is kinda narrow.
I plan to take the pass with an instructor as part of mountian flying curriculum, to find out exactly what surprizes that direction holds.

F05 - Vernon? Starting from where?

 

[Clark1961]

Exactly. Nobody said it was a left at the road before the pass.

Wait a minute there Master Bader, you already said that I was incapable of thinking for myself. Now you're agreeing that I had thought of how to avoid the hill. Which is it? or are you just lame? Okay, no need to answer, I already have it figured out.

 

[denverpilot]

Careful when walking backwards.

LOL!

We just went from "go around the hill" to "detour many miles".

Think if we can keep going we can we make it up to... "use a different road and pass that's better suited for the capabilities of a Skyhawk. Not all roads in the Mountains are created equal and this particular one blasts right through one of the highest ridges in North America"?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Hahaha!

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I really need the popcorn icon...where is it?

Just type colon popcorn colon you get this >

 

[DouglasBader]

Wait a minute there Master Bader, you already said that I was incapable of thinking for myself.

I did not say that. You just said that.

I asked you if you could think for yourself. I asked you this because you repeatedly have tried to put words in my mouth. Can you speak for yourself, or would you rather continue trying to speak for me?

You've just done it again, you see.

We just went from "go around the hill" to "detour many miles".

No we stayed with going around the hill. I didn't broach the subject of how far, and on any given day, that distance varies. At no time did I say one should fly Loveland pass. Others have dwelt upon that; I did not, nor did I say one should. One certainly can. I have. However, what one can or cant' do on a given day is dependent on the individual (as I previously stated), the weather (as I previously stated), the aircraft (as I previously stated), and other factors, as I've previously correctly stated.

Clearly if one has terrain ahead which exceeds any of the above parameters, one goes around. How far one goes around depends upon those same factors. You find this difficult to grasp, do you?

Careful when walking backwards.

Before you do that, you must comprehend; most here thus far, have not.

 

[denverpilot]

No we stayed with going around the hill. I didn't broach the subject of how far, and on any given day, that distance varies. At no time did I say one should fly Loveland pass. Others have dwelt upon that; I did not, nor did I say one should. One certainly can. I have. However, what one can or cant' do on a given day is dependent on the individual (as I previously stated), the weather (as I previously stated), the aircraft (as I previously stated), and other factors, as I've previously correctly stated.

I like how "go around the big hill" got the word "the" dropped from it to act as if you didn't say it.

You said "follow I-70" and "go around the big hill."

We can only assume that you're now defining "the" big hill as the entire Central Rockies now, and the only way to interpret your advice is that the pilot was supposed to fly up I-70, turn around, come back down and then use a better route.

You also linked to Brian's site in the same post where you said to follow roads. None of Brian's routes follow roads and are optimized for the 182 that he flies.

The OP specifically asked what to do in a Skyhawk.

Your advice was wrong. Dead wrong.

Clearly if one has terrain ahead which exceeds any of the above parameters, one goes around. How far one goes around depends upon those same factors. You find this difficult to grasp, do you?

I see no "parameters" in the preceding paragraph. I see three nouns and "other factors". Usually "parameters" are items which can be measured in some fashion. Pesky numbers and things.

You didn't offer any specific go/no-go parameters for a newbie mountain pilot in a Skyhawk crossing Loveland Pass.

So yeah. We're not "grasping" because there's nothing to grasp.

Before you do that, you must comprehend; most here thus far, have not.

That might have something to do with the ever changing story and lack of specifics.

The OP asked a specific question and got a number of specific answers from most of us. Our comprehension was quite good.

You've been asked for the specific route you recommended when "following I-70" and then used your lack of technical skill to say you couldn't produce a map. Boo hoo. Learn.

Or...

Better yet, describe the route. We all have the chart, so lat/long works. It's not like we don't have a common frame of reference that you could utilize to answer the question.

With lat/long, I can even draw your map for you.

We'd like to "comprehend" your route that "follows I-70" and then "goes around the big hill" to reach the other side of the Continental Divide, without crossing Loveland Pass, which you are recommending to a new-to-mountains pilot flying a Skyhawk.

Those are parameters. The ones you set. Others have offered specific routes. Let's see yours that meets the above "parameters", as you say. We will try hard to "comprehend".

(Yeah that's sarcasm, bud. If you're going to play the "these idiots don't understand" card on me, when you answered the question WRONG, I'm going to call you on it. You've yet to answer the OP's question.)

Let me be crystal clear with my opinion: "Follow I-70" and then "go around THE big hill" is bad advice for a new mountain pilot in a Skyhawk.

It's getting tiresome quoting your own posts back to you and you decided to take the low road and make personal insults of our intelligence. I'll refrain and instead say "show your cards."

I call. Let's see those four Aces you're holding. Or fold.

 

[flyingron]

P.S. The road map idea is generally sound but there are two major problems with it.

1. The first road you'll see that goes where you want to go is I-70. Follow that and you're in for a wicked surprise dead-end at the Eisenhower Tunnel.

And Loveland Pass where the parallel US-6 goes through isn't the greatest place to be crossing the divide in a normally aspirated plane. And if you've ever driven it you'll know you'll not want to try to climb that in a plane. As Denver points out there are a few "non-oxygen" routes through the Colorado parts of the Rockies (i.e. those that don't require going over 12.5 for more than 30 minutes) but none of them follow roads.

 

[Everskyward]

This is what you said about following roads when people questioned you about the wisdom of following I-70 through the Colorado mountains.

When following roads, one doesn't normally stay over the dotted line every second of the flight. Deviations from the road are the norm, clearly.

I lost track long ago by the number of people who are mysteriously stymied by an obstacle off the end of the runway. Look, a big obstacle, they say. How could we possibly climb over that?

Why climb over it? Just go around. Much of flying in the mountains is all about going around.

We had a performance expert in a ground school class years ago. He was a fanatic. He had the impact point figured to the square foot where he reckoned we'd smack a small hill if we lost an engine on takeoff, and he was adamant that departing from that runway was unsafe. Now, if you looked down the runway at that hill, he might have been right. One could hit it with a rifle down the centerline. Making a slight turn left or right, however, made the hill a non-issue, and I could never see why he couldn't get it through his head that going around was easier than going through.

Anyone reading this, especially a newbie, would think your advice is to follow the road then "just go around". To me this would imply a short distance, not 50 miles, or nowhere near the road you told someone to follow. The problem with this valley is that unless you are already at an altitude where you can cross the ridge easily, there is not much room to turn around, especially if you are hanging on the prop.

No we stayed with going around the hill. I didn't broach the subject of how far, and on any given day, that distance varies.

 

[murphey]

Is there some site or software that can find the lowest altitude route? I'd like to fly from Erie, CO to Grand Junction (in Sep to see the Blue Angles) but it looks like a 172 might be a challenge to use. I am looking at the CPA site that shows the passes and altitudes. Maybe I can figure it out from that.....maybe.

Returning to the original question...

If you're an AOPA member, its online flight planner does this. If you have Jeppesen's FliteStar, it also flight plans for specific altitude (guess what, the AOPA package is a variation of Jepp's FliteStar)

Either is a good starting point. Then get your TAC & Sectional and examine the terrain. I'm not a big advocate on car maps because where the cars go is not always a good idea for our spam cans. Classic example is I-70 around the tunnel. And of the tunnels. (there's really more than one between Denver & Grand Junction)

The Colorado Division of Aeronautics publishes map with most of the passes and comments regarding visibility, weather reporting, viability of flying the pass, etc. denverpilot has quoted from the map commentary.

Next, Doug may be SuperMan of Colorado Flying, but he's presenting 100% the wrong information for a low-time pilot without much high-altitude experience, or experience outside the Front Range. "A man's got to know his limitations"

Or for those of us that make frequent technical presentations across the entire spectrum of an organization, ya gotta know the audience.

Brian's map is superb.
denverpilot's recommendations are superb.

When you have the same level of experience as Doug, take whatever route you want. Until then, rely on the overwhelming LOCAL opposition to Doug's recommendations. My personal opinion? The only single-engine airplanes I'll ever feel comfortable in, flying over the Rockies following I-70, is a Pilatus or an F-16.

 

[pilotod]

I used AOPA's flight planner for lowest route (at 11,500...the first image below) and then direct route at 12,500. It looks like the direct route takes me right into a mountain. Maybe that's Loveland Pass. I do have some waypoint pins on a route I was thinking of but haven't finished looking at all the options everyone's suggested.

 

[murphey]

I used AOPA's flight planner for lowest route (at 11,500...the first image below) and then direct route at 12,500. It looks like the direct route takes me right into a mountain. Maybe that's Loveland Pass. I do have some waypoint pins on a route I was thinking of but haven't finished looking at all the options everyone's suggested.

This is similar to the northern route on Brian's website. Instead of going all the way to Laramie, hang a left at the CO/WY state line to KDWX, the continue with your route. Yes, there are some hills sticking up, but those are very easy to route around, unlike the Loveland Pass Wall of Granite. Or if you're not comfortable, follow the stateline to the valley (very WIDE valley) to KSAA, then turn left to KDWX.

FliteStar puts you at 12.5 but the entire route can be done at 10.5 except for about 15 nm section that's 35 nm east of KDWX (so you'll climb to 11.5 and still be legal). Be aware that if you're on flight following, ATC will probably lose you for about 15-20 min. I've had that happen on my way to KSAA. No problem, passing commercial traffic will provide relay assistance. One advantage of this route (probably 3 hours in a C172/160 hp) is that it's wide open areas if you need to land unexpectedly.

As denverpilot pointed out (and also on Brian's map) is Erie south until you're across from Castle Rock, turn west by Wilkerson Pass (which really isn't much of a pass, I use it to listen to the AWOS up there and if it weren't marked on the map as a pass, you'd never know it) over to Buena Vista, south to Salida, Poncha Pass (which may freak you out the first time you see it, I know it did me!), then follow the valley to Gunnison, Montrose then GJT. This one would probably be about 2:45 in the C172.

Next issue - summer weather. Welcome to Density Altitude. Assuming nice weather, going to Salida (12.5 in my cherokee 180 with service ceiling of 16K) in the morning is not an issue, nor is coming home in the morning.

 

[Clark1961]

I did not say that.

Yes you did. Why lie about it? What can you possibly gain?

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes you did. Why lie about it? What can you possibly gain?

I think a better question is "Why waste time arguing over who said what?"

 

[Clark1961]

I think a better question is "Why waste time arguing over who said what?"

Is it better than the question: should we tolerate liars?

 

[DouglasBader]

Yes you did. Why lie about it? What can you possibly gain?

I did not. Your inability to speak for yourself and to put words in other's mouths does not change that. I didn't lie. I don't. I won't.

I regularly go around a weather system and take a 100 mile deviation in doing it. I reguarly go around a country and take a much bigger deviation in doing that. Going around means just that. Go around. If it's a tree at the end of the runway, a 5' deviation might be adequate. If it's a mountain, it might require a five mile deviation, and if it's a chain of mountains, one might need to go a lot farther.

Factors to be considered, as I've said repeatedly, have already been provided, and include weather, pilot capability, aircraft capability, experience, wind direction and strength, and numerous other factors.

I've been flying in the mountains for years in aircraft that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be flown over the hills without taking full advantage of orographic lifting. It's been a necessity when going to a fire for a long time. No way to leave the tanker base and go to the fire without tucking up close to the side of the mountain and using the rising air there to get up and over. It's just not happening, and aircraft performance is low enough that making poor decisions on the wrong side of a ridge or mountain means only negative climb performance. It's a fact of life when flying in the mountains, especially in aircraft with low climb performance. Hills out-climb airplanes. It's that simple. Plan accordingly.

Yes, there are areas which may require supplemental oxygen. Plan accordingly. One may not need to remain at those altitudes for a long time.

One shouldn't be flying those routes without training and preparation. The original poster already indicated that he's getting some. He should still probably take someone along who's familiar with the area, at least for the first trip.

I see no "parameters" in the preceding paragraph. I see three nouns and "other factors". Usually "parameters" are items which can be measured in some fashion. Pesky numbers and things.

You didn't offer any specific go/no-go parameters for a newbie mountain pilot in a Skyhawk crossing Loveland Pass.

So yeah. We're not "grasping" because there's nothing to grasp.

No, you're simply not grasping. That much is quite clear.

We can only assume that you're now defining "the" big hill as the entire Central Rockies now, and the only way to interpret your advice is that the pilot was supposed to fly up I-70, turn around, come back down and then use a better route.

You're familiar with the impropriety of making assumptions, are you not? Makes an ass out of you, and all that?

Again you're bent on putting words in my mouth. Can you do this for yourself, and not for me? After all, I said no such thing.

If the entire rocky mountains both you so, then perhaps you should simply stay at home.

 

[Palmpilot]

Is it better than the question: should we tolerate liars?

Yes, it is.

 

[MickYoumans]

Is there some site or software that can find the lowest altitude route.

In the area where you live, you really need to get an iPad and run 'WingX' on it. WingX has a terrain database and flight simulator that would help you find the best and lowest routes to fly. Once you've got your flight path figured out, just save it and then you can use the in flight GPS to follow the route. I can e-mail you a couple WingX screen shots of the area between Erie and Grand Junction if you would like to see them.

 

[denverpilot]

I think at this point, the OP probably has an answer to his question, which also includes Doug's highly detailed advice to "follow roads" and "go around the big hill" which combined, mean absolutely nothing. They're nice platitudes.

Others of us have provided much more in the way of specific route information for routes that are typically suitable with a Skyhawk. Hopefully it's been helpful.

We gave far more useful information than "drive across town", "push on long pedal on the right to go faster, fat pedal on left to go slower", when asked how to get to a specific address. Which is basically the level of answer he got from Doug when he asked for a specific ROUTE.

Doug is just too far advanced and above all of us lowly "uncomprehending" pilots who offered real routes and who recommended things like mountain flying coursework for big words like "orographic lift" and flights with instructors who actually demonstrate it.

Doug has yet to offer a specific route that follows his amazing advice. I'm sure the Oracle of Aviation will bless us lowly followers with one soon. We await words of wisdom from the Great Oz from behind the cloud of smoke and mirrors, with great expectation in our hearts.

On a less sarcastic vein, I'd be interested in what route the OP actually ends up flying, and whether or not he enjoys his stay here in Denver. Hopefully he'll post a nice trip report.