judypilot
Cleared for Takeoff
I just got back from a 2.5-week trip to, from, and in Alaska. It was an amazing trip, and fulfilled a dream I've had since learning to fly. I've flown in Alaska in borrowed airplanes, but never my airplane to and from.
The reason I'm posting this here is that this was by far the longest trip, with some long legs, I've taken at such low altitudes. I learned to fly in Arizona and much of my flying has been there and around the Rocky Mountain West at high altitudes and even higher density altitudes, when you're running lean all the time. The flying I've done at low elevations has always been where I was never more than a couple of hours from an airport, so I've never really paid that much attention to fuel burns at low altitudes. I used to track the fuel burn for every flight, and I've got it nailed to the ounce for the majority of flights I take, but for a variety of reasons, I stopped. Big mistake, as I passed up many opportunities to understand my airplane more intimately than I had before, with respect to how much fuel it burns at low altitudes. (It's not that I don't keep track at all, just not nailed to tne ounce.)
Amazingly, the terrain to, from, and in Alaska, which we think of as being so mountainous, is actually more conducive to low-level flight. There are mountains, but they aren't particularly high except in some small areas, and the valleys are wide and the valley floors low. Often, it is less turbulent down in the valleys than higher (this is true in all mountains, actually). I the highest I flew during the entire trip was 9500' and that was only so Vancouver Center could pick me up on radar crossing back into the US. I occasionally flew at 7500' for turbulence on warm days, but about 90% of the time I was below 5500' and much of the time as low as 2500'-3500'. (2500' is below the elevation of my home airport.)
The longest leg I had was Dawson to Watson Lake, and I flew much of that at 3500'-7500', mostly at 5500'. When I refueled in Watson Lake, I was astonished at how much fuel the tanks took. Oh, this was also an example of not trusting fuel gauges, because from the gauges I'd guessed I had about twice as much. Lower than I usually go, but comfortable. Not so comfortable when I found out how much I'd actually burned.
Backtracking, the fuel burn was quite reasonable given the altitudes I was flying at. One might say no harm, no foul, but I'm still kicking myself for not following one of my own principles, which is to know my airplane as intimately as possible. Lesson learned.
Judy
The reason I'm posting this here is that this was by far the longest trip, with some long legs, I've taken at such low altitudes. I learned to fly in Arizona and much of my flying has been there and around the Rocky Mountain West at high altitudes and even higher density altitudes, when you're running lean all the time. The flying I've done at low elevations has always been where I was never more than a couple of hours from an airport, so I've never really paid that much attention to fuel burns at low altitudes. I used to track the fuel burn for every flight, and I've got it nailed to the ounce for the majority of flights I take, but for a variety of reasons, I stopped. Big mistake, as I passed up many opportunities to understand my airplane more intimately than I had before, with respect to how much fuel it burns at low altitudes. (It's not that I don't keep track at all, just not nailed to tne ounce.)
Amazingly, the terrain to, from, and in Alaska, which we think of as being so mountainous, is actually more conducive to low-level flight. There are mountains, but they aren't particularly high except in some small areas, and the valleys are wide and the valley floors low. Often, it is less turbulent down in the valleys than higher (this is true in all mountains, actually). I the highest I flew during the entire trip was 9500' and that was only so Vancouver Center could pick me up on radar crossing back into the US. I occasionally flew at 7500' for turbulence on warm days, but about 90% of the time I was below 5500' and much of the time as low as 2500'-3500'. (2500' is below the elevation of my home airport.)
The longest leg I had was Dawson to Watson Lake, and I flew much of that at 3500'-7500', mostly at 5500'. When I refueled in Watson Lake, I was astonished at how much fuel the tanks took. Oh, this was also an example of not trusting fuel gauges, because from the gauges I'd guessed I had about twice as much. Lower than I usually go, but comfortable. Not so comfortable when I found out how much I'd actually burned.
Backtracking, the fuel burn was quite reasonable given the altitudes I was flying at. One might say no harm, no foul, but I'm still kicking myself for not following one of my own principles, which is to know my airplane as intimately as possible. Lesson learned.
Judy
