Popularity (or lack thereof) of Sport Planes

denverpilot said:
What’s “unreal” about the skill set and capabilities of their aircraft with the locals? Your Mooney can’t do it, and neither can you.

Not saying you couldn’t learn, but saying they’re “posers” when they have a skill set you don’t possess comes across as a bit much.
Click to expand...
Actually, I could put my Mooney down in most of the strips I've seen these guys use. Don't know about getting it out again... I'll bet money if I had one of those airplanes I could do what those guys do. Now whether I could do that in a canyon in Idaho is anther story.

Whoever said I was a poser and the real guys fly Lears has got it wrong. The real guys fly Citations. I want. But the budget being what it is, I'll have to settle for my Mooney and be a poser.
 
Last edited:
Oh, sweet!! Mtns2Skies for the knockout!!
But, yeah, part of my earlier point was it's pretty much just play for all of us. Very, very few use GA as a professional tool.
(Also, dirt, grass, etc., is all 'back country' to me and many folks - most of us have never landed on anything but concrete or asphalt.)
 
My dad has a 15k Luscombe with 65 hp that he takes everywhere in NC that his buddies do in their 200k + carbon cubs and Husky's. He might think twice about some of the mountain strips on a summer day but an 85 hp upgrade would solve that.
 
Grum.Man said:
My dad has a 15k Luscombe with 65 hp that he takes everywhere in NC that his buddies do in their 200k + carbon cubs and Husky's. He might think twice about some of the mountain strips on a summer day but an 85 hp upgrade would solve that.
Click to expand...
Sure I bet he can. But those guys can also bring a moose home with them and still get just about as good of T/O and landing performance.

A lancair is faster than a Cirrus... but it sure isn't bringing as much stuff or people. It's aerodynamics there's no free lunch. Same goes with backcountry planes except instead of speed it's payload.
 
G-Man said:
Oh, sweet!! Mtns2Skies for the knockout!!
But, yeah, part of my earlier point was it's pretty much just play for all of us. Very, very few use GA as a professional tool.
(Also, dirt, grass, etc., is all 'back country' to me and many folks - most of us have never landed on anything but concrete or asphalt.)
Click to expand...

This. We’re all having fun. If fun is traveling in a Mooney or landing in farm pastures in a Rans or whatever, picking on the other non-pros doesn’t seem all that productive. Just go have fun.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Sure I bet he can. But those guys can also bring a moose home with them and still get just about as good of T/O and landing performance.
Click to expand...

The Luscombe has pretty much the same useful load as the Carbon Cub LSA. Yea the Husky can haul more but there isn't much Moose hunting happening anywhere close to NC.
 
Grum.Man said:
The Luscombe has pretty much the same useful load as the Carbon Cub LSA. Yea the Husky can haul more but there isn't much Moose hunting happening anywhere close to NC.
Click to expand...
No, but replace a moose with camping gear for two... for a week, emergency equipment etc. and you can quickly see where the capabilities differentiate. As far as the CC LSA, well I can't argue with you there but when you're talking 65hp vs 150+hp you're going to get into different capabilities whether you see it or not.

I'm not crapping on Luscombe's... I love them... but to say it's just as useful as a Husky or a Scout or a X-Cub is just BS. Different plane for a different mission.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
No, but replace a moose with camping gear for two... for a week, emergency equipment etc. and you can quickly see where the capabilities differentiate. As far as the CC LSA, well I can't argue with you there but when you're talking 65hp vs 150+hp you're going to get into different capabilities whether you see it or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that they aren't more capable, I'm arguing that there aren't that many places on the east coast that you can take advantage of that. The guy in the Carbon Cub flew out to Idaho for a month and sure, there you will see a big difference but he owns a 200+k airplane to do that once a year.
 
Grum.Man said:
I'm not arguing that they aren't more capable, I'm arguing that there aren't that many places on the east coast that you can take advantage of that. The guy in the Carbon Cub flew out to Idaho for a month and sure, there you will see a big difference but he owns a 200+k airplane to do that once a year.
Click to expand...
Plenty of people own serious go-places planes and stay within 50nm of their base. That issue isn't isolated to backcountry pilots/planes.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Plenty of people own serious go-places planes and stay within 50nm of their base. That issue isn't isolated to backcountry pilots/planes.
Click to expand...
Sort of funny you should mention this. Flying my Cherokee I never really went anywhere, took too long and couldn't be an IFR aircraft. The guy with my Mooney never went much more than 50nm from his home base, he flew about an hour a month for 6 years.

We traded airplanes. He got a low and slow airplane to scratch his itch (and a nice one to boot) and I got a go fast airplane to travel. It gets the last of its IFR gear tomorrow. I have to admit, the Mooney hasn't traveled as much as I'd like, only going to the East Coast and Oshkosh. But I got plans...
 
steingar said:
Sort of funny you should mention this. Flying my Cherokee I never really went anywhere, took too long and couldn't be an IFR aircraft. The guy with my Mooney never went much more than 50nm from his home base, he flew about an hour a month for 6 years.

We traded airplanes. He got a low and slow airplane to scratch his itch (and a nice one to boot) and I got a go fast airplane to travel. It gets the last of its IFR gear tomorrow. I have to admit, the Mooney hasn't traveled as much as I'd like, only going to the East Coast and Oshkosh. But I got plans...
Click to expand...

What did you put in it for IFR goodies?
 
EdFred said:
What did you put in it for IFR goodies?
Click to expand...
Started with an ADSB transponder. Say what you will, but I don't think the FAA is going to budge, and I live right at the edge of a class Charlie I have to traverse just about every other flight. Installed a KLN94 to replace the KLX135a. Installed an iComm radio to replace the KLX135a. Useful thing, that KLX135a. I go back tomorrow so the guy can install the KI209a that he should have installed in the first place. This has been an unending trail of my patience since the onset, which was just before Thanksgiving.

So for IFR I'll have my KX155 with glide slope, a DME (that actually works!), and the KLN94. No WAAS, but I wasn't going to be able to afford that anyway. I've also got an STEC40(?) one axis autopilot that can be run from the GPS, the KX155, or a heading bug.
 
steingar said:
Sort of funny you should mention this. Flying my Cherokee I never really went anywhere, took too long and couldn't be an IFR aircraft. The guy with my Mooney never went much more than 50nm from his home base, he flew about an hour a month for 6 years.

We traded airplanes. He got a low and slow airplane to scratch his itch (and a nice one to boot) and I got a go fast airplane to travel. It gets the last of its IFR gear tomorrow. I have to admit, the Mooney hasn't traveled as much as I'd like, only going to the East Coast and Oshkosh. But I got plans...
Click to expand...

That's how I feel about my Cherokee...its just so slow. I'd be A LOT more prone to flying places out of state or multiple states over if I had something a bit faster.
 
CC268 said:
That's how I feel about my Cherokee...its just so slow. I'd be A LOT more prone to flying places out of state or multiple states over if I had something a bit faster.
Click to expand...

I did a 4400 mile XC in my Cherokee in 12 days. It was a pretty good trip. Fast enough to get the day finished and slow enough I could sight see at low altitude.
 
EdFred said:
I did a 4400 mile XC in my Cherokee in 12 days. It was a pretty good trip. Fast enough to get the day finished and slow enough I could sight see at low altitude.
Click to expand...

Wow that's impressive. Guessing it was a Cherokee 180? The limiting factor with my 140 is altitude...9500 is about as high as I will go in that thing.
 
CC268 said:
That's how I feel about my Cherokee...its just so slow. I'd be A LOT more prone to flying places out of state or multiple states over if I had something a bit faster.
Click to expand...
I did a few big trips in the Cherokee, but it took time. I recall some tense moments trying to out climb clouds and running out of steam about 10K. The really nice thing about a Cherokee is it is utterly forgiving. My Mooney is far less so.
 
Your personal definition of a cross country trip changes with aircraft speed too. In my old airplane a 2 hour cross country was only crossing a state or two max, now that has me crossing 1/4 of the country.
 
CC268 said:
Wow that's impressive. Guessing it was a Cherokee 180? The limiting factor with my 140 is altitude...9500 is about as high as I will go in that thing.
Click to expand...

It was a 180, but the only place I went above 9500 is when I flew over the Grand Canyon. And also over Santa Fe because I didn't feel like tracking a few miles further south. I crossed the Rockies, The Cascades, and the Sierras all under 10,000.
 
steingar said:
I did a few big trips in the Cherokee, but it took time. I recall some tense moments trying to out climb clouds and running out of steam about 10K. The really nice thing about a Cherokee is it is utterly forgiving. My Mooney is far less so.
Click to expand...

Yea, the lack of performance can be a little unnerving sometimes. Especially in turbulent conditions.
 
EdFred said:
It was a 180, but the only place I went above 9500 is when I flew over the Grand Canyon. And also over Santa Fe because I didn't feel like tracking a few miles further south.
Click to expand...

I'd love to make some more trips up north (Idaho or something), but the terrain is just so high.
 
denverpilot said:
And to tie this to the back country thing, you could modify an AWD mini-van to do mild off-roaring fairly inexpensively (putting larger tires on Cessnas and a big nose fork if it’s a nosedragger) but the sports car can’t easily do both on road and off.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why I ended up with a 180HP C172. It takes me to any B/C strip I would be interested in going to...
 
CC268 said:
I'd love to make some more trips up north (Idaho or something), but the terrain is just so high.
Click to expand...

Too high? You can do most all of it at 8,000 feet or less. I did MT, ID, WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, CO, UT, and NM (except GCNP and Santa Fe) without ever topping 8500.
 
EdFred said:
Too high? You can do most all of it at 8,000 feet or less. I did MT, ID, WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, CO, UT, and NM (except GCNP and Santa Fe) without ever topping 8500.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Guess I'm just a newb! You had good clearance most the time?
 
CC268 said:
Interesting. Guess I'm just a newb! You had good clearance most the time?
Click to expand...

At least 1500' when I crossed ridges. The most fun was flying the valleys though.
 
EdFred said:
How else do you think I got to WA from MI. It wasnt via Florida.
Click to expand...
Show me a route crossing CO East/West where you don't go over 8500. Maybe @denverpilot knows more than I do about mountain flying the area, but in my experience that's just not possible.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Show me a route crossing CO East/West where you don't go over 8500. Maybe @denverpilot knows more than I do about mountain flying the area, but in my experience that's just not possible.
Click to expand...

I didn't cross the whole state of Colorado, that's why I was down near Santa Fe. But I was in Western CO at less than 8500.
 
No way I'd fly through the Rockies in a piston single engine...maybe portions...
 
CC268 said:
No way I'd fly through the Rockies in a piston single engine...
Click to expand...
Why? I wouldn't do it in a Cherokee 140, but a 180/182/185/206/210 is perfectly safe and even a 160hp 172 would be perfectly fine on a nice day. I took an Archer from CO to OR to build my commercial hours a few years ago.

Multi-engine wouldn't help you much either bud, the SE service ceiling on most piston singles is not favorable for the Rockies.
 
EdFred said:
I don't think it's possible to fly through them in anything. Well maybe a neutrino. I would fly above them though.
Click to expand...

Yea I meant to say “over”
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Why? I wouldn't do it in a Cherokee 140, but a 180/182/185/206/210 is perfectly safe and even a 160hp 172 would be perfectly fine on a nice day. I took an Archer from CO to OR to build my commercial hours a few years ago.

Multi-engine wouldn't help you much either bud, the SE service ceiling on most piston singles is not favorable for the Rockies.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t referring to performance, but rather the comfort of a twin when over nasty terrain like that. Personally, it’s over my risk tolerance. At least at this point. I guess it depends on where your at in the Rockies and your route
 
CC268 said:
No way I'd fly through the Rockies in a piston single engine...maybe portions...
Click to expand...

Come on out, we’ll show ya how to do it relatively safely. With more options than long over water stretches for survivability, even.

It’s really about weather. There’s a number of mountain passes that have easily land-able terrain with an engine out scenario. But those same passes can be deathtraps in certain wind and cloud conditions.

If you have even a modicum of imagination and can visualize water flowing over rocks in a stream as wind flowing over bigger rocks called mountains, you can learn to fly up here in the rocks. The rest is just performance numbers and survival techniques for when the weather surprises you.
 
CC268 said:
I wasn’t referring to performance, but rather the comfort of a twin when over nasty terrain like that. Personally, it’s over my risk tolerance. At least at this point. I guess it depends on where your at in the Rockies and your route
Click to expand...

But again, unless that twin has a turbo, you're not all that much better off. Almost any normally aspirated light twin is going to be going down if it loses an engine above 9000 feet. Granted, it'll go down slower than a single with a failed engine, but there are still situations you won't be able to fly out of with a twin... And you're twice as likely to have an engine failure in the twin.

I would love a Twin Comanche, but honestly, it's a single where only half the engine fails at a time.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But again, unless that twin has a turbo, you're not all that much better off. Almost any normally aspirated light twin is going to be going down if it loses an engine above 9000 feet. Granted, it'll go down slower than a single with a failed engine, but there are still situations you won't be able to fly out of with a twin... And you're twice as likely to have an engine failure in the twin.

I would love a Twin Comanche, but honestly, it's a single where only half the engine fails at a time.
Click to expand...

Turbo Twinkie
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But again, unless that twin has a turbo, you're not all that much better off. Almost any normally aspirated light twin is going to be going down if it loses an engine above 9000 feet. Granted, it'll go down slower than a single with a failed engine, but there are still situations you won't be able to fly out of with a twin... And you're twice as likely to have an engine failure in the twin.

I would love a Twin Comanche, but honestly, it's a single where only half the engine fails at a time.
Click to expand...

Ohh I see what you guys are saying.
 
denverpilot said:
Come on out, we’ll show ya how to do it relatively safely. With more options than long over water stretches for survivability, even.

It’s really about weather. There’s a number of mountain passes that have easily land-able terrain with an engine out scenario. But those same passes can be deathtraps in certain wind and cloud conditions.

If you have even a modicum of imagination and can visualize water flowing over rocks in a stream as wind flowing over bigger rocks called mountains, you can learn to fly up here in the rocks. The rest is just performance numbers and survival techniques for when the weather surprises you.
Click to expand...

I’d love to. Would really like to get some good mountain flying experience. I mean I get some here in AZ but it’s not the Rockies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top