USA - C152 & good old Density Alt.

[JeroenC]

Hello

As, i've mentioned in a earlier thread I'm plannig on doeing a trip through western USA this August. I said in that thread that it's goingto be either a C172 or PA-28.

However, the flighttickets to the USA for that time of year are enormous, so I started looking at a 152.

With me, my girlfriend and 30 kg (about 66 lbs) of luggage (or is it bagage?) we should just be able to go up full fuel.

However, in practical terms, how would this restrict us? Okay, rate-of-climb, landing and take-off performacne will be worse, but most airports at higher altitudes/ hotter locations will be prepared for this, or not?

So, would I still be able to make the same trip?

Any advise is welcome.

I know, I'm Dutch, so I'm a cheap bastard. Been blamed for it, and have accepted it! If there is a captain... o no, we've been there before ;)


Thanks,

Jeroen

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

I think you will find a '152 very limiting in August. Some of the best places to visit (Big Bear springs to mind) will be off limits unless you are super accurate with fuel planning and carry no luggage.

Considering how cheap the alternatives are, I would go for something with a few extra HP up front.

There are, of course, lots of places you could get to - but not the best places, imho.

TG.

p.s. I should say that I have not actually flown in CA myself, but visited many times and been planning the flying trip for years so I've read every PPRUNE post on the subject (and there have been a lot of them!).

[TonyR]

Have you thought of leaving the girlfriend behind?

Are you a member of AOPA?

Think about "renters insurance" AOPA Insurance (http://www.aopaia.com/forms/rentersFactRd3.pdf)

Don't go for a 150 /152

Just fly less hours in something bigger.

[Whirlybird]

I haven't specifically flown a C152 in the US, but...

66 lbs of luggage isn't a lot. A friend and I took a C150 to Southern Germany a couple of weeks ago. With full fuel, the maximum luggage we could carry was 56lbs. We just about made it, but that was with personal items weighing about 5lbs each - ie a change of clothes and a toothbrush and washbag each. The rest was taken up with headsets, flight guides and charts, flight planning stuff, emergency transceiver, life jackets, ELT, GPS, tiedowns, 2 litres of oil, etc...ie essentials. We weighed EVERYTHING; many people don't. You can do it, but it'll be tighter than you think.

On that same trip, our C150 practically gave up climbing at 5000 ft, and the take-off distance on a runway at around 2000ft was noticeably longer...and it wasn't even hot. We were within limits by the book, as it were, but started being quite careful about where we landed.

When I flew helicopters in the US, R22s didn't even go to Big Bear (around 7000ft) in the summer...we went in April, and still had difficulties. AFAIK, and admittedly I don't know a lot, airports aren't prepared for it - you have to be!!

I'd either take something more powerful, or cut down the luggage to absolute essentials and be very careful where you land until you have some experience of the performance in practice.

Good luck; I'm sure you'll have lots of fun whichever you do.

:ok:

[Chilli Monster]

In April a few of us flew to Chiriaco summit, just the other side of Palm Springs. Even then the difference between true alt and density was 2000ft! On the way back the downdrafts in the Banning pass, meant a new 172 struggled.

There is no substitute for power - get some more.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Flying in the States is now so cheap with the very low dollar that I can not imagine one would want to skimp on performance for a few quid an hour more and get a 172 or something of that ilk.

Not only is it a lot more comfortable, you will also go at least 15kts faster which should offset some of the higher costs.

FD

Lig toch niet te mekkeren jongen over die paar tientjes!

Have fun!

[Sensible]

Personally I wouldn't even consider a 152 it's far too limiting. You won't be able to do the high altitude places and for sure. In places like Las Vegas, a 160hp aircraft struggles with the density altitude. Big Bear will be a no because of possible downdraughts, I've struggled out of Big Bear with a 200hp Arrow with downdraughts off the mountains and some of the desert strips can be equally exciting with density altitude and windshear. You will also be limited with altitude too with it not being uncommon to cruise over the mountains at up to 14,500ft at that's going to be a slow climb in a 152 to say the least!

If you want to save some money, look at somewhere cheap to rent like Air Desert Pacific. Ok, the aircraft aren't the smartest but they go a long way for your money!

[TonyR]

Some more info from AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=3090)

Tony

[JeroenC]

Hello all,

thanks for all your quick replies.

I'll go for the 172!

Tony, that's out ofthe question. She'll kill me or won't let me go - what's worse?

I'm not a AOPA member, but will certainly it. I know I have to get insured. Thjanks for the advice.

Flyin'dutch: ;)

[Keef]

Cusco and I flew one of ADP's Arrows earlier this year, and went into Big Bear and all the rest. It was cheap enough that I wouldn't have wanted anything lower powered. We had great fun!

Density alt is a serious issue for some of the places you'll want to go. I wouldn't do it in a 152. Even a 172 would have me wondering.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi Keef,

Having flown both the 172 and the Arrer on hot days (albeit neither high) I know that I would go for the 172 any day for the better short field performance, especially if it is only 2 and some luggage up.

Arrer a lot sexier and quite a bit faster but may be not so good for the short fields.

FD

[Keef]

Depends on the prop and the 172 in question I suppose, FD, but I've found the Arrer with 2 up gets out of those hot'n'high places well. Lot more HP than the 172.

[JeroenC]

Considering I haven't grasped the concept of a good landing (I can land though ;)), let alone a good short-field landing, which of the two would be the better choice?
Since sightseeing is one factor, I'm inclined to go for the 172?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Depends on your experience and preferences.

If you have no experience in retracts and vp props you may want to consider that life will be a bit easier if you don't have to cope with these added features of the Arrer.

Mind you they are easy to master and considering that you are likely to need to do a checkout with an FBO before they let you off in their steeds you could opt to have these things sorted out there and then.

Neither are more difficult to fly than a 150/2 when it comes to it, if you are tight with your dosh you will probably find that there is a bit of a hike in price between a 172 and an Arrow.

FD

[152captain]

The basic empty weight of a 152 is ~ 1136 lb, add gas ~147 lb and you are at ~ 1283 lb. Your bags weigh 66 lb, so you total 1349 lb. The MTOW is 1670 lb leaving the maximum combined weight of you and your girlfriend to be less than 321 lb (145 Kg) to fly legally. The performance of the 152 at MTOW is quite marginal even at sea level let alone at the high elevations and density altitudes found in the SW USA. Plus if you are tall and looking to fly a few hours a day, a 152 may be a little cramped.

On a different note, I had the privilege of receiving some 3 Hrs of Mountain flying instruction from Fletcher Anderson at Mountain Aviation Services in Telluride, Colorado, in a 172 (180 HP I think). Take off at 9,000 MSL, climb to 15,000 (in a box canyon) to get over the rockies in mid-summer, quite terrifying actually. We then proceeded to the Utah desert, landing at a dirt strip (Needles Outpost) near the Canyonlands National Park. Expensive but unforgettable. Also Superb training. The usage of the mixture control was taken very seriously.

152

[FullyFlapped]

I've often wondered about this ....

Lined up on the runway somewhere high and hot. Imperative to produce full power, so you give it full throttle and then lean out until you achieve max RPM. Then away we go. Right ?

Now consider PPL training, which tells you that it's imperative to use fully rich mixture when under full power conditions because of the "cooling effects".

So how come your engine doesn't blow up at Big bear then ?

FF :confused:

[whatunion]

good advice about leaving the girlfriend behind

whatunion says, if it flys,floats or fxxks always rent it!

[david viewing]

At Prescott they teach you to lean for taxi (It's a mile to the usual departure end!) and then lean again during run-up. Much easier in a Cessna (IMHO) with the vernier than with a Piper lawnmower control.

The 152's I've flown out there have always had a sparkling 1-up performance and I've been to 14,500 a few times in them, but in the winter. Maybe they have finer props or something. But 2-up is another story, although people train in them year round.

But the answer is to fly really early when it's cool and it is unusual for density altitude to be a factor. It also keeps you closer to UK time and seriously lessens the jet lag when you come home! Most places you can just climb in and go because they don't tend to have the operating hours restrictions we are used to.

[Lowtimer]

So how come your engine doesn't blow up at Big bear then ?
FF,

Because at Big Bear, regardless of where you put the engine controls, you can't get anywhere near full power, because of the density altitude.

This NACA report (http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1929/naca-report-295.pdf) from 1929 is an illuminating early practical trial on the subject.
NB if we're talking about Big Bear in the summer when it's hot, you will be at a much higher density altitute, meaning a lower power setting, than at 7,000 feet on an ISA day.

Edited to include the link

[Keef]

I know this'll surprise you, FD, but the rental rate on the Arrer Cusco and I were flying was significantly lower than some places were charging for a 172.

That said, if sightseeing is your primary purpose, then the 172 (especially one with opening windows) is a good idea. A 182 is even better!

Big Bear is high, not necessarily particularly hot, and has a long runway. We needed most of that runway - density alt when we left there was something like 8,500 feet.

The Arrer with one stage of flap, and properly leaned for takeoff, was fine. At fully rich, we would NOT have got off the ground. It's important to know how to set the mixture for takeoff at places like that.

[englishal]

Big Bear is definitely out in a 152 in the summer. Even in a *new* 172, if you have a lot of fuel and baggage, forget it during the heat of the day.

One thing you could try if you decide to go, is while downwind, put yourself in the take off configuration, and see how well you climb. If you don't climb well, bear this in mind on your approach and if you need to go around, do it early.....or don't land.

Last time I was there, we took a 2 seater OMF-160 Sympthony. This little baby out performed a new C172, was comfortable, modern, and a beauty to fly.....at $75 per hour wet. We were a little concerned about T/O performance at BB (end Oct last year) after watching an Arrow barely struggle into the air, but when it came to it, this thing lept into the air and climbed at >600 fpm....

EA

[knobbygb]

I know it might not be an option, but consider going later in the year - flights get a lot cheaper from September onwards. Also, the cooler weather will be an advantage - not just for performance but for personal comfort too! I never usually suffer from air sickness, but on my one and only 'hot' flight over there (Arizona, June) I found that being bounced around in a hot cockpit certainley changed that :\ I didn't enjoy myself at all.

On a previous point - cost saving due to speed - I rented an Archer and the extra 15% speed increase over the Warrior was matched by only a 10% increase in price per hour so I saved money on the trip (OK, only a bit) and had the power if required. The only time I really needed the power was to climb to 11,500 over the Grand Canyon - wouldn't like to try that in a fully loaded 152.

Just go and fly as much as you can while the dollar is so cheap :ok: