Renting plane to go over mountains. How much plane?

[rusnak]

I just want to salute the many experienced pilots and their shared wisdom on PP. Gentlemen, well done!

[widebody911]

You don't want to be these guys:

[recycled sixtie]

Originally Posted by widebody911

You don't want to be these guys:

Thanks for the video. I think this demonstrates well a small aircraft with 3 adults in it trying to climb sloping upward terrain. I believe that a car can climb better a steeper gradient road than a marginal small aircraft can climb a similar gradient. More power the better and 2 engines are better than one but not so economical.

[sc_rufctr]

[Henry Schmidt]

We had a Cessna 180 in the family for 40 years but when I took my family on trips especially at altitude, I used a Cessna P210 that was at my disposal.
Safety and comfort made the extra expense well worth it.

[gshase]

When that plane touched down the first time in a failed takeoff attempt the video should have ended. D.A. must have been over 8500 ft. A total crash due to bad judgement.

[James Brown]

hot air+high altitude+heavy weight= bad performance. The key is engine performance in warm, high airports/ Always check the DENSITY ALTITUDE that is what the engine operates at. you might have great performance at sea level with 4 people but next day at 5000' and high OAT, the performance of the engine might be half!!! no climb, no speed, no chance. Good pilots check this

[genrex]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

I'd like to rent a piloted plane to take my family and I on a private tour of Puget Sound. We are moving away this summer, and wanted to do something special. Only one kid, so its just the 3 of us. Safety is my primary concern.

Josh, there are float planes that fly from Lake Union to Victoria BC every day, and they have a superb safety record. I think their regular price is $250 per person round-trip, but I'm not sure. At that price, or perhaps a little more (wink), they would be happy to have a "sold out" flight that is just you and your family.

I've heard that it's a beautiful flight both ways - taking off from Lake Union and landing at Victoria Harbor in front of the Empress Hotel, and then doing the same in reverse after you've had "tea" or lunch at the Empress - and I'm sure the pilot can make adjustments to the flight to accommodate your wishes. On a beautiful sunny day, that would be totally awesome.

This is quite a year for you, eh.

Please take photos for us...

Rog

_

[FLYGEEZER]

A 172, with 4 souls on board, ain't got enough power to pull a sick whore off a piss pot.

[MauleM5-235]

I have flown Puget Sound in a single engine plane quite a bit. It is a pretty place to fly.

Two suggestions:

The float planes (Kenniwick Air) are a unique opportunity. As an car guy, you will enjoy the rumble of a radial engine.

If you are going to tour the mountains, seriously consider chartering a twin. Every single engine plane goes on "auto-rough" when flying at night, over water or over mountains. This is especially true if your family is in the plane. I never had a place I needed to be enough that I was comfortable flying single engine at night. It just creates one more risk that I do not need to add. We all have to figure out our risk tolerance. OTOH, I always felt more comfortable in a single engine plane than on a motorcycle on the road.

[dmcummins]

Originally Posted by recycled sixtie

Thanks for the video. I think this demonstrates well a small aircraft with 3 adults in it trying to climb sloping upward terrain. I believe that a car can climb better a steeper gradient road than a marginal small aircraft can climb a similar gradient. More power the better and 2 engines are better than one but not so economical.

Wow, hard to believe he didn't abort the takeoff. And I also notice no shoulder harnesses. The pilot probably wouldn't have been as banged up if he had them. My plane didn't have them when I bought it, but was the first thing added.

[recycled sixtie]

Originally Posted by dmcummins

Wow, hard to believe he didn't abort the takeoff. And I also notice no shoulder harnesses. The pilot probably wouldn't have been as banged up if he had them. My plane didn't have them when I bought it, but was the first thing added.

It is easy to play monday morning quarterback but the long take off roll was scary. The next thing I noticed about the video was the low flying. Thinking initially that was there to impress the passengers but in reality he was climbing uphill sloping terrain.
As he climbed the density altitude(as mentioned above) became a factor as the air got thinner and he stalled into the trees.

Yes you are right the shoulder harness could have reduced the serious head injuries
in this situation.

[cashflyer]

It may have been on another forum, but I thought it was here... anyway, a couple days after the videos hit the Youtube, this crash was discussed at length.

The conclusions were:
The plane was overloaded and DA was high.
The pilot made critical errors in judgement, from not consulting W&B and performance charts, to not aborting the takeoff when he was running out of room

I searched, but cannot find the discussion.

[Seahawk]

To paraphrase Dean Wormer, "High, hot and heavy is no way to go through life, Son".

Originally Posted by cashflyer

The conclusions were:
The plane was overloaded and DA was high.
The pilot made critical errors in judgement, from not consulting W&B and performance charts, to not aborting the takeoff when he was running out of room.

To the OP, sounds like a great, memorable trip. Go early in the day and enjoy!

[cashflyer]

Ok... I found it on one of the other forums I frequent.
The plane is a Stinson 108-3.
The airport is Bruce Meadows Airport [U63].
WPR12LA283
Stinson 108-3, N773C: Accident occurred June 30, 2012 in Stanley, Idaho - News & Events - Aviation

On the other forum, it was estimated that the plane was at max gross, and that the DA that day was 11,000 ft.

Leading up to the crash, you can see the wings wiggling up, down / left, right. The wiggling is likely the pilot trying to turn, but as he feels the wing stalling he brings it back to level. He keeps trying. I think he knows he is f*ed and trying to bring it back around to the airstrip.

At the same time, you see that he is steadily losing altitude until he flies into the trees. Steady loss of altitude, plus the clear skies, means there was NO microburst.

At 2:55, just at impact, you can see that he has the controls pulled FULL BACK. Yet he still mushed down into the trees. His wings were fully stalled, no lift being generated.

Even on the runway, you can see that they took a LONG time to get off the ground. Much too long for that plane.

In short, there was no hope of fixing this once he took off.
Poor judgment. Pilot error 100%.

The Bruce Meadows airstrip is listed as 5000ft long. Around the 1 minute mark, you can see the plane hits a "bump" as he runs out of gravel and transitions to grass. Did he use up the whole 5000ft and still attempt a takeoff??? If nothing else, you would think that running out of runway should be a clue that you have a problem.

For fun, here is another Stinson that cannot seem to get off the runway:
Scary Take off!