Complete Newbie- questions regarding travel from CA to MT

R

rgshredder

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
RGShredder
Hi all, I've been thinking about learning to fly for some time now- finally have the funds to invest but I wanted to ask before I got too excited-

We have a house in Montana (Outside of Anaconda) and flying out of Sacramento CA is a pain as it's typically about 8-12 hours of travel via two planes and car travel from the closest major airport (missoula) in Montana.

The primary goal for attaining my license is to be able to fly 2 adults (including myself) and 2 toddlers (<4 years old).

I'd fly out of Davis, C[SIZE=+1]A and into Riddick Field Airport in Philipsburg MT.

I know this is a long shot but has anyone ever done this?

If someone who is more knowledgable than myself can comment on what the travel time and costs incurred (roughly) would be (not including road travel) or point me to a way for me to figure it out, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, is this feasible for me to get my licence and shortly thereafter fly this terrain/distance?

My sole intention to learn to fly is to have fun and fly this route about 10 times a year (among other flights around CA). I most likely wouldn't get my license if I couldn't do this flight and just accept that travel to and from Montana will always be a pita.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide

[/SIZE][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1][/SIZE][/FONT]
 
so in regards to costs, I did review airnav.com and found the distance to be about 600nm; 1 stop would be needed to refuel with the assumption of getting 400nm comfortably

does this site provide accurate numbers?

probably get 15nm/gal at roughly $6 a gallon on a rented plane- about $250 in fuel one way

plus the cost of the rental $100/day
plus the cost of storage at the hanger $50/day

Travel time is about 6 hours going 105 nautical miles per hour?

are these estimates reasonable?
 
It depends on what you have available to rent.

If you want to fit in a rental plane.. with 2 toddlers you can probably do that. If you + wife are not too heavy yourselves.

I rent a mooney M20J for about $160/hr but i'm part of a club and that's a relatively low price. I'd guess about 8-9 hours and $1300 - $1460 for the round trip. For a trip with 2 youngsters, plan on a stop in the middle of the trip.

Most rentals are 'wet' that is you pay for the fuel and operating costs at the same time. Any fuel you purchase while out and about, you bring the receipt and deduct that from the cost you owe the FBO at the end.

There is a lot of rugged and high altitude terrain between sacramento and montana. To do this regularly you would really want to buy your own plane, something turbocharged and you'll also need to get your instrument rating. Oh, and some experience!! Take it slow with respect to weather flying and your experience level.

Now if you can have very good flexibility with your departure and return travel days/times flying VFR only in a normally aspirated rental might be a more feasible option.

I don't have time to look at the routes and i'm not from that area so not familiar with it. But i'm guessing a 180hp 172 or something - would take some detouring around to fly safely. Whereas a turbocharged plane you could point the nose at your destination and climb up to 20,000 feet..
 
Last edited:
Well here's the thing, you need to be flexible travelling by GA, as the weather can delay you significantly, especially in Winter travelling through the mountains. Of course you can do it. Figure about six hours of flying time, eight or nine with fuel stops.

You probably won't be able to rent a plane for the trip unless you plan on returning within a few days. The plane you will need (C182 or Bonanza class plane, 4 people + luggage) will run you somewhere in the $150K range, and operational costs will be somewhere around $150 an hour, so it's a couple grand trip for both ways, not counting hotels for weather delays.

There is a lot of expense, time and commitment involved to get to that point though. Just having a single mission isn't a good reason for getting a PPL in my opinion, particularly since that mission could change at any point.
 
Your costs are likely wrong.

Flying direct is not very feasible given the terrain. One route basically from the south is about 700nm and the other, coming in from the west is about the same.

Planes are usually rented by the hour wet (with fuel)… there is no daily rate and then you pay for fuel since even a dry rental (without fuel) will be by the hour… not counting hours when the engine is stopped.

Cessna 182: 135kts is 5 hours at perhaps $200/hr so $1000 one way wet.
Cessna 172: 105kts is 7 hours at perhaps $135/hr so $950 one way wet.
 
Welcome to PoA!

The estimates for time, distance, and speed are reasonable for a direct route - the terrain looks a little bit unfriendly on the Montana side of things, but it's still doable. Another couple things thing to answer cost-wise: whether the plane rental has daily minimums for rental, what those minimums are, what's included in the hourly rate (your fuel may be included and reimbursed), and what the hourly rate is. Without knowing the area I can't really answer those for you. Using Dayton, OH's average rental rates of about $115/hr for a 172, fuel included, you're looking at about $700 each way for the convenience of being able to have your own schedule.
 
I've never done that trip, but as far as cost when flying rentals in my part of the country for a rough estimate I use ~$1/nm. So around $600 each way, give or take a hundred or so. But you've got some high terrain to cross or avoid so the distance you'll actually fly, e.g. KEDU U05, will be longer than a straight line.
 
For that route, that frequently, you will want to buy a plane rather than renting. Mooney, Bonanza, Baron, Cozy Mk IV, Velocity.

Your family is not going to want to cram into a rental 172/182/Warrior/Arrow for 6 hours over the bumpy rocks 20 times a year.
 
rgshredder said:
Hi all, I've been thinking about learning to fly for some time now- finally have the funds to invest but I wanted to ask before I got too excited-

We have a house in Montana (Outside of Anaconda) and flying out of Sacramento CA is a pain as it's typically about 8-12 hours of travel via two planes and car travel from the closest major airport (missoula) in Montana.

The primary goal for attaining my license is to be able to fly 2 adults (including myself) and 2 toddlers (<4 years old).

I'd fly out of Davis, C[SIZE=+1]A and into Riddick Field Airport in Philipsburg MT.

I know this is a long shot but has anyone ever done this?

If someone who is more knowledgable than myself can comment on what the travel time and costs incurred (roughly) would be (not including road travel) or point me to a way for me to figure it out, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, is this feasible for me to get my licence and shortly thereafter fly this terrain/distance?

My sole intention to learn to fly is to have fun and fly this route about 10 times a year (among other flights around CA). I most likely wouldn't get my license if I couldn't do this flight and just accept that travel to and from Montana will always be a pita.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide

[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

You're going to want an instrument rating and probably a turbocharged airplane, possibly a twin. You going by yourself? You planning on buying an adequate airplane? Some here will scoff at needing a twin for that trip but I wouldn't do it without the extra engine, so add a multiengine rating and enough hours to be competent. That's just me. You'll get plenty of opinions here. You have some high terrain on the route (not as high as I initially thought) but your destination airport is at 5200 feet and the runway is moderately short. Look up "density altitude".

It might be cheaper than the airlines on a trip basis vs paying for 4 seats and the actual cost depends on the aircraft chosen. Don't forget the fixed cost$ of ownership.

Have you talked to any instructor about what you want to do? Guys at the Montana side will have real-world experience dealing with the mountains.
 
paflyer said:
Have you talked to any instructor about what you want to do? Guys at the Montana side will have real-world experience dealing with the mountains.
Click to expand...

Trust me, there are plenty of instructors on the California side with real world mountain experience.
 
I just looked at this trip going direct. I think you really need to consider how much you care about your family. Under ideal conditions, this trip can be made with a rental Cessna 172 or similar and maybe for about $1000 each way or so, but look at the terrain you are covering. It is seriously in the middle of nowhere for most of the trip. If that little engine fails you, your chances of survival, depending on time of year, is very poor. The SnR crews would have to come from who knows where?

If you are serious about packing up the whole family and making this trip with you PIC, 10 times a year, IMO you should have the following-


  • Private Pilot's License, Instrument Rating, Multi Engine Rating
  • Mountain flying training.
  • High performance 6 place twin, like Baron, Seneca, 410, Aerostar, etc.
  • FIKI capability.
  • Oxygen system, or pressurized.
  • 406 mhz ELT, PLBs and appropriate survival gear for the terrain.
  • Experience. Like at least 200-300 hours as PIC cross country and like 50-100 in type.
  • Recurrent training for both instrument flying and twin flying.
  • Schedule flexibility on both ends of the trip.
  • The ability to say "Sorry guys, we're taking the airlines this time." if it looks questionable.
  • A "cost is a secondary consideration" attitude to the maintenance of your aircraft.
  • Be very involved with the maintenance of your plane. Don't just toss the keys and leave.
Having said all that, if you're the adventure type and don't mind taking risks, then by all means grab the rental 172 and go for it! It can be done. Just do your family a big favor and leave them home, or put them on the airlines.


This just my conservative flying opinion. Others here may differ quite a bit.
 
Like someone mentioned weather will be a big factor.

Your family may be surprised that you are a big shot pilot but can't fly all of a sudden because weather is not so good (and airlines are flying just fine). And then you try to accommodate them and launch anyway - and you all get killed. It happens all too frequently - I suggest you look into some accidents when the whole family perished because they had to be back home, jobs, schools for kids, etc. Of course having instrument rating will make situation better but still doesn't protect you from making bad decisions. The higher rating you have, the more capable (and expensive) the aircraft the better off you are but remember - you can't count on the same utility and dependability as some airline.

plus the cost of the rental $100/day
Click to expand...
This is not a rental car, for aircraft you pay per hour of engine time.
 
Last edited:
DesertNomad said:
Cessna 182: 135kts is 5 hours at perhaps $200/hr so $1000 one way wet.
Cessna 172: 105kts is 7 hours at perhaps $135/hr so $950 one way wet.
Click to expand...

Those are both "perfect" speeds that don't work in climbs, or above about 8000 feet.

8000 feet is low in Donner Pass unless the wind is DEAD calm. It will clear terrain, but not turbulence.

There are a number of 8000+ mountains between Sacramento and Montana. Some of them very isolated and with no local weather reporting.

Tahoe can be done in a 172, but I don't recommend it. Not a lot of margin, and you'll spend the whole time at Vy (75 knots, not 105).
 
Seems like a lot of people trying to convince you this is a bad idea. But not me. I say go for it!

Renting a plane is expensive, but there are other ways. Flying club, fractional ownership, or even buying a used plane with hours left to go on the engine are all options (take good care of it and it will generally hold it's value).

Flying cross country can be risky, but understand the risks and mitigate them. Study the accident reports and learn from them. Understand that the skills you need to make this flight will come with experience. Don't rush it. Enjoy the learning process, but take it seriously.

And I disagree that you need a high performance multi-engine airplane for this trip. Sure, that would be great, but again don't rush it. IMO, in the hands of a low-time pilot, a high performance airplane is more dangerous than a simple but sturdy single.
 
I've done that leg from roughly Great Falls to Boise in perfect weather and I'll tell you that once you get about half way, around where the Idaho/Montana border is you'll start thinking whoa! there is nothing out here and no place to land. I swear there is not a flat spot of land bigger than a ping-pong table. In reality there are quite a few back country strips out there but they are the kind that if you haven't been to it a couple of times you'll be hard pressed to spot it even with a map let alone land there.

Toss in the usual crummy weather, some wildfire smoke and a fresh pilot in a rental plane - I think it would be bordering on criminal to take a couple of toddlers out there.

The bottom line is - that place you're wanting to go, there's no easy way to get there.
 
Last edited:
flytime said:
Seems like a lot of people trying to convince you this is a bad idea. But not me. I say go for it!
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying not to do it.

But it does need to be taken seriously. This is a challenging flight to propose, and the OP needs to be aware of the implications.

If the whole point of flight training is just to make one trip, I'll suggest that's the wrong reason. It's actually a lot of fun, but it also involves a lot of blood, sweat and tears, as well as expense.

Would you learn the violin just to be able to play Happy Birthday to your wife? Same thing.
 
Dav8or said:
I just looked at this trip going direct. I think you really need to consider how much you care about your family. Under ideal conditions, this trip can be made with a rental Cessna 172 or similar and maybe for about $1000 each way or so, but look at the terrain you are covering. It is seriously in the middle of nowhere for most of the trip. If that little engine fails you, your chances of survival, depending on time of year, is very poor. The SnR crews would have to come from who knows where?

If you are serious about packing up the whole family and making this trip with you PIC, 10 times a year, IMO you should have the following-


  • Private Pilot's License, Instrument Rating, Multi Engine Rating
  • Mountain flying training.
  • High performance 6 place twin, like Baron, Seneca, 410, Aerostar, etc.
  • FIKI capability.
  • Oxygen system, or pressurized.
  • 406 mhz ELT, PLBs and appropriate survival gear for the terrain.
  • Experience. Like at least 200-300 hours as PIC cross country and like 50-100 in type.
  • Recurrent training for both instrument flying and twin flying.
  • Schedule flexibility on both ends of the trip.
  • The ability to say "Sorry guys, we're taking the airlines this time." if it looks questionable.
  • A "cost is a secondary consideration" attitude to the maintenance of your aircraft.
  • Be very involved with the maintenance of your plane. Don't just toss the keys and leave.
Having said all that, if you're the adventure type and don't mind taking risks, then by all means grab the rental 172 and go for it! It can be done. Just do your family a big favor and leave them home, or put them on the airlines.


This just my conservative flying opinion. Others here may differ quite a bit.
Click to expand...

You forgot the one major safety factor, the pilot.

This is going to be a ink wet PPL, maybe he'll do a cram course IFR program, jump behind the yoke of a high performance FIKI plane, higher altitudes with his wife and screaming kids and launch into a flight where he will have areas of 10,000 to clear.


My recommendation, get your PPL and log about 60hrs, get into a high performance plane for this type of mission (Bo or Cherokee 6 type) and log another 40hrs, now get your IFR ticket in that plane, now log another 50hrs IFR by yourself. Now bring the wife and kids.

FYI this is me being VERY liberal, the type of pilot that you would hire for this type of job would probably have 1,000hrs BARE MIN
 
James331 said:
You forgot the one major safety factor, the pilot.
Click to expand...

I think I covered it OK. My check list includes-

  • Experience. Like at least 200-300 hours as PIC cross country and like 50-100 in type.
  • Recurrent training for both instrument flying and twin flying.
Click to expand...

This is a tough thing to call on how many hours someone should have. I believe that while you may have mastered the controls of the airplane in a relatively short time, it is all the surprises cross country travel will throw at you that you can only get with time. The hours themselves don't really tell the story. A guy who has spent 200 hours crossing the country, coast to coast is going to have more practical experience than the guy who has 1000 hours, but never went further than 100nm of home base.

It all depends on the individual and their ability to make good decisions as well. Some read the NTSB reports, take them to heart and plant the lesson. Others simply read them and say "That guy was an idiot. That'll never happen to me." There needs to be a cross roads between newbie enthusiasm and the overly cautious, crusty geezer. Since the whole family is involved, I tend to lean towards crusty geezer on this one.
 
You don't need a twin to fly in Montana you just need a turbo or something with more power then the typical flat landers aircraft. It's not contiguous mountains out here but you will cross a few high spots and go over some roadless areas. Used to make me nervous when I first came out here. If you plan well and fly high there are many places to land if something goes wrong. That's what the closest button on the gps is for. If your really nervous follow the freeway or other major highways. No one has mentioned Cirrus in this thread yet but that would be my go to aircraft were I carrying the kiddies from CA to MT and still keep fuel costs reasonable.
 
And while people were talking about weather and referring to Montana, don't forget the tulle fog you can get in Davis. You won't be flying when you can't see across the street. I lived there when I was a little kid in the 1950s and that stuff can get thick.

And, remember, those toddlers won't stay small. What works today will be too small in a few years.

Yes, this sort of trip is doable. And, when the weather cooperates it will beat the heck out of the airlines. But you have to be aware of the trade offs. If you absolutely have to be somewhere at a given time, remember, "Time to spare, go by air. More time yet, go by jet." Part of good aviation decision making is knowing when to stay on the ground, in spite of the pressures to fly. My wife and I have driven across the state of Washington plenty of times when the weather said flying was not one of the brighter ideas that day. Be ready to make a similar decision, sometimes on very short notice.

If we haven't discouraged you, to learn to fly. Have a ball. It may not always give you what you want, but you will have fun along the way. And stick around here.
 
Dav8or said:
  • Private Pilot's License, Instrument Rating, Multi Engine Rating
  • High performance 6 place twin, like Baron, Seneca, 410, Aerostar, etc.
  • FIKI capability.
  • Oxygen system, or pressurized.
  • Recurrent training for both instrument flying and twin flying.
Click to expand...

IR, multi-engine, FIKI, O2, pressurization, or 6 seats are not needed to perform such flights safely. As soon as you said use a commercial airline as a back-up plan, the expensive bullet point requirements I extracted from your post can be discarded from consideration.

For an extra measure of family safety over hostile terrain, I'd suggest a plane with a parachute, such as a Flight Design or a Cirrus model.
 
An instrument rating will be of marginal use because if you have clouds you will probably have ice. Almost no one flies IFR in the mountainous west in small airplanes because the altitudes necessary are very high and that high has ice. Nor do you need turbo charging. For VFR you will need 12,000' or so maximum.

A Cessna 182 will do the flight. You will need to get some experience before carrying those passengers and you will have to have 2 day leeway in case of bad weather. Those are some remote rugged mountains you will be crossing.

The trip is pretty adventurous. You will have to plan around the weather because you need near perfect weather for that trip. Plan on diverting and waiting out storms.
 
Dav8or said:
I think I covered it OK. My check list includes-



This is a tough thing to call on how many hours someone should have. I believe that while you may have mastered the controls of the airplane in a relatively short time, it is all the surprises cross country travel will throw at you that you can only get with time. The hours themselves don't really tell the story. A guy who has spent 200 hours crossing the country, coast to coast is going to have more practical experience than the guy who has 1000 hours, but never went further than 100nm of home base.

It all depends on the individual and their ability to make good decisions as well. Some read the NTSB reports, take them to heart and plant the lesson. Others simply read them and say "That guy was an idiot. That'll never happen to me." There needs to be a cross roads between newbie enthusiasm and the overly cautious, crusty geezer. Since the whole family is involved, I tend to lean towards crusty geezer on this one.
Click to expand...


I just wanted to add the instrument time, and yes it's easy to put a amount of hours on this type of flight, employers and insurance do it all the time.

This dude also needs real instrument training, not some 10 day course, or a dragged out course from a hobby CFI or low time CFI.

Also multi is a REALLY bad idea, for the lack of currency putting this guy in something like a Aerostar is about as safe as doing the high alt stuff in a 172N. If this is going to work it needs to be a higher power, higher ceiling plane, but it also needs to be absolutely as forgiving and simple as possible, even at the sacrifice of some speed or payload.

All in, if OP ain't logging at least 150hrs a year he should just go on the airlines or hire someone to fly him, ain't going to be a lack of a/c performance or wx that will kill his family, it will be a lack of judgment and skill based on experience on the PICs part that will lawn dart the plane.
 
coloradobluesky said:
An instrument rating will be of marginal use because if you have clouds you will probably have ice. Almost no one flies IFR in the mountainous west in small airplanes because the altitudes necessary are very high and that high has ice. Nor do you need turbo charging. For VFR you will need 12,000' or so maximum.

A Cessna 182 will do the flight. You will need to get some experience before carrying those passengers and you will have to have 2 day leeway in case of bad weather. Those are some remote rugged mountains you will be crossing.

The trip is pretty adventurous. You will have to plan around the weather because you need near perfect weather for that trip. Plan on diverting and waiting out storms.
Click to expand...

Yes, but be careful about that 12,000. Density altitude in summer can be quite significant.

A 172 can't make it legally over Tioga Pass in summer, even though the legal minimum altitude is 12000.

A 172RG can make it, but that's a complex airplane.
 
The MEA's are as high as 16500 for IFR flight and that will almost always be in the ice because it's around 40 degrees colder at that altitude than down below (3.5 degrees per 1000') and when its cloudy its usually cold.

You really need 2 pilots, turbocharging, deice and either oxygen or pressurization to fly that high in IMC in the western usa mountains. Not done much at all by general aviation pilots, and for good reason.
 
N321SR said:
You don't need a twin to fly in Montana you just need a turbo or something with more power then the typical flat landers aircraft. It's not contiguous mountains out here but you will cross a few high spots and go over some roadless areas. Used to make me nervous when I first came out here. If you plan well and fly high there are many places to land if something goes wrong. That's what the closest button on the gps is for. If your really nervous follow the freeway or other major highways. No one has mentioned Cirrus in this thread yet but that would be my go to aircraft were I carrying the kiddies from CA to MT and still keep fuel costs reasonable.
Click to expand...

Good call on the turbo Cirrus SR22. I would feel a little bit better over this terrain in that plane than just a 182 or something. I still very much feel that for such a critical mission as carrying the whole family, I would much prefer a twin.

If I were to do this trip in my plane, I would never go direct. Just too much nothing out there. I would likely take this route-

KEDU KRNO SDO REO KBOI KSUN KAOC 4U9 HIA U05

It does add miles and makes some bends, but it keeps you out of the big rocks, over some airports near highways and close to civilization. I could not do this trip through out the year in my plane. High temperatures, high winds, clouds and storms would keep me grounded a fair amount I suspect. Even in the Cirrus SR22, to make it ten times a year (spaced through out the year I presume) you would need to have on it, turbo, oxygen and FIKI. With all the extras and full fuel, is there room for the family and bags?
 
The chute in the Cirrus (or, potentially, other aircraft that BRS could be retrofitted to) is a pretty appealing alternative to a 2nd engine if engine-out-over-rough-terrain is a major concern.
 
It's really just that section across central Idaho that's pretty gnarly and I only did it that one time because the weather was perfect and it's a lot shorter but the sensible route is to cut over to Idaho Falls and then up to Butte. That's really not bad at all and you'll get a bird's eye view of the Craters of the Moon on the way.
 
If your place is by Anaconda, why fly to Phillipsburg? A 182 or a Cherokee 6 could be good options. Take I-80 to Elko, past Jackpot, NV over towards Idaho Falls, cross into Montana at Henry lake, over Ennis to I-90, then west to Anaconda. I just did almost the exact opposite in a Tripacer. (Probably at a slower pace than you want to go at though)
 
Dav8or said:
Good call on the turbo Cirrus SR22. I would feel a little bit better over this terrain in that plane than just a 182 or something. I still very much feel that for such a critical mission as carrying the whole family, I would much prefer a twin.

If I were to do this trip in my plane, I would never go direct. Just too much nothing out there. I would likely take this route-

KEDU KRNO SDO REO KBOI KSUN KAOC 4U9 HIA U05

It does add miles and makes some bends, but it keeps you out of the big rocks, over some airports near highways and close to civilization. I could not do this trip through out the year in my plane. High temperatures, high winds, clouds and storms would keep me grounded a fair amount I suspect. Even in the Cirrus SR22, to make it ten times a year (spaced through out the year I presume) you would need to have on it, turbo, oxygen and FIKI. With all the extras and full fuel, is there room for the family and bags?
Click to expand...

So after reading all of the posts- the other alternative would be to take a safer route, albeit a longer route.

I told the misses about the comments and she's thinking I'm going to murder suicide the family by committing to this. My original thoughts were take the plan- yada yada yada - we're in Montana. Seems like this would be a long term goal, but not to have expectations of getting my licence and making this my first trip. Unfortunate as it is.

Thanks to all for a very informative discussion- very welcoming group.
 
You can still go for the license and then later decide if you want to commit to making such trips with your family and in what aircraft, rented or owned, etc. Once you start flying and learning and getting closer to practices of aviation usually you gain a completely new perspective on those things.
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
You can still go for the license and then later decide if you want to commit to making such trips with your family and in what aircraft, rented or owned, etc. Once you start flying and learning and getting closer to practices of aviation usually you gain a completely new perspective on those things.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I would suggest to go get an intro flight nearby. It may turn out that you end up actually enjoy the flying and the learning. You could get hooked and then the trip to Montana becomes a secondary motivation and waiting until you're really ready isn't so bad.

I started out a bit like the OP. I always liked airplanes and airshows. I used to really be into WWII warbirds, but never all that much into GA planes. A friend of mine told me he was going to get his pilot's license and thought it would be cool if we did it together. This got me to thinking about traveling between NorCal and SoCal by airplane, rather than the 6 hour drive I was doing on a fairly regular basis and I got intrigued.

My primary motivation was the trip, not the planes, not the learning and not any sort of pilot ego thing. I literally just wanted to make regular trip faster than I was. So, I went for the intro ride... and was totally hooked. The goal of the trip quickly melted away and I rapidly became obsessed with all things GA. I plowed through with enthusiasm and couldn't wait for the next lesson. I got my ticket in about 9 months and have not stopped flying since. My friend never made lesson one and I don't keep up on the warbird community much anymore because it's all about piston GA for me now!

While I realized the dream of flying up and down the coast of California, I rarely actually do it. Three reasons-

  1. It costs too much. Driving is a fraction the cost.
  2. My wife doesn't like to fly much.
  3. I can't keep as reliable time table as the car, or the airlines and my wife requires it for weekend trips.
I don't care that much. I just have fun buzzing around and strangely, the care and feeding of my own airplane is kind of fun too. I do want to do some long flights out of the state, but honestly money is a little tight at the moment and the cost of the gas alone keeps me in my neighborhood.

I guess the point of this long winded post is, try it, you might really like it. :yesnod:
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
Agreed. I would suggest to go get an intro flight nearby. It may turn out that you end up actually enjoy the flying and the learning. You could get hooked and then the trip to Montana becomes a secondary motivation and waiting until you're really ready isn't so bad.

I started out a bit like the OP. I always liked airplanes and airshows. I used to really be into WWII warbirds, but never all that much into GA planes. A friend of mine told me he was going to get his pilot's license and thought it would be cool if we did it together. This got me to thinking about traveling between NorCal and SoCal by airplane, rather than the 6 hour drive I was doing on a fairly regular basis and I got intrigued.

My primary motivation was the trip, not the planes, not the learning and not any sort of pilot ego thing. I literally just wanted to make regular trip faster than I was. So, I went for the intro ride... and was totally hooked. The goal of the trip quickly melted away and I rapidly became obsessed with all things GA. I plowed through with enthusiasm and couldn't wait for the next lesson. I got my ticket in about 9 months and have not stopped flying since. My friend never made lesson one and I don't keep up on the warbird community much anymore because it's all about piston GA for me now!

While I realized the dream of flying up and down the coast of California, I rarely actually do it. Three reasons-

  1. It costs too much. Driving is a fraction the cost.
  2. My wife doesn't like to fly much.
  3. I can't keep as reliable time table as the car, or the airlines and my wife requires it for weekend trips.
I don't care that much. I just have fun buzzing around and strangely, the care and feeding of my own airplane is kind of fun too. I do want to do some long flights out of the state, but honestly money is a little tight at the moment and the cost of the gas alone keeps me in my neighborhood.

I guess the point of this long winded post is, try it, you might really like it. :yesnod:
Click to expand...


Interesting-
In addition to flying to the family house in Montana, we have another house in Seattle
Any thoughts on travel from CA to WA and then from WA to MT- even if I get grounded in WA, I can always drive to MT in 8 hours (as opposed to the 18 bloody hour trek from CA which I loathe with a passion).

My only concern for travel to WA is suppose would be the rain

Dave, I'd imagine distance wise it's comparable to the norcal- socal trip- just CA weather
 
I have to say as a community- all of you are awesome- I've never had such an open and positive response from a group of strangers- all of you are clearly passionate about what you do- kudos
 
rgshredder said:
Interesting-
In addition to flying to the family house in Montana, we have another house in Seattle
Any thoughts on travel from CA to WA and then from WA to MT- even if I get grounded in WA, I can always drive to MT in 8 hours (as opposed to the 18 bloody hour trek from CA which I loathe with a passion).

My only concern for travel to WA is suppose would be the rain

Dave, I'd imagine distance wise it's comparable to the norcal- socal trip- just CA weather
Click to expand...

The Davis - Seattle - Montana trip is much more doable for the average GA plane and pilot. To do this trip year round, you will still need the instrument rating and icing is still a big issue, but the terrain and routing is safer IMO. I err on the side of safety a lot, so on a long trip like this I never go simple direct, so going from Davis to Seattle, I would go-

KEDU KEUG KRNT.

Safe and pretty direct. To go from Seattle to your place in Montana, I would go-

KRNT KDEW KSZT KMSO U05

Not a bad route at all with moderate mountains, lots of airfields, roads and civilization around.

Again though, I would not plan on packing up the family and doing these trips all times during the year with airline reliability. You will have weather delays for sure. There may be weeks when icing will keep you grounded in a typical piston single. In the process of the PPL training and the instrument training, you will better come to understand the limitations of light plane travel. It often requires flexibility and patience.

Again, I encourage you to go do an intro flight and see if you like it.
 
Yes it's doable, no it won't be cheap, but at 10 trips a year it's not going to be a bad value either. Here's the deal, you need a lot of airplane to make this happen, and some really good training, hopefully you know how to drink from a firehouse. If you are going to do this all season, you will either have to be able to wait for weather windows, or have a deiced airplane. Your routes would seriously benefit from having turbochargers.

The least plane I would take for that is a Turbo normalized 35 or 36 series Bonanza, you can get deicing equipment for the 36, but this type of capability doesn't come cheap. If you have the flexibility to wait a few days or a week or go early on your trips, you can avoid IFR, deicing gear, and give up some climb performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top