Crossing the Appalachian Mountains

EdFred said:
Never realized how extreme that drop was from the Sierras to the valley.
Click to expand...

Overhead NAWS China Lake you can see Mt Whitney, the highest point in the lower 48, and Death Valley, the lowest point out either sides of the plane.
 
Mt. Whitney may beat Mt. Rainier in height by a paltry 100 feet, but Rainier has a prominence of over 13,000 feet. 3000 feet higher than Whitney. And Whitney is a skinny rock, Rainier is a MOUNTAIN. Like much things Californian, its all flash and little substance.
:)
 
Domenick said:
Not much terrain over 4K around there. Draw a line and climb to 7500 or 9500 feet and go. The highest point in the Appalachian Mts. is Mt. Mitchell and that's barely over 6K and it's in North Carolina.
Click to expand...
One of my friends refers to that area of NC (Mt. Michell and just to the NW) as "North Korea" as you're likelihood of a survivable landing there are about the same. Mt. Michell is right in my path heading to Tennessee from here. It's a little more than "barely over 6000", it peaks at 6684. Given the winds and turbulence common there, you might want to give it a bit more than 1000' clearance.

Still it ain't the Rockies or the Sierras.
 
flyingron said:
One of my friends refers to that area of NC (Mt. Michell and just to the NW) as "North Korea" as you're likelihood of a survivable landing there are about the same. Mt. Michell is right in my path heading to Tennessee from here. It's a little more than "barely over 6000", it peaks at 6684. Given the winds and turbulence common there, you might want to give it a bit more than 1000' clearance.
Click to expand...

Capture.JPG
 
EdFred said:
If there is no treeline, they aren't mountains.

Stay 2,000' above if it's windy. Other than that, this trip may as well be flown over Kansas.
Click to expand...
Except for the forested hills. Those aren't like a Kansas farm field. Doesn't really matter if you have 500' of prominence or 5K, you'll make a tiny spot on them.
 
I should point out that many of the issues about flying down in the mountains apply equally to the east coast ranges as bigger ones out west. The major difference is aircraft performance. Most of us have no problem getting up to twice the elevation of the east coast ranges in our normally aspirated singles. However, if you are going to operate down in the valleys, it would behoove you to have learned mountain flying.

I learned to fly at BJC so took a proper mountain flying course a long time ago. Moving back down to sea level was an eye opener. After departing from the old 1W2 on my checkout there:

INS: Are you ever going to throttle back?
ME: That's an interesting concept. In Colorado, we firewall the black knob an it doesn't come back until we're abeam the numbers on downwind.
 
I took a Mountain Flying class. One of the things I remember, if you are flying over a large wooded area and you have an engine out and no clearing to land in, try to hit the lighter color green trees because they are softer than the Dark Green ones.
 
Yeah, it can get downright unpleasant flying South of that Mountain.
 
EdFred said:
If there is no treeline, they aren't mountains.

Stay 2,000' above if it's windy. Other than that, this trip may as well be flown over Kansas.
Click to expand...

I love barely disguised sarcasm, and Ed Fred is the master of it.

:D
 
Just had a pirep yesterday from a C172 in east TN for extreme turb. Probably a bit of an exaggeration because the plot was upwind of the ridge and not really a spot where I’ve ever gotten bad turb. But, goes to show you that when we get moderate winds from the NW here, things can get sporty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top