Zzz wrote:It doesn't mean you have to buy the lower power machine, just train in one somehow.

Personally, if I had the money for that class of aircraft, I'd be flying a Husky.

Please report back when you've begun your flight training.

^^^^^^^^ LIKE ^^^^^^^^^^^

A couple thoughts. First the CC is a real off airport kind of a plane and I suspect that in Virginia 99% of your work will be on airport. To me it makes about as much sense as buying a porsche and having to dirve 55mph. Now if I had plenty of cash I would buy a porsche and drive 55. Nothing wrong with looking cool. As you fly more you may find that your mission may differ from your dreams. Most of my landings are off airport and I would love a CC. If however I was limited to airports my plane would be a 180 or 185. I noticed some time ago that there are a number of low time single owner CC for sale. Makes me wonder why. Seems like the dream didn't work out for these owners.

Lots of great feedback. One other element of my mission is that I currently have a lot under contract that will allow taking off in most directions with 1000 to 1200'. I will be building my home on the property and the plan/dream is to have my plane at my lot. Property is ready to land on. I want to fly low and slow. Take off from my grass strip and land/takeoff from others in the area. When I am ready and the opportunity is there, expand on that with some bush flying in WV and the surrounding states. It isn't the west, but I think there is plenty of fun to be had still.

Matt

The techniques are the same. Lower DA helps performance but there is generally less vertical space available in drainages of the mountains. Topography is a bit harder to read on 1:500,000. Topo or military, 1:25,000 gives a very good blowup of a specific area, however. Long parallel ranges like Blue Ridge have fewer saddles, passes, so getting stuck in a particular drainage with low ceilings and less vertical space can be overly exciting.

Basically, flying over is much easier with any size engine. In the mountains operations are much more dangerous, however, with more inclement weather and less vertical space available. Average relative humidity of 60% is much more dangerous than average relative humidity of 15%. Diurnal rate is is much smaller with so much vegetation so less free thermal and orographic or hydraulic lift.

Unlike many others on here, I have only two data points. My first plane was a Mooney 201. A hot rod, complex, retractable so fast that I had to switch to WAC charts for cross country flights. I bought this plane while I was renting Cessna 150’s. I survived. My second plane was a Maule M-7-235. She was willing to go places that made me nervous. I bought her brand new from the factory after a 20+ year hiatus from flying. I survived.

I keep hearing that one should purchase the plane that fits the mission. However, I believe that the most fun in aviation is to do it just the other way around. Get the plane and explore what mission she can accomplish. All aircraft are compromises and have idiosyncrasies. Your job as a pilot is to uncover those compromises and idiosyncrasies and to work out a relationship with your craft so that both of you can trust each other to do the right thing in any given situation. I could never ask the Maule to fly me from LA to San Francisco in two hours, and I could never have asked the Mooney to land some of the places I went with the Maule, although, I did land in several dirt strips in Baja with the Mooney, she bitched me out the whole way home for the crappy gas I put in her tanks down there.

So, with your insight and background in gliding and a respect for the aircraft you are flying, you will have no problem relating to a Carbon Cub as a mistress.

BTW: I hate your guts. : )

Lostgriz wrote:.... I would be interested to hear opinions for and against getting a Carbon Cub as a first plane. …..

contactflying wrote:The techniques are the same. Lower DA helps performance but there is generally less vertical space available in drainages of the mountains. Topography is a bit harder to read on 1:500,000. Topo or military, 1:25,000 gives a very good blowup of a specific area, however. Long parallel ranges like Blue Ridge have fewer saddles, passes, so getting stuck in a particular drainage with low ceilings and less vertical space can be overly exciting.
Basically, flying over is much easier with any size engine. In the mountains operations are much more dangerous, however, with more inclement weather and less vertical space available. Average relative humidity of 60% is much more dangerous than average relative humidity of 15%. Diurnal rate is is much smaller with so much vegetation so less free thermal and orographic or hydraulic lift.

That should answer your question.

Sorry, re: West Virginia and surrounding states in comparison to western states.

Yellowbelly wrote:I keep hearing that one should purchase the plane that fits the mission. However, I believe that the most fun in aviation is to do it just the other way around. Get the plane and explore what mission she can accomplish.

I sort of agree with this. For A to B hamburger run to anywhere 100 miles or less with a legal runway on both ends literally any aircraft will do.
There are plenty of pilots who will scoff at a plane like mine for a long cross country but I'm a long distance motorcycle rider so my version of luxurious need only feature a windscreen and marginal heater. I can bring ten whole pounds? Shut the front door!

I know a guy who goes to Osh in a PT-22. He says he can take six pounds in the front seat. If anyone here thinks they live larger than him I've got bad news for you.

There are plenty of aircraft I love for various reasons. I could even be talked into a Mooney 201. Suddenly I could go to Sedona or Vegas.

Instead of dreaming about my next plane I'm following the "put gas in what you have and go flying" advice. I've found most of the corners but it still has things to teach me.