Taking the 182 from Winnipeg, Canada down to Omaha Thursday. With my heading, i'll need to fly at 3500 or 5500. Will be departing around dinner and most of the flight will be at night. Would prefer to fly at 3500 - anyone know if that is high enough in that area for flight following (for proper radar coverage?). If not - I'll go at 5500. I havent done a lot of night flying and I understand that for night flying, 5500 is all you want to go for height (re orientation / hypoxia at night).

thx.

garth

Garth,

I didn't realize you'd be flying in to KOMA at night when I replied to your earlier post; there is one other thing you need to be aware of. The landing lights at KOMA are directional, so unless you are lined up with a runway, you won't see them. This makes the airport really hard to pick out from any distance away so you might want to factor that into your navigation. I was right over the airport and could only make out the blue taxi lights. I did mention the towers earlier, right.

Safe Flying,
Mike

3500 should be good all the way down through MN. I take it you're doing this VFR?

Thanks for the warning on the lights - never heard of that before. You did mention the towers - and i see those on the map 5 miles to the west of the field - 2548' ASL. I also see there are some monster towers - 2000' above ground, 3369 ASL. just east of sioux city about 7 miles west of my track.

Yes Russ - going VFR (I'm not smart enough for IFR yet - but maybe some day)

garth

3500' won't give you a lot of time to figure out what to do if faced with a forced landing at night. However, I've never flown to Omaha so maybe things are different there...
I fly cross country at night a good bit and always fly a minimum of 5000' and up to 10500'. But that's just me..

I'd vote for 7500'--lots easier to pick out what few landmarks you can see at night, and in case of trouble, you have more time to decide what to do. Most of your navigation will be electronic, anyway. Unless you have a breathing problem, 7500' is not an issue. If you get hypoxic at 7500', you shouldn't be flying at all. Honest.

Cary

Lots of Vind towers in South Vest MinniesOta don't ya know, yust be very careful ya sure

I have no concern at all going up to 5500 or even 7500. I just have heard / or read somewhere that night causes that upper threshold of altitude to be a lot lower than in the day. Am i deaming or is there any truth to this?

Made the trip last night. After weather out of Winnipeg, got up to 7500'. Was a great flight. The airport as mentioned earlier was a little difficult to spot though. People at the Tac Air FBO were really good. Rental car was waiting when we got there, paperwork all complete - a good experience.
Garth

Great to hear you had a good trip. Tac Air was good to us too except for the maintenance issue I mentioned.

Yeah, I've never encountered airport lights like that before either. They really through me off as I was expecting to see a we'll lit airport but there was a a black hole instead. Maybe someone has more info on that type of stealth lighting. I'm surprised the FAA allows it.

You doing customs in Warroad on wheels? Do you make it non-stop from customs to Omaha? hat's off to you Garth, I wouldn't be comfortable flying VFR at night that kind of distance. Have a safe trip north. Russ

Rhyppa wrote:You doing customs in Warroad on wheels? Do you make it non-stop from customs to Omaha? hat's off to you Garth, I wouldn't be comfortable flying VFR at night that kind of distance. Have a safe trip north. Russ

Went Winnipeg direct to Omaha 527 NM - did customs in Omaha. Set up at 2450 rpm, 20.5 mp and 14.5 gph at peak. Flight was 4 hours, with 5 hours fuel on board at that burn rate. Left with 3100 lbs max weight and cruised somewhere around 145-150 IAS

Garth

blackrock wrote: They really through me off as I was expecting to see a we'll lit airport but there was a a black hole instead.

A block hole is exactly how I would describe it!

Great to see you getting some use out of that new 182. Long fuel, AP, cockpit comfort, etc can make a long trip like that a lot more comfy. How would you have liked to do the same trip at night in the Maule? is that IAS knots or mph, knots I'm guessing.

Rhyppa wrote:Great to see you getting some use out of that new 182. Long fuel, AP, cockpit comfort, etc can make a long trip like that a lot more comfy. How would you have liked to do the same trip at night in the Maule? is that IAS knots or mph, knots I'm guessing.

Actually MPH. Toward the end of the trip it was approaching 160 - I assume because I was burning off my fuel. I figure I was around 58% power, give or take

Trip in the maule would have been a little cramped for the two people in the back.
I love the 182 - absolutely no regrets about this purchase