Joe vs. the Weather (again)

[Joe]

And of course, the wife is along again, the first time since the aborted trip to Salinas, KS.

This one was to Independence, KS, near the OK border. Two of my grandkids live there now and it was the oldest's seventh birthday.

It was hot but a cold front was looming in N-NW Kansas. It originally was supposed to come through that afternoon, but the forecast the morning of the flight had it stalled until well after dark. Before returning I checked the weather and saw radar returns still way up in NW Kansas, so we left. We would be traveling virtually parallel to it.
In the air I got a better look at things back to the NW but it wasn't much better because you couldn't see what it was. It was just gray. I couldn't tell if it was just shadows from all the clouds, haze, showers, or storms. Fifteen minutes downrange it was apparent we were being gradually pushed to the SE. When we approached Pittsburg near the Missouri border it was obvious this would be close. It didn't help that the automated weather at the airport 15 miles west of our homebase was OTS.

I decided to make a 45° turn towards the grayness to try to get a better idea of what I was dealing with. Before we got anywhere near any clouds, we got the updraft-- one where the throttle is back and the nose is down, but the plane is still climbing. I cut the carb heat and pulled the throttle back farther and nosed the plane down and turned back out of it. We'd climbed about a thousand feet.

My wife was doing OK with the flying part, but she was beginning to get a little agitated about whether we were going to get home. We continued on, but it got more gray ahead of us. I still thought we might have a chance until, 15nm out, I saw two lightning strikes dead ahead about where the airport should be. My wife, of course, was looking to the right and didn't see them.

I got the hell outa there.

I had all sorts of outs but if I messed around too long fuel was going to become a factor. My first choice turned out to be NE of my position so I went to #2. I assumed the wind would be across and made two crappy landing attempts before getting down.

It was on the second missed approached that I told myself to calm the f* down-- that it would be stupid killing us by making a rushed pattern, approach, and landing. On the ground, I called Jerry, our airport manager, and he gave me a mini-briefing. (FYI, Jerry is 71, used to fly F-102's and F-4, builds his own airplanes, and could probably outrun me)

We weren't on the ground 15 minutes before we were up and maneuvering behind the mess. I flew through some light rain but I could see for ten miles and it was a bright light gray now. We made it back easily and, ironically, the trip ended with one of the best landings I ever made.

I definitely made some mistakes and got my nose rubbed in a potential "accident-chain" of my own making. The wife is sort of down on flying, not because of the heights or the updrafts, but because she thinks weather adversely effects nearly every flight.

[Tom Goodrick]

Unfortunately, she is right as long as you keep flying the 172. Its low wing loading gives it problems in gusty winds and amplifies every "air pocket". Try getting some time in an airplane with a higher wing loading like a Mooney or maybe a Piper Arrow. I don't have my books handy. I'll go get some and check out the numbers. To smooth a bumpy flight it takes more pounds per sq ft of wing and not just more pounds. But that also means approach speeds are a little faster and more practice is required. Otherwise you are stuck with fair-weather flying.

OK. I went up and got a couple reference magazines - Flying Annuals for 1976 and 1985. (My wife is yelling at me to throw all of these away. She says I am a hoarder. I say its my library.)

First, you don't have to go whole hog and get a Bonanza. Start by loading your 172 to the max for the two of you and full tanks. Make careful calculations. It may mean simply loading a suitcase for dual over-nite with many of the comforts of home. Carry that along on every flight. She won't mind that when you say "We're going to have to stay the night in a motel". (Pick a nice one.) Calculate the change in wing loading. It will help.

Second, it may be time for a new airplane. in the 1976 book, the C172 is listed with a wing loading of 13.2 psf and the Grumman American TR2 or AA-1B is listed with a wing loading of 15.5 psf. Its flaps stall speed is 52 KIAS while the C172's is 36 KIAS. But the TR2 carries only 352 lb with max fuel and the C172 carries 555lbs.

The TR2 only has 2 seats. It is a small plane, looks and feels like a little fighter as you taxi with the canopy slid back. I enjoyed my time flying that plane. You feel like you own the sky. Very high roll rate. I don't think you'd need too big a club to have one of those. You airport manager might be interested in a part of that (getting the stick away from him might be tough). (cruise 116 kts)

Airplanes with at least 500 lbs payload and a wing loading above 15: (gear down and welded)
Grumman American AA-5A Cheetah (15.7 psf, 544 lbs) 128 kts
Beech Sundowner 180 C23 (16.78 psf, 596 lbs) 114 kts
Cessna Cardinal (FG) (14.4 psf, 573 lbs) no struts 130 kts
Piper Archer II (15 psf, 796 lb) 130 kts ?
Cessna 182 Skylane (16.9 psf, 713 lbs) 144 kts
Cherokee 6 300 (19.5 psf, 1011 lbs) 146 kts

Retractable gear:
Piper Arrow II (15.6 psf, 720 lbs) 143 kts
Mooney M20C 180 hp (15.4 psf, 649 lbs) 149 kts
Cessna Cardinal RG 200 hp (16.1 psf, 641 lbs) 148 kts
Rockwell 112A (17.4 psf, 469 lbs) 140 kts
Beech Sierra 200 B24R (18.84 psf, 652 lbs) 131 kts
Mooney M20E 200hp (15.4 psf, 574 lbs) 160 kts

You should get an idea of the effect of wing loading in FS with RW and various aircraft with various loads. Of course a medium twin like a 310 will have a wing loading of 31 psf, a turboprop Commander 690 will have a wing loading of 38.5 psf, and Merlin III will give you smooth sailing at 45 psf. An MU-2 gives you 65 psf with full-span flaps and spoilerons for a 79 kias stall.

[flaminghotsauce]

172? did you move up, Joe? Good journal of the flight, though. Keep 'em coming. I miss flying.

The closest I came to any wild weather in my active flying was twice: once at night the storm moving SE along a line that kept it about 10 miles west of where I was, but plenty of lightning, and the second was a line of fairly heavy rain just a few miles off my right wing. We could see the line of wet, and just stayed out of it. the rest of my weather flying was pretty benign, including my instrument check ride which featured light rain from 9,000' ceilings.

[Joe]

Tom, concerning the wife-- it isn't the physical stuff that bothers her. She doesn't see the point in flying, period-- if we get knocked outa the sky every time by bad or iffy weather. Not that she blames me, but we're 0 for 2 on the weather doing what I'd predicted.

You're absolutely right about the 172 in chop or gusts. Everything you say is probably compounded in our case by the fact that our plane also has downward-drooping winglets. These are supposed to be an anti-stall measure and have been on the airplane as long as anyone remembers. My opinion is that these slow the plane down a little, make it more susceptible to bumps, make the plane more mushy right at take-off, and probably make it a little more susceptible to cross-winds when landing, though this last one is really a guess by me.

Flaming-- I've been flying a 1969 172K since I joined a local flying club in early 2005.
I'm sorry to hear you're not flying anymore. I'll try to write more. I flew a lot last year but this year not so much.

[Tom Goodrick]

Have you calculated how close you are to max gross weight? It might be interesting to load the plane up and see how it handles in ordinary turbulence. For the area you live in, flying in a 172 probably isn't that much of an improvement over driving, especially when you consider the ground travel required on either end. If you have some hills to jump over or large bodies of water to cut across that could make a difference. You'd have to cruise at 140 mph (122 kts) to cut your travel time in half. That would take a GA Cheetah, Cessna Cardinal, or Piper Archer. So, until you can afford something that fast you might as well just enjoy flying around.

[Joe]

I think a 182 would qualify as well. I've mentioned that but no one in the club ever bites. Maybe I should shop for one.

Tom, what about those winglets?