Flight Training - August 2020 - 5

LETTERS
MY FAVORITE
AIRCRAFT

I ALWAYS LIKE Dave Hirschman's articles;
they seem to generate discussion among
pilots. Of course, it doesn't take much
to get pilots giving their opinions about
aircraft. Of all the ones he mentioned in
"Unusual Attitude: My Favorite Aircraft"
(June 2020 Flight Training), he didn't
cover mine.
There were the ones better at being
fast but not slow, better at slow flight but
not really fast enough to go anywhere.
What I'm getting at is one that does
all reasonably well. Now I'm a little
partial, as most of us are. Mine was built
at Cessna in 1953, the 180 Skywagon.
Will yours go in and out of Leadville,
Colorado, at 9,970 feet, no problem? Fly
into the backcountry strips of Idaho,
Utah, and everywhere in between? With
full fuel, two folks, and loads of camping
gear? And then go cross-country, VFR
or IFR? If there is an all-around better
aircraft on straight floats, I don't know
of it. I'm talking about performing with
a full load. One of the few aircraft that
came from the factory designed to go
on floats. OK, so it's not too good at
aerobatics, but I've outgrown that.
Harry Harden
English, Indiana

CHALLENGING
AIRPORTS

I WAS READING THE ARTICLE from
the June 2020 magazine ("Challenge
Accepted"). I immediately thought of an
airport in Lynchburg, Virginia. The airport
is W24 (Falwell) in Lynchburg.
Runway 10/28: 2,932 by 50 feet, 4.7
percent up from east to west, runway has
150-foot-plus rise. Only departure runway
is 10, only landing runway is 28.
I thought this airport was/should be
worthy of inclusion in your article. It is
a blast to take off and all of a sudden, the
ground falls out from under you.
Andy Watkins
Bedford, Virginia

MATH THAT
MATTERS

I CAME ACROSS Dave Hirschman's "Airplane
Math That Matters" in the June 2020
Flight Training. Some author in a book I
read long ago, maybe Franklin Kurt's Water
Flying, proposed an index, simply a derived
number that was nothing more than the
sum of wing loading plus power loading,
as a rough assessment of an airplane's
potential. Wing loading and power loading
are really the more relevant numbers, as he
points out-not so much the ones in a usual
listing of performance numbers, which
are often each properly taken in different
contexts. All I can say is "fantastic!" and a
big thank you for the article.
I am a Super Cub guy. This airplane
math interests me now more than ever
since my Cub is based at Kenmore,
Washington, on straight Edo 2000s, which
gives it a whole new set of limitations.
It currently has the standard 36-gallon
fuel capacity, 1,750 pounds gross weight,
a climb propeller, and Bendix mags with
massive electrode spark plugs. Since it has
no amphibious capability I am interested
in coming up with creative ways to expand
its useful range and its horizons.
I hear much about the limitations
of straight-float airplanes, and about
the places you can't go without having
amphibious capability and better range,
and I agree. Within the context of mods to
a certified Super Cub, I think that building
up a new set of wings with 48 gallons of
fuel, adding a removable belly tank (ugly as
it is), installing the Wipaire 2,000-pound
gross weight supplemental type certificate,
and going to electronic ignition would
all work toward the goal of making the
humble Super Cub, even on straight floats,
a more useful airplane. This is one way
that interesting numbers beget some kind
of tangible and practical usefulness.
Geoff Woodard
Kenmore, Washington

We welcome your comments. Please email
flighttraining@aopa.org. Comments will be
edited for style and space.

AOPA.ORG/FT  5
http://www.aircraftspruce.com http://www.AOPA.ORG/FT
Flight Training - August 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Flight Training - August 2020
