Coms

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 [email protected]. Comments will be edited for style and space.