Crossing the Rockies in a Piper Cub

cointyro

New Member
Anyone here read "Flight of Passage" by Rinker Buck?

So my question is this: they "cross the Rockies" at Guadalupe Pass, which they say is 9,000 feet (USRoute 61 / 180, about 60 miles directly east of El Paso). And they had a heck of a time doing it. Doesn't seem very safe.

Then I got wondering - I've crossed the continental divide several times driving along I-10. I looked it up and the I-10 highest altitude "crossing the Rockies" (or whats left of them as they peter out darn near the Mexican border) is entirely unremarkable - about 4,800 feet.

Do you guys have any idea why they didn't just deviate south about 100 miles (air distance from the Guadalupes to I-10 I believe) and save themselves the 9,000 feet trouble?

As I recall, I-10 just goes over a high plain in the continental divide area - you wouldn't even know you're "crossing the Rockies" if there wasn't a sign.
 
I thought the *exact* same thing when I read it. I've driven TN to CA on I-40, and it never gets over 7500ft or so...with no major passes other than the Sandia mtns near Albuquerque. I-10's even lower, like you said. I have no idea why they needed to go that high.

-Zach
 
One *possible* reason, if heading east to west is that a 100 mile deviation south, then a 100 mile return to course [granted, they would probably fly a convergent path, so 100 might be overestimating], could add 3 hours flying time in a Cub.

I'm not saying that's the reason, or that it was a good idea, but in a Cub you tend to take short cuts, as each extra mile is slow going. How much time it would take to thermal, ridge-lift, circle, to get to that altitude is another story.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone here read "Flight of Passage" by Rinker Buck?

So my question is this: they "cross the Rockies" at Guadalupe Pass, which they say is 9,000 feet (USRoute 61 / 180, about 60 miles directly east of El Paso). And they had a heck of a time doing it. Doesn't seem very safe.

Then I got wondering - I've crossed the continental divide several times driving along I-10. I looked it up and the I-10 highest altitude "crossing the Rockies" (or whats left of them as they peter out darn near the Mexican border) is entirely unremarkable - about 4,800 feet.

Do you guys have any idea why they didn't just deviate south about 100 miles (air distance from the Guadalupes to I-10 I believe) and save themselves the 9,000 feet trouble?

As I recall, I-10 just goes over a high plain in the continental divide area - you wouldn't even know you're "crossing the Rockies" if there wasn't a sign.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd have to get out the map to look, but 100 miles is not an insignificant figure when figuring fuel burn and endurance in a Cub. Especially if they are crossing to the west which at those altitudes is pretty much guaranteed to be a stiff headwind. And airfields with fuel are a bit uncommon in those areas.

Is it correct in assuming that it wouldn't have made as good a story either?

Hehe, of course both of these could be totally wrong. Just a quick guess.
 
If I remember correctly, they just barely made it to the next city After crossing the Rockies. Meaning to deviate 100 miles would more than likely add a fuel stop.
 
I wonder how the Cub's engine performs at 9000 feet? As much fun as it was at the time, you'll have a hard time getting me to fly a cub more than 20 miles at a time... ours does burn automotive gas though.
 
I also think the crossing was at somewere at 11,100 ft. This is the part where Rink and Kern start getting hypoxia
 
Thanks guys for your ideas. As for the fuel shortage - this was the late 60's, the boom of aviation. I'd be surprised if there was no avgas available along I-10 somewhere... still confounded why'd the take the big risks they did at 11.6k feet in a 85HP Cub.

Reading this book sure makes me want the "Sport Pilot" legislation to go through so flying the smaller, less expensive planes (like a Cub) will be cheaper and more accessible!

Of course, the Bay Area won't be a good place for the new sport class planes...
 
Back
Top