Question:

Some few individuals prefer to save the cost of a reel and wind the line around their necks instead.  This is said to be a particularly effective method for salt water species like tarpon and sailfish as the large diameter of the neck (relative to that of a common reel arbor) ensures quick takeup of slack line. However, as this method is not widely practicesd (as yet) it is too soon to be certain of its efficacy.  We await your reports.

My understanding is that some individuals actually substitute very fine piano wire for fly line– something about eliminating memory IMR — Scott Reverse first field of address to reply

Response:

Not that I would ever stoop to a Cabela’s Three Forks, but, just for the sake of discussion, what reel would make a good fit? Bugger p.s. Curiosity…

There’s only one choice… http://www.dutchreels.com/triangle.htm /daytripper (Aim high, grasshopper

Response:

Should I try to remove the hook, or just cut the tippet? Bug – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not that I would ever stoop to a Cabela’s Three Forks, but, just for the sake of discussion, what reel would make a good fit? Bugger p.s. Curiosity…

Response:

Some few individuals prefer to save the cost of a reel and wind the line around their necks instead.  This is said to be a particularly effective method for salt water species like tarpon and sailfish as the large diameter of the neck (relative to that of a common reel arbor) ensures quick takeup of slack line. However, as this method is not widely practicesd (as yet) it is too soon to be certain of its efficacy.  We await your reports. My understanding is that some individuals actually substitute very fine piano wire for fly line– something about eliminating memory IMR

Correct.  But in either case the line catches on the ears when the fish is Wolfgang

Response:

Not that I would ever stoop to a Cabela’s Three Forks, but, just for the sake of discussion, what reel would make a good fit? Bugger p.s. Curiosity…

They sell a combo with a Prestige reel for $69. The Prestige is an Okuma Sierra with Cabelas name on it so you are basically paying $30 for the reel, about $5-$10 less than you can find it retail. Here’s a link. : http://makeashorterlink.com/?V66322B12 G.C.

Response:

<snipped educational material Some few individuals prefer to save the cost of a reel and wind the line around their necks instead.  This is said to be a particularly effective method for salt water species like tarpon and sailfish as the large diameter of the neck (relative to that of a common reel arbor) ensures quick takeup of slack line.  However, as this method is not widely practicesd (as yet) it is too soon to be certain of its efficacy.  We await your reports.

<SPLORK! — TL, Tim give a man enough fly line. . . .

Response:

Okay. You fellas have lost me again. What is the logic to putting a $400 reel on a $39 rod?

The basic principle which underlies fly fishing (as most of us practice it at any rate) is that a rod is used to impart a certain amount of kinetic energy to a fairly heavy line which, in turn, then causes that energy to be transferred to a leader and thus to the fly at the end.  The rod and line are then used to maintain some control over the action of the fly which, if all goes well, will entice a fish to impale itself on the hook, at which time the rod and line are used to draw the fish toward the fisher who then either releases it or bops in on the pate and transfers it to a creel or some other receptacle until such time as it is convenient to cook and eat it.  The reel holds the excess line.  Some few individuals prefer to save the cost of a reel and wind the line around their necks instead.  This is said to be a particularly effective method for salt water species like tarpon and sailfish as the large diameter of the neck (relative to that of a common reel arbor) ensures quick takeup of slack line.  However, as this method is not widely practicesd (as yet) it is too soon to be certain of its efficacy.  We await your reports. Reeling with confusion,

Oh, you ain’t seen nuthin yet. Wolfgang

Response:

Okay. You fellas have lost me again. What is the logic to putting a $400 reel on a $39 rod?

You said nothing about logic. You asked for a "good fit." My guess is it fits good. HTH, Russell Bet there are others that will fit as well.

Response:

Okay. You fellas have lost me again. What is the logic to putting a $400 reel on a $39 rod?

Oops…I must have neglected to include one of these     with my original reply.  Handy little things, really.  I find that they can often clarify even the most senseless posts.  HTH. Cheers, Bill

Response:

Okay. You fellas have lost me again. What is the logic to putting a $400 reel on a $39 rod? Reeling with confusion, Bug

Hook, line and sinker, and pole too! — Frank Reid Reverse email to reply

Response:

Okay. You fellas have lost me again. What is the logic to putting a $400 reel on a $39 rod? Reeling with confusion, Bug – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not that I would ever stoop to a Cabela’s Three Forks, but, just for the sake of discussion, what reel would make a good fit?  You might want to check out the San Miguel Vision by Ross or Abel’s Super Series.  I don’t think that you’ll be disappointed with either choice.  HTH. Cheers, Bill —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Okay. You fellas have lost me again. What is the logic to putting a $400 reel on a $39 rod?

The logic is that you spent way too much on a reel and you only have $40 to spend on the stinking fly rod….

Response:

Not that I would ever stoop to a Cabela’s Three Forks, but, just for the sake of discussion, what reel would make a good fit?

Ross San Miguel.  Perfect fit for that rod.  

Response:

Not that I would ever stoop to a Cabela’s Three Forks, but, just for the sake of discussion, what reel would make a good fit?

 You might want to check out the San Miguel Vision by Ross or Abel’s Super Series.  I don’t think that you’ll be disappointed with either choice.  HTH. Cheers, Bill —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Not that I would ever stoop to a Cabela’s Three Forks, but, just for the sake of discussion, what reel would make a good fit? Bugger p.s. Curiosity…

Response:

Question:

JB said..   Speaking of which, I’d be interested in any observations you might   care to share on inverted spin recovery.  JB Long time since I’ve been spinning in anything other than a car Paul. Thank god for that (given what you "drive" nowdays…) Take out an "l" for email reply

Response:

It took a lot of practice, and I seem to remember some pretty awful results, but I eventually got it down. In the end I decided not to use it in the display, as the only people who would appreciate it were other pilots (and most would simply be glad they weren’t in the aircraft with me). I could only do it in one direction too. Going the other way, the inverted fuel tank would run out of gas before I could make it past roughly 270

Question:

This is totally off the top of my head but one thing I’d be concerned about is Spring run-off.  I don’t know Yosemite very well and May might be late enough to be past the worst but snow melt can result in swollen, muddy waters and less than stellar fishing. Probably you could get the straight scoop from someone at the park (they have phone numbers for park information) and they might be able to point you in a good direction as to flies, etc. Other than this, I don’t see how you could go too wrong someplace like Yosemite if you can avoid the crowds – which you should be able to do in early May. Have a great time. CMB

Response:

The USGS maintains a web site with stream flow statistics and current flow numbers for almost all the rivers in the west.  For California, try  http://s601dcascr.wr.usgs.gov/Sites/ and for the Merced, look at section 1804.  If you back up and scrounge around you’ll see there is a wealth of useful info from USGS. Chas – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -This is totally off the top of my head but one thing I’d be concerned about is Spring run-off.  I don’t know Yosemite very well and May might be late enough   snip << CMB

Response:

Hello dave, I have spent many weeks hiking the Yosemite back country and found the fishing to be so so. High sierra lakes as you know are notorious for having large populations of small trout. This is a by product of state planting over the last hundred years without the means to monitor and regulate. The fish are mostly in the 6" to 10" range with a few 12" to 14". The valley has been under the special regulations rule for a while with the hope of natural regeneration to an all wild population. These regulations cover the valley from the Happy Isles  bridge through the valley to a bridge West of the town of El Portal. I fished the Merced river last october down stream from the said bridge and landed rainbows in the two pound range. I used the most common dry flies and nymphs as the fish didn’t seen to care what I presented. You should plan on stopping by the sport shop in the village and asking for information and don’t forget to buy some flies. Also if the pass is open there are several lakes on the Eastern side that have healthy populations, like Tioga and Saddlbag lakes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m looking forward to a first time trip to Yosemite in early May and I’m wondering if anyone has any knowledge to share. I’m planning to be on the Merced River for the most part and I’m wondering if there are any fly types/patterns that I should concentrate on? Any advice on locations? Info on any fly shops in the area would also be appreciated. Thanks, Dave

Response:

I’m looking forward to a first time trip to Yosemite in early May and I’m wondering if anyone has any knowledge to share. I’m planning to be on the Merced River for the most part and I’m wondering if there are any fly types/patterns that I should concentrate on? Any advice on locations? Info on any fly shops in the area would also be appreciated. Thanks, Dave

Response:

Question:

Netscape has a spell check, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Huh? Pardon my ignorance, Far, but just who is this guy and what has he supposedly done? I’m a NH resident, and I’ve never heard of this guy or his organization.< Hi Dave, Well, I will join Farandfine’s bandwagon here.  I too am a New Hampshire resident. Bob Mitchel belongs to the New Hampshire Fly Fishers Association.  The are now a Federation of FLy Fishers group, but it wasn’t always that way.  The are based in Laconia, NH. Since you don’t know about them, let me give you  a one sided point of view. About three years ago, Dick Sturtavent, Bob Mitchell and a few of their cronies decided that the fishing in New Hampshire wasn’t good enoough for them.  They wanted to be assured that when they went out they would be able to fish over LARGE trout. Not in streams mind you, but in ponds.   So they formed the New Hampshire Fly Fishers Accociation, Inc.   But the biggest reason  for forming the group was that the local and state chapters of TU  would not go along with them in trying to get the ponds in the north country stoked to their liking. Once they had the NH Fly Fishers formed, they then formed the Cold Water Coalition, Inc. in an effort to bypass all the criticism and to put up a front of bringing all the TU chapters and the NH Fly Fishers together so they could persue their own agenda.  I don’t know about you, but there seenm to be a lot of Inc.’s popping up here in the fishing comunity, and any group that is for the fly fishers in the state that feels that they have to protect themselves legally from the very people they pretend to be working for is bogus in my book Some of the things that they have accomplised, is to have instituted the Slot Limints for 5 ponds.  Namely, Upper Hallls, Sky, Profile Lake, Cole and Shawtown.  All fish between 12 and 16 inches must now be released and only one fish over 16 inches may be kept, with a two fish limit.  There was little debate over this and little public input.  Secret meetings were held with the Cold Water Coalition and members of the Fish and Game last year, in Portsmouth.  A nice out of the way place that assured them that even if these meetings were made public, not many people would make the drive.   After the Cold Water Coalition met, one public hearing was held at the Fish and Game in Concord, where they said they were going to take the matter under advisment.  Lo and behold, this year, guess what?  The regs are changed. Now, I am an advocate of catch and release, (go ahead Tim, I had to say it) but I think that the states (our) money could be better spent trying to manage a few fisheries for wild trout instead of continually stocking every mud puddle from here to Colebrook.  If you check your fish and game digest, you will see that NH does not have one managed Wild Trout fishery, and only one pure catch and release area.  Vermont on the other hand has 7 wild trout fisheries, and Mass has several C&R areas.  That’s beef number one for many of us. Number two, why wasn’t Whittamore, or some other pond or lake in the southern part of the state choosen?  Why not Stonehouse Pond in Barrington?  There is a simple answer to that one.  The NH Fly Fishers are based in Laconia.  Why travel 2 hours south when you have ponds 30 minutes from you that your buddies in the Fish and Game will stock just the way you want then too. Number three, and this one really makes my blood boil.  In NH if you are going to have a fishing derby or a tounament, you have to get a permit from the town, as well as the fish and game, and it is very regulated.  The NH Fly Fishers on the other hand have found a way around this.  They have "outings"  where 30 or 40 of them show up on a piece of Public water and just take the place over. Sewells Falls in Concord is a great example.  Their annual Atlantic Slamon Outing ruins any chance the rest of us have of fishing there that weekend. Rotational fishing?  Not with these guys.  You are either with them or you don’t fish.  Then there is the pilgrmage to Profile Lake.  Another weekend outing where they just take over an area.  And the Fish and Game just looks the other way.  No, that’s not true, last year, they stocked Profile Lake the Friday prior to the NH Fly FIhsers outing there.  It’s funny that these guys never have an outing on a river for trout.  Hence the drag free float line by Far I assume. It has gotten so out of hand, that the fish surveys, which used to be done by TU are now being done by the NH Fly Fishers at the above listed ponds.  Our local TU Chapters weren’t even contacted about then this year.  This is a lot like the fox guarding the hen house.  The people doing the surveys have a personal interest it their outcome, and the findings will  have to be questioned. There are other areas worth dicussing, but that is the NH Fly Fishers in a bit more than a nut shell, from my point of view.   As you saw in the post by Farandfnie, I am not alone in my criticism of this group. At any rate, tight lines and good fishing… Al Manchester, NH

Response:

Looking for some worthwhile Fly Fishing spots in the Keene NH area.   Rivers , Streams , Fly Fishing only Ponds.  Any Suggestions Appreciated.

Response:

Looking for some worthwhile Fly Fishing spots in the Keene NH area.   Rivers,

Streams , Fly Fishing only Ponds.  Any Suggestions Appreciated. My GOD – Is this the same Bob Mitchell  - Sgt At Arm of the New Hampshire Fly Fishers? I thought you people knew EVERYTHING about fly fishing in New Hampshire?  After all, you knew what was good for all of us when it came to Upper Halls, Sky, Profile and a couple of other ponds here in NH.   Since you have the Fish and Game in your back pocket anyway, why not just go ask them?  What’s the matter, out of cash? No way I would ever tell you about any quality water in New Hampshire.  You morons would just have an "outing" where 30 or 40 of you come on a weekend and screw it up for the rest of us. Then next thing you know it’s on your own personal agenda.  You would write it up in Hawkeye (they dont pay for articles so he isnt that good group) and then every Orvis clad yuppie within 100 miles would be on the stream I told you about. Sorry Bob – go get your float tube and load up on those #10 Pheasant Tails a full sinking line and go troll Profile Lake. Leave the fly fishing to those of us who know how to get a drag free float over good fish. Far

Response:

Looking for some worthwhile Fly Fishing spots in the Keene NH area.   Rivers, Streams , Fly Fishing only Ponds.  Any Suggestions Appreciated. My GOD – Is this the same Bob Mitchell  - Sgt At Arm of the New Hampshire Fly Fishers? I thought you people knew EVERYTHING about fly fishing in New Hampshire?  After all, you knew what was good for all of us when it came to Upper Halls, Sky, Profile and a couple of other ponds here in NH.   Since you have the Fish and Game in your back pocket anyway, why not just go ask them?  What’s the matter, out of cash?

Huh? Pardon my ignorance, Far, but just who is this guy and what has he supposedly done? I’m a NH resident, and I’ve never heard of this guy or his organization. No way I would ever tell you about any quality water in New Hampshire.  You morons would just have an "outing" where 30 or 40 of you come on a weekend and screw it up for the rest of us.

I can’t understand why he’s asking in the first place, since it’s hard to swing a dead trout in the Keene area without hitting some decent water. NO! WAIT! I’m mistaken. *Ahem* There are no trout in NH. Yes, that’s it. None. Mass. has ALL the trout. Woe is us. We are poor, pitiful Cow Hampshirites, without any trout. Not a one. Yep, that’s the ticket. Then next thing you know it’s on your own personal agenda.  You would write it up in Hawkeye (they dont pay for articles so he isnt that good group) and then every Orvis clad yuppie within 100 miles would be on the stream I told you about.

Well, could be, but in my experience any organization large enough to require a sgt. at arms is usually too cumbersome to stalk its own bunghole, much less our non-existent NH trout. Granted, though, a Cherokee hatch is an unsightly nuisance, but probably only temporary. Still, I can’t blame you for not giving away your spots in this increasingly crowded state. I’m sure not giving mine away (not that there are any fish there, mind you). Sorry Bob – go get your float tube and load up on those #10 Pheasant Tails a full sinking line and go troll Profile Lake. Leave the fly fishing to those of us who know how to get a drag free float over good fish.

Ooooo. Ouch. That might be even more painful if there were any "good fish" to catch here in NH, but there aren’t. None. Nope. Zilch. Salvelinus Nonexistus. Salmo Nada. This is all true! Really! Dave

Response:

Huh? Pardon my ignorance, Far, but just who is this guy and what has he

supposedly done? I’m a NH resident, and I’ve never heard of this guy or his organization.< Hi Dave, Well, I will join Farandfine’s bandwagon here.  I too am a New Hampshire resident. Bob Mitchel belongs to the New Hampshire Fly Fishers Association.  The are now a Federation of FLy Fishers group, but it wasn’t always that way.  The are based in Laconia, NH. Since you don’t know about them, let me give you  a one sided point of view. About three years ago, Dick Sturtavent, Bob Mitchell and a few of their cronies decided that the fishing in New Hampshire wasn’t good enoough for them.  They wanted to be assured that when they went out they would be able to fish over LARGE trout. Not in streams mind you, but in ponds.   So they formed the New Hampshire Fly Fishers Accociation, Inc.   But the biggest reason  for forming the group was that the local and state chapters of TU  would not go along with them in trying to get the ponds in the north country stoked to their liking. Once they had the NH Fly Fishers formed, they then formed the Cold Water Coalition, Inc. in an effort to bypass all the criticism and to put up a front of bringing all the TU chapters and the NH Fly Fishers together so they could persue their own agenda.  I don’t know about you, but there seenm to be a lot of Inc.’s popping up here in the fishing comunity, and any group that is for the fly fishers in the state that feels that they have to protect themselves legally from the very people they pretend to be working for is bogus in my book Some of the things that they have accomplised, is to have instituted the Slot Limints for 5 ponds.  Namely, Upper Hallls, Sky, Profile Lake, Cole and Shawtown.  All fish between 12 and 16 inches must now be released and only one fish over 16 inches may be kept, with a two fish limit.  There was little debate over this and little public input.  Secret meetings were held with the Cold Water Coalition and members of the Fish and Game last year, in Portsmouth.  A nice out of the way place that assured them that even if these meetings were made public, not many people would make the drive.   After the Cold Water Coalition met, one public hearing was held at the Fish and Game in Concord, where they said they were going to take the matter under advisment.  Lo and behold, this year, guess what?  The regs are changed. Now, I am an advocate of catch and release, (go ahead Tim, I had to say it) but I think that the states (our) money could be better spent trying to manage a few fisheries for wild trout instead of continually stocking every mud puddle from here to Colebrook.  If you check your fish and game digest, you will see that NH does not have one managed Wild Trout fishery, and only one pure catch and release area.  Vermont on the other hand has 7 wild trout fisheries, and Mass has several C&R areas.  That’s beef number one for many of us. Number two, why wasn’t Whittamore, or some other pond or lake in the southern part of the state choosen?  Why not Stonehouse Pond in Barrington?  There is a simple answer to that one.  The NH Fly Fishers are based in Laconia.  Why travel 2 hours south when you have ponds 30 minutes from you that your buddies in the Fish and Game will stock just the way you want then too. Number three, and this one really makes my blood boil.  In NH if you are going to have a fishing derby or a tounament, you have to get a permit from the town, as well as the fish and game, and it is very regulated.  The NH Fly Fishers on the other hand have found a way around this.  They have "outings"  where 30 or 40 of them show up on a piece of Public water and just take the place over. Sewells Falls in Concord is a great example.  Their annual Atlantic Slamon Outing ruins any chance the rest of us have of fishing there that weekend. Rotational fishing?  Not with these guys.  You are either with them or you don’t fish.  Then there is the pilgrmage to Profile Lake.  Another weekend outing where they just take over an area.  And the Fish and Game just looks the other way.  No, that’s not true, last year, they stocked Profile Lake the Friday prior to the NH Fly FIhsers outing there.  It’s funny that these guys never have an outing on a river for trout.  Hence the drag free float line by Far I assume. It has gotten so out of hand, that the fish surveys, which used to be done by TU are now being done by the NH Fly Fishers at the above listed ponds.  Our local TU Chapters weren’t even contacted about then this year.  This is a lot like the fox guarding the hen house.  The people doing the surveys have a personal interest it their outcome, and the findings will  have to be questioned. There are other areas worth dicussing, but that is the NH Fly Fishers in a bit more than a nut shell, from my point of view.   As you saw in the post by Farandfnie, I am not alone in my criticism of this group. At any rate, tight lines and good fishing… Al Manchester, NH

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t know what you are flying but when flying my instructors Turbo Aztec, six full grown american people and topped off I can hold 15,000 on one engine, well, or as long as my leg holds out. cg It is most certainly feasible and is done all the time. Wether done single engine or twin is really no consideration. In some respects, a single may be better than a twin because in a twin you need to carry much more fuel to feed two engines. That second engine does not give you any more chances to remain airborne, if one should fail, until such a time that you are back down to normal weights. During the early phases of the flight you would be so heavy with fuel that one engine could not possibly keep you in the air. Reinhard

First off, I would have to see that to believe it. Secondly, to fly OAK-HNL in a Turbo Aztec (14 hrs plus 3 hrs reserve), you would carry a lot more weight in fuel than the load you described here. Reinhard

Response:

I have this fantasy of flying to one of them deserted SP islands (Robinson Crusoe Syndrome).  Has anyone tried this in a single engine airplane, is this feasible at all?  Which route would one take? Thanks, James The two longest legs are Oakland to Honolulu 2100 NM and from there you have another long leg, either HNL to Majuro, Marshall Islands, or HNL to Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati, the latter one being a good stop, but almost again as far as OAK-HNL. After that you can choose your legs more easily and they are considerably shorter.

You could also go up to Alaska, across and down through Russia, over to Japan and then on to the South Pacific.  It is a much longer journey, but no 2000 mile over water legs. (I wonder how far the jump to Palau would be, I’ve always wanted to go there…) Brian

Response:

First off, I would have to see that to believe it. Secondly, to fly OAK-HNL in a Turbo Aztec (14 hrs plus 3 hrs reserve), you would carry a lot more weight in fuel than the load you described here. Reinhard I only show from OAK to PHNL to be 2089 nm that would only be about 10 hrs in the air.

My rounded off 2100 NM was only a paltry 11 NM off from your very accurate 2089!! well within range 300 gal, 1800 lbs, but you would not be flying  more than 5 hours on one engine. cg

It is quite obvious to me that you are an armchair pilot who has never done anything like this before. Your numbers are all wrong, and I hope for your sake that you never try it. You would most certainly get your feet wet. It took me 13 hours in a Baron 58 and 15 in a Twin Bonanza. Your turbos in that Aztec would most likely do very little if anything for you since westbound to HNL most frequently you need to stay at 10K or below lest you catch the prevailing westerlies which are very strong at altitude. So you would do well to get 150K over the water. Reinhard

Response:

I only show from OAK to PHNL to be 2089 nm that would only be about 10 hrs in the air. well within range 300 gal, 1800 lbs, but you would not be flying  more than 5 hours on one engine.   cg First off, I would have to see that to believe it. Secondly, to fly OAK-HNL in a Turbo Aztec (14 hrs plus 3 hrs reserve), you would carry a lot more weight in fuel than the load you described here. Reinhard

Response:

First off, I would have to see that to believe it. Secondly, to fly OAK-HNL in a Turbo Aztec (14 hrs plus 3 hrs reserve), you would carry a lot more weight in fuel than the load you described here. Reinhard

I thought for IFR you only needed 45 min reserve.  – Doug  -  Kingfisher plans are here…Now, about that Garage… …cruising between 150 to 200 miles per hour… Greater cruising speeds are possible, but the size of the earth does not warrent greater speeds. -Igor Sikorsky in 1934

Response:

It doesn’t matter a great deal what the legal reserve is.  Winds over the Pacific on that flight are usually against you.  If you go high at all to minimize fuel consumption the head winds increase.  The Aztec is NOT a fast airplane for its fuel consumption.   To fly that leg without considerably MORE than a 45 minute reserve, is to seriously invite wet feet.  The 3  hour reserve is not bad.  The 14 hours is quite optimistic, in my opinion.  I think I would use something like 18 hours for flight planning purposes in an Aztec.  Then I would add another three hours for reserve.  That looks like about 21 hours of fuel. I think you could get it in, but not without some pretty special ferry tanks!   John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First off, I would have to see that to believe it. Secondly, to fly OAK-HNL in a Turbo Aztec (14 hrs plus 3 hrs reserve), you would carry a lot more weight in fuel than the load you described here. Reinhard I thought for IFR you only needed 45 min reserve.  – Doug  -  Kingfisher plans are here…Now, about that Garage… …cruising between 150 to 200 miles per hour… Greater cruising speeds are possible, but the size of the earth does not warrent greater speeds. -Igor Sikorsky in 1934

Response:

OK, so its been done before in factory planes, how about homebuilts?  I am considering the KR2, which has an advertised range of 1600sm, can this be extended with additional tanks to the 2100nm required to fly to HNL? James – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have this fantasy of flying to one of them deserted SP islands (Robinson Crusoe Syndrome).  Has anyone tried this in a single engine airplane, is this feasible at all?  Which route would one take? Thanks, James James, It is most certainly feasible and is done all the time. Wether done single engine or twin is really no consideration. In some respects, a single may be better than a twin because in a twin you need to carry much more fuel to feed two engines. That second engine does not give you any more chances to remain airborne, if one should fail, until such a time that you are back down to normal weights. During the early phases of the flight you would be so heavy with fuel that one engine could not possibly keep you in the air. The two longest legs are Oakland to Honolulu 2100 NM and from there you have another long leg, either HNL to Majuro, Marshall Islands, or HNL to Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati, the latter one being a good stop, but almost again as far as OAK-HNL. After that you can choose your legs more easily and they are considerably shorter. Reinhard

Response:

What did you assume that I would try it without any  preflight planning?? cg It is quite obvious to me that you are an armchair pilot who has never done anything like this before. Your numbers are all wrong, and I hope for your sake that you never try it. You would most certainly get your feet wet. It took me 13 hours in a Baron 58 and 15 in a Twin Bonanza. Your turbos in that Aztec would most likely do very little if anything for you since westbound to HNL most frequently you need to stay at 10K or below lest you catch the prevailing westerlies which are very strong at altitude. So you would do well to get 150K over the water. Reinhard

Response:

First off, I would have to see that to believe it. Secondly, to fly OAK-HNL in a Turbo Aztec (14 hrs plus 3 hrs reserve), you would carry a lot more weight in fuel than the load you described here. Reinhard I thought for IFR you only needed 45 min reserve.  – Doug  -  

Surely you jest, Doug. Kidding aside, the special flight permit that you get for the overload condition and he temporary fuel tank installation requires you calculate in a 3 hour reserve on transoceanic flights. Things can happen while on such a long flight; the forecast winds can turn out different, you might have equipment problems that cause you to burn more fuel for less airspeed than you had planned, etc. I have had several a couple of occasions when I was glad for the extra fuel. Remember, there is only one time when you can have too much fuel: when you are on fire. Reinhard

Response:

It doesn’t matter a great deal what the legal reserve is.  Winds over the Pacific on that flight are usually against you.  If you go high at all to minimize fuel consumption the head winds increase.  The Aztec is NOT a fast airplane for its fuel consumption.   To fly that leg without considerably MORE than a 45 minute reserve, is to seriously invite wet feet.  The 3  hour reserve is not bad.  The 14 hours is quite optimistic, in my opinion.  I think I would use something like 18 hours for flight planning purposes in an Aztec.  Then I would add another three hours for reserve.  That looks like about 21 hours of fuel. I think you could get it in, but not without some pretty special ferry tanks!  

How do you get 21 hours of fuel into an Aztec?  I’m not familiar with the type, but at an avg fuel burn of 8-10 GPH – we’re talking about 168-210 gals. Where would you put it all?  Another question springs to mind – how do you add oil in flight? I’ve seen club aircraft burn as much as a 1/2 qt/hr. The sump would be bone dry after 21 hrs with no additional oil.

Response:

I think I would use something like 18 hours for flight planning purposes in an Aztec.  Then I would add another three hours for reserve.  That looks like about 21 hours of fuel. I think you could get it in, but not without some pretty special ferry tanks! How do you get 21 hours of fuel into an Aztec?  I’m not familiar with the type, but at an avg fuel burn of 8-10 GPH – we’re talking about 168-210 gals. Where would you put it all?  Another question springs to mind – how do you add oil in flight? I’ve seen club aircraft burn as much as a 1/2 qt/hr. The sump would be bone dry after 21 hrs with no additional oil.

If you stay below 10k feet, you will frequently find winds that are not too bad. You often find about 10 knots of help down low.. Under no circumstances would I start out with ANY headwind on that leg. Then you could make HNL in about 14-15 hrs in an Aztec. Taking a Baron to Fiji last year, I flew at 6K feet to HNL and did quite well. (13 hrs.) Fitting all that fuel into the plane is really not so difficult. There are professional tanking outfits that install ferry tanks in the cabin in a day. You are certainly correct when you adress the oil issue. It is absolutely essential that you know the oil consumption of your engines. And there is also a way to rig an oil replenishing setup to that you can add oil in flight. Reinhard

Response:

OK, so its been done before in factory planes, how about homebuilts?  I am considering the KR2, which has an advertised range of 1600sm, can this be extended with additional tanks to the 2100nm required to fly to HNL? James

Well Jon Johanson has done it both ways (make that crossed the Pacific … ) in an RV-4 during his round the world trips. Check out his Web site at http://www.mag-net.educ.monash.edu.au/saaa/head.html. He has also published his autobio called "Aiming High", Wakefield Press, South Australia, ISBN 1 86254 424 7. Highly recommended reading for anyone building their own plane. Rgds JD   …… I’d rather be flying ….. John Duncan M.C.N.E.  PPL(A)  J.P.  AOPA(Aust)#42745 EAA#548147 J & J Network Services Pty Ltd P.O. Box 109 Minto N.S.W. 2566 Australia

Response:

My tongue was firmly in cheek.  I don’t fly VFR without at least 1 hour reserve. — Doug  -  Kingfisher plans are here…Now, about that Garage… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It doesn’t matter a great deal what the legal reserve is.  Winds over the Pacific on that flight are usually against you.  If you go high at all to minimize fuel consumption the head winds increase.  The Aztec is NOT a fast airplane for its fuel consumption.   To fly that leg without considerably MORE than a 45 minute reserve, is to seriously invite wet feet.  The 3  hour reserve is not bad.  The 14 hours is quite optimistic, in my opinion.  I think I would use something like 18 hours for flight planning purposes in an Aztec.  Then I would add another three hours for reserve.  That looks like about 21 hours of fuel. I think you could get it in, but not without some pretty special ferry tanks!   John I thought for IFR you only needed 45 min reserve.  – Doug  -  Kingfisher plans are here…Now, about that Garage… …cruising between 150 to 200 miles per hour… Greater cruising speeds are possible, but the size of the earth does not warrent greater speeds. -Igor Sikorsky in 1934

Response:

No idea about a KR2, but you might want to read Sport Aviation (past few issues) and look for the 2 part round the world story by the author and Burt Rutan, who flew their Long EZ’s around the world. Very informative (and nice pictures – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – OK, so its been done before in factory planes, how about homebuilts?  I am considering the KR2, which has an advertised range of 1600sm, can this be extended with additional tanks to the 2100nm required to fly to HNL? James

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – OK, so its been done before in factory planes, how about homebuilts?  I am considering the KR2, which has an advertised range of 1600sm, can this be extended with additional tanks to the 2100nm required to fly to HNL? James Well Jon Johanson has done it both ways (make that crossed the Pacific … ) in an RV-4 during his round the world trips. Check out his Web site at http://www.mag-net.educ.monash.edu.au/saaa/head.html. He has also published his autobio called "Aiming High", Wakefield Press, South Australia, ISBN 1 86254 424 7. Highly recommended reading for anyone building their own plane.

James, You are considering a monumental task here ol chap, this sought of feat requires a hell of a lot of homework and I would suggest you’re really stretching it in a KR-2. With a large amount of retro-fitting you could possibly carry out this adventure, however the stakes are extremely high! I would also endorse the above, ie read Jon Johannson’s book and while your doing that bare a thought for the planning both technically and enroute that goes into these voyages. You may also wish to contact the "Mick & Dick" of "Round the World Friendship Tour":- Sport Aviation Feb edition Pg 76. For a start, unless you’ve got heaps of "Bucks" behind you, just go build your A/C and enjoy flying it around the "States". Whilst I’ll admit, I don’t have an intermit knowledge of the KR-2 and its weight & balance etc, it is only small by any standards. Its payload excess does not go down well with the number crunching required when you consider such additions as fuel, extra redundancy systems req’d, and ESPECIALLY CONSIDER ENGINE RELIABLITY etc, etc. To say the least, 18 plus hours is a long time to spend in the close confines of a KR-2 cockpit, surrounded by custom built ferry tanks around your ears. I have two buddies that were involved in Ferry Flights across the Pacific in their younger days. One of them did get his feet wet mid Pacific (1200 Nm from nowhere & at night) when the nut on the Alternator pulley worked its way loose. Lucky for him he had spotted a fishing boat a couple of hours before and was able to back track and relocate it. All be it, he was now down to torch and compass. That was in a brand new production A/C as well. Glenn now does his long transcontinental flights the same way I do, the only way:-In style at 43,000 ft. James, whilst your challenge is a commendable one, the golden rule is to keep your feet dry. Best way to do that is travel the South Pacific the same way most of us do, In a 747, 767 etc, and don’t forget you can have the added advantage of sipping champagne or other adult beverages!! If you’re considering going on from HNL to other South Pacific destinations, then you have a hole heap more challenges in front of you. Regards Ray (Just my 2 cents worth) J.

Response:

I don’t know what you are flying but when flying my instructors Turbo Aztec, six full grown american people and topped off I can hold 15,000 on one engine, well, or as long as my leg holds out. cg It is most certainly feasible and is done all the time. Wether done single engine or twin is really no consideration. In some respects, a single may be better than a twin because in a twin you need to carry much more fuel to feed two engines. That second engine does not give you any more chances to remain airborne, if one should fail, until such a time that you are back down to normal weights. During the early phases of the flight you would be so heavy with fuel that one engine could not possibly keep you in the air. Reinhard

Response:

How do you get 21 hours of fuel into an Aztec?  I’m not familiar with the type, but at an avg fuel burn of 8-10 GPH – we’re talking about 168-210 gals. Where would you put it all?  Another question springs to mind – how do you add oil in flight? I’ve seen club aircraft burn as much as a 1/2 qt/hr. The sump would be bone dry after 21 hrs with no additional oil.

The Aztec would burn considerably more than 8-10 GPH.  Probably closer to 25 GPH.  So we are talking about over 500 gallons.  The Aztec is a rather slow twin with a pair of 250 HP flat engines.  It is Pipers upscale Apache, just as the Beech Baron is the high power version of the Travelair. John

Response:

What is the availability of av-gas in Russia. I hear that it’s non-existant. D.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think I would use something like 18 hours for flight planning purposes in an Aztec.  Then I would add another three hours for reserve.  That looks like about 21 hours of fuel. I think you could get it in, but not without some pretty special ferry tanks! How do you get 21 hours of fuel into an Aztec?  I’m not familiar with the type, but at an avg fuel burn of 8-10 GPH – we’re talking about 168-210 gals. Where would you put it all?  Another question springs to mind – how do you add oil in flight? I’ve seen club aircraft burn as much as a 1/2 qt/hr. The sump would be bone dry after 21 hrs with no additional oil. If you stay below 10k feet, you will frequently find winds that are not too bad. You often find about 10 knots of help down low.. Under no circumstances would I start out with ANY headwind on that leg. Then you could make HNL in about 14-15 hrs in an Aztec. Taking a Baron to Fiji last year, I flew at 6K feet to HNL and did quite well. (13 hrs.) Fitting all that fuel into the plane is really not so difficult. There are professional tanking outfits that install ferry tanks in the cabin in a day. You are certainly correct when you adress the oil issue. It is absolutely essential that you know the oil consumption of your engines. And there is also a way to rig an oil replenishing setup to that you can add oil in flight. Reinhard

Reinhard is exactly right.  You notice in the original post that I did mention that it would take some fancy ferry tanks to get the fuel in! When my airplane flew across the Atlantic from Brazil to Cornwall, they added a special fancy ferry tank.  A 50 gallon drum on chocks where the back seat goes, with a wobble pump to pump fuel up into the wing tank. They recommended that you run the wing tank down to less than a quarter full before pumping fuel up to it.  They said watch the gauges so you do not overfill it and pump fuel overboard.   The also recommended the long distance power setting of 1800 RPM and 23 inches of manifold pressure.  That was supposed to get the fuel consumption down to 14.7 gallons per hour.  That gave a little over eight hours in the air.  At that power setting, you get 100 knots! Still wouldn’t make Honolulu! John

Response:

I have this fantasy of flying to one of them deserted SP islands (Robinson Crusoe Syndrome).  Has anyone tried this in a single engine airplane, is this feasible at all?  Which route would one take? Thanks, James

James, It is most certainly feasible and is done all the time. Wether done single engine or twin is really no consideration. In some respects, a single may be better than a twin because in a twin you need to carry much more fuel to feed two engines. That second engine does not give you any more chances to remain airborne, if one should fail, until such a time that you are back down to normal weights. During the early phases of the flight you would be so heavy with fuel that one engine could not possibly keep you in the air. The two longest legs are Oakland to Honolulu 2100 NM and from there you have another long leg, either HNL to Majuro, Marshall Islands, or HNL to Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati, the latter one being a good stop, but almost again as far as OAK-HNL. After that you can choose your legs more easily and they are considerably shorter. Reinhard

Response:

I have this fantasy of flying to one of them deserted SP islands (Robinson Crusoe Syndrome).  Has anyone tried this in a single engine airplane, is this feasible at all?  Which route would one take? Thanks, James I think someone tried this in a twin.  Her name was Amelia something….. Sorrry, it was too easy to pass on  :-)

Like minds I guess, but I resisted.  Abacus.com has an add-on for MS Flight Simulator that follows her route.    It wasn’t/isn’t an easy flight. John J. Miller

Response:

I have this fantasy of flying to one of them deserted SP islands (Robinson Crusoe Syndrome).  Has anyone tried this in a single engine airplane, is this feasible at all?  Which route would one take? Thanks, James

Da Plane, Boss, Da Plane! (sorry, just couldn’t help myself) John Galban====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Response:

I have this fantasy of flying to one of them deserted SP islands (Robinson Crusoe Syndrome).  Has anyone tried this in a single engine airplane, is this feasible at all?  Which route would one take? Thanks, James

I think someone tried this in a twin.  Her name was Amelia something….. Sorrry, it was too easy to pass on  :-) Jeff Oslick

Response:

I have this fantasy of flying to one of them deserted SP islands (Robinson Crusoe Syndrome).  Has anyone tried this in a single engine airplane, is this feasible at all?  Which route would one take? Thanks, James

Response:

Check out http://www.calle.com/aviation/airports.cgi Allows you to specify departure, destination, range and speed, and displays a nice table and map of the results. Lots of material for dream flights… BTW you probably don’t want a totally deserted island; food, water, fuel, runway and women should be minimum requirements (the website allows you to specify 2 out of these 5 Eric – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have this fantasy of flying to one of them deserted SP islands (Robinson Crusoe Syndrome).  Has anyone tried this in a single engine airplane, is this feasible at all?  Which route would one take? Thanks, James

Response:

Question:

I’d like to cast my vote for stronger enforcement of the anti-snagging laws.  It is still going on, although no weighted treble hooks are in evidence.   Personally, I have all kinds of cute ideas for laws that would make lifting ineffective, but without enforcement, such laws would be meaningless.  Personally, I’ve spent four days on the Salmon River this year and have yet to see any DEC enforcement, or hear of any arrests. I’ve seen plenty of lifting going on, even in the flyfishing sections of the River. I’d also like to see better and more "real-time" reporting of river conditions.  A bad report might keep me from coming up on a given day, but no accurate reporting whatsoever leaves me with a level of risk, given my 5 hour drive to get to the River.  It might be good if someone were to post the current Niagara Mohawk release reports somewhere.  I’d like to see Jim Rusher at Whittakers do this, since he seems to have the best "river-oriented" site, but I understand that the cost of Niagara Mohawk’s 900 number could get a bit out of control…maybe a Chamber of Commerce opportunity lies in here. Bob Davis

Response:

writes: Bob,

    Thanks for your comments. The C of C would be hard pressed to fund the purchase of a subscription to the Waterline # and I’m also sure that Waterline as a business would be less than pleased. You’r right though, timely water level conditions are of the utmost importance.     I’d be happy to share any info I have on conditions, etc. as I look out my back window at the river.     Today, the rains continued resulting in continued big water. My folks landed two rainbows in the upper fly zone, saw lots of fish in Trout Brook and saw plenty of snagging (unfortunately) in Oswego.     Regards,     Bill — Bill Fling                     Tel. (315) 298-3044 SALMON RIVER ANGLERS LODGE     FAX  (315) 298-2619 P.O. Box 353                   Rt. 13, Rome Road Pulaski, NY 13142-0353   ‘SALMON RIVER/LAKE ONTARIO SPORTFISHING REPORTS’             ‘http://www.salmon-river.com’

Response:

I saw game wardens a few times this year on the river but they never seem to wander far from the parking areas.On the oswego river you see more wardens because it is a very easily accessable place to fish.They arent any more thrilled about going to work than average person so they really arent going to walk all that far to see if people are lifting farther up the river or not.I have seen many river guides lift fish and hand the rod right to there clients and of course the lifted fish was kept.Until we fisherman lose the "its going to die after spawning anyways"attitude the snagging will never stop.Maybe we should start a donate a roper program to help out the dec..

Response:

Bill — Because NYS has finally banned snagging, I have started to fish the Salmon River, and therefore patronize local restaurants, tackle shops, etc. In my six visits so far this year, I have not seen any evidence of law enforcement. I have, however, noticed a lot of anglers who have foul-hooked chinooks and have been very negligent in their releases. Many do not bother to revive fish after they remove their hooks. In my opinion, more law enforcement and angler education is needed to help the Salmon River become a truly great fishery. Moreover, the Chamber might want to explore ways to help clean the River banks and trails from the mess of liter and old line. Such an effort would greatly enhance the Salmon River’s image and popularity among influential anglers. Lastly, the DEC should be given alot of credit for finally making a stand against snagging/lifting. Showing appreciation and support to them would probably go a long way in helping the future of the Salmon River and the people who make a living from it. PS: I refuse to patronize any establishment in the Pulaski-area that has fought against the ban on snagging (MacDonald’s, etc.). Bob Elliott, Rochester, NY – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – At its next meeting in late November, the Pulaski/Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce will be discussing the law enforcement detail here on the Salmon River. As president, I’d be interested in hearing about any FIRST HAND experiences you may have had this year. I’ll use your contributions as a springboard to open discussion. Thanks in advance, Bill — Bill Fling                     Tel. (315) 298-3044 SALMON RIVER ANGLERS LODGE     FAX  (315) 298-2619 P.O. Box 353                   Rt. 13, Rome Road Pulaski, NY 13142-0353   ‘SALMON RIVER/LAKE ONTARIO SPORTFISHING REPORTS’             ‘http://www.salmon-river.com’

Response:

At its next meeting in late November, the Pulaski/Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce will be discussing the law enforcement detail here on the Salmon River. As president, I’d be interested in hearing about any FIRST HAND experiences you may have had this year. I’ll use your contributions as a springboard to open discussion. Thanks in advance, Bill — Bill Fling                     Tel. (315) 298-3044 SALMON RIVER ANGLERS LODGE     FAX  (315) 298-2619 P.O. Box 353                   Rt. 13, Rome Road Pulaski, NY 13142-0353   ‘SALMON RIVER/LAKE ONTARIO SPORTFISHING REPORTS’             ‘http://www.salmon-river.com’

Response:

Question:

The latest edition of FF (December!) that arrived today has a lengthy discussion of the situation with  the Armstrong Spring Creek and the Armstrong and Dupuy ranches.  The Randolph column features some interesting pictures and a failed attempt at being unbiased in reporting the options under consideration.  At least the column did report that the survey that is being conducted on www.flyshop.com is running 76% AGAINST restoring the spring creek. Lyman Lyman G. Hughes Dallas, TX Ennis, MT

Response:

The latest edition of FF (December!) that arrived today has a lengthy discussion of the situation with  the Armstrong Spring Creek and the Armstrong and Dupuy ranches.  The Randolph column features some interesting pictures and a failed attempt at being unbiased in reporting the options under consideration.  At least the column did report that the survey that is being conducted on www.flyshop.com is running 76% AGAINST restoring the spring creek.Hi Lyman,

That’s more or less the oppinion of the people who live in the area as well. — Tight Lines Al Beatty BT’s Fly Fishing Products Bozeman, MT (97 catalog)

Response:

Question:

I’m planning a trip to the Portland, Oregon area the first week of October.  Can anybody provide advice on rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. for fishing, including spin and bait fishing for sturgeon, walleyes, steelhead, etc.  I will also need a guide for one day.  Can anyone personally recommend someone? Thanks for your help, Mike

Response:

I’m planning a trip to the Portland, Oregon area the first week of October.  Can anybody provide advice on rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. for

                                                        ^^^^^^ I’d suggest the Pacific, just for ease of access. — Derek R. Larson           Indiana University        Dept. of History                 "Nothing interesting occurred today…"         -Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806

Response:

writes: I’m planning a trip to the Portland, Oregon area the first week of October.  Can anybody provide advice on rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. for fishing, including spin and bait fishing for sturgeon, walleyes, steelhead, etc.  I will also need a guide for one day.  Can anyone personally recommend someone?

    In that time slot, I’d try the Upper Clackamas for late summer steelhead and/or the Wilson for searun cutthroats, both pretty close to town.  Glenn Young of Beaverton OR is a very good guide for ffing in the Tillamook Bay area, but I can’t find his phone number –perhaps another ROFFer can supply it. –Roger, Portland

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: I’m planning a trip to the Portland, Oregon area the first week of October.  Can anybody provide advice on rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. for fishing, including spin and bait fishing for sturgeon, walleyes, steelhead, etc.  I will also need a guide for one day.  Can anyone personally recommend someone?    In that time slot, I’d try the Upper Clackamas for late summer steelhead and/or the Wilson for searun cutthroats, both pretty close to town.  Glenn Young of Beaverton OR is a very good guide for ffing in the Tillamook Bay area, but I can’t find his phone number –perhaps another ROFFer can supply it. –Roger, Portland

I show that the number is 503-642-4570 for Glenn Young. Don Chen Mid-Willamette Fly Fishers (Corvallis, Oregon)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: I’m planning a trip to the Portland, Oregon area the first week of October.  Can anybody provide advice on rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. for fishing, including spin and bait fishing for sturgeon, walleyes, steelhead, etc.  I will also need a guide for one day.  Can anyone personally recommend someone?     In that time slot, I’d try the Upper Clackamas for late summer steelhead and/or the Wilson for searun cutthroats, both pretty close to town.  Glenn Young of Beaverton OR is a very good guide for ffing in the Tillamook Bay area, but I can’t find his phone number –perhaps another ROFFer can supply it. –Roger, Portland

You can contact Glenn at (503) 642-4570.  I’ve fished with Glenn a number of times and he is top notch and his rates are very reasonable. Be SURE to try the searun cutthroat–best fly rod fish in the state!! Paul

Response:

That’s a pretty good time of year to try sight fishing to steelhead in the "skinny water" high up on any of the coastal rivers.   Greg in Albany – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: I’m planning a trip to the Portland, Oregon area the first week of October.  Can anybody provide advice on rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. for fishing, including spin and bait fishing for sturgeon, walleyes, steelhead, etc.  I will also need a guide for one day.  Can anyone personally recommend someone?    In that time slot, I’d try the Upper Clackamas for late summer steelhead and/or the Wilson for searun cutthroats, both pretty close to town.  Glenn Young of Beaverton OR is a very good guide for ffing in the Tillamook Bay area, but I can’t find his phone number –perhaps another ROFFer can supply it. –Roger, Portland

Response:

   In that time slot, I’d try the Upper Clackamas for late summer steelhead and/or the Wilson for searun cutthroats, both pretty close to town.  Glenn Young of Beaverton OR is a very good guide for ffing in the Tillamook Bay area, but I can’t find his phone number –perhaps another ROFFer can supply it. –Roger, Portland

Glenn Young’s number: Hackle and Hide Glenn Young  (503)642-4570

Response:

Question:

#Hello backpackers, #Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is #designed to be light weight for backpacking?   # #Thanks…Stever # Well, I have used my Canon AE-1 and F-1, one or the other or both.  Any 35mm SLR is light enough to backpack, in my opinion.  It just depends on how far you want to go.  I also carried my Bogen tripod and several lenses from 20mm to 200mm, extension tubes, filters, etc. It just depends on how much photography you want to do.  On the last trip I went on I went by myself so the fact that I was loaded down and couldn’t go very far didn’t matter as much. —

Response:

Hello backpackers, Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking?   Thanks…Stever

Response:

Hello backpackers, Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking?  

Well, there is light weight and there is compact.  I know of examples of various combinations of these. Some of the new cameras are made of plastic and are quite light.  The Canon EOS Rebel springs to mind.  Very light but not too compact. (~$390 with 35-70 zoom) Most camera manufacturers have made compact cameras at one time or another: Nikon FM, Pentax ME super, Olympus OM series, etc.  But these are (mostly) metal cameras and aren’t as light as the Rebel mentioned above. (you have to buy some of these used ~$250) If you want SLR quality but can do with a fixed lens rangefinder, I find the Olympus XA to be an excellent, tiny, light camera, perfect for carrying in a backpack (used, ~$130).  Old Leica screwmount rangefinders (body ~$150, 5cm lens ~$100) are compact and have interchangeable excellent lenses but don’t have meters and may be unreliable because of their age (I like my IIIc). Some of the new point-and-shoot cameras have gotten good reviews. The Olympus Infinity Stylus is small, light, and has auto focus. (~$130) Personally, I carry an old Rollieflex medium format camera, a light meter, and a fairly light tripod (Velbon).  This doesn’t give me the flexability of interchangeable lenses but it is fairly lightweight and the Zeiss lens gives me 16×20 prints to die for.  -Dyer Lytle Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136 – "The goal of civilization is settled life and the achievement of luxury. But there is a limit which cannot be overstepped. When prosperity and luxury come to a people, they are followed by excessive consumption and extravagance. With that the human soul itself is undermined both in its worldly well-being and in its spiritual life." – –                       the Arab, Ibn Khaldun, greatest of all historians — Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136 – "The goal of civilization is settled life and the achievement of luxury.

Response:

Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking? I believe that Backpacker magazine had a review of lightweight cameras several issues ago (maybe last summer).  I think it was definitely within the last year or so.  Try your local library.

The article on lightweight cameras is in the August, 1990 issue of Backpacker magazine, pages 54 to 55. It reviews about 8 different cameras.         Steve Snyder            | This space for rent, inquire within. US Geological Survey Reston, VA | I only speak for myself. me.

Response:

There are the inevitable comprimises to be made when ruggedness, seals against water or dirt and image quality vs. expense and weight are applied to cameras.         Nikon has a Nikonos V which weighs roughly 4 pounds (1 3/4 kg.) with a lens.  It carved out of solid aluminium, takes several lenses all but one of which is designed solely for underwater use, and can be used at depths of 100 m.  Great for white water rafting, not so great as a backpacking camera. Focus is set manually be guessing the distance (Galelian finder, not an SLR), shutter speed can be set automatically or manually in conjunction with the aperature. About $550.  Nikon also is about to introduce a much more elaborate autofucus SLR underwater camera that is not really well suited to land use (very heavy, very large) and will cost in excess of $3500 with a lens.         There are quality point and shoot cameras with reasonably fast and higher quality lenses.  A couple can even tolerate getting wet, though not at depth.  There are expensive models from Contax (~$400) Leica (made by Minolta), the equivalent Minolta, and Nikon. If you want memories, but not magazine quality reproductions, and are content leave the moose and flowers in the background, choose a point and shoot.  I find the common sense argument is only take a camera backpacking if you can afford emotionally and financially to sacrifice it.  The original poster wanted light weight first, then compact.  The point and shoots are the only choice that meet this constraint.         This is all from one who has dragged some very heavy packs of pro gear around, sometimes beyond discomfort.  I don’t shoot just for the memories.                                                         Paul

Response:

The article on lightweight cameras is in the August, 1990 issue of Backpacker magazine, pages 54 to 55. It reviews about 8 different cameras.        Steve Snyder            | This space for rent, inquire within.

Could you possibly give us a run-down of the results? At least mention the cameras reviewed, and the overall winners? Thanks…

Response:

FYI, for Christmas I bought my wife a Nikon Tele-Touch 300.  It is NOT an SLR but it DOES take full-frame 35mm film.  It is lightweight, and as the name suggests does have a limited zoom capability.  It includes a built-in flash, DL223 lithium battery, and has DX coding to set ASA/ISO film speed automatically when you use 35mm film cartidges that are so marked. It is NOT waterproof.  It will probably crash big time if you drop it. It was also only a hair over $100 and it takes dynamite pictures.  It has a self winder and can be made ready to use in seconds, which, when combined with the leight weight and physically small size would probably be considered desireable for most backpacking. Overall, she likes it and is happy with it. HINT: next time you are going to hike/backpack in the mountains someplace and want a lightweight, cheap quick and dirty camera to take decent panoramic wide-view shots with, try the Kodak Panoramic 35 box.  And I do mean BOX.  If you’ve never seen one of these, it is essentially a disposable camera with film already in it.  This particular one uses a regular 35mm film and shoots a narrow strip through the middle of the frame.  Kodak processing equipment now counts this as a standardized print size, and returns a respectable panoramic print that is about 10" long and 3 1/2 or 4 inches high. We took one along last November when we hiked up to the Le Conte Lodge in the Smokies.  Got some very nice landscape shots with it.  You won’t get the image quality you might from the aforementioned Nikon, but then you also aren’t out bunches of bucks if it goes down the side of a mountain, either.  :-) Duane

Response:

Hello backpackers, Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking?   Thanks…Stever

Well…. Olympus is known for making pretty light gear, as is Minolta. If you want to stay as light as possible, stay away from auto-focus SLRs. One issue you might want to think about, depending on how much shooting you are going to be doing and how long you will be in the backcountry, would be the reliability of the camera. A really light-weight alternative might be a point-and-shoot camera with a built-in zoom lens. [Cross-posted to rec.photo] —– To sit in solitude, to think in solitude with only the music of the stream and the cedar to break the flow of silence, here lies the value of wilderness.                                                 — John Muir

Response:

Hello backpackers, Does anyone know of a 35mm SLR camera that has interchangeable lens and is designed to be light weight for backpacking?   Thanks…Stever

I use a Nikon FG for this sort of thing.  It’s not really designed for backpacking, probably other folks would say a Nikon FE2 is better since it’s more rugged.  Note that rugged implies heavier in general… As I’ve said on this net before, I like the FG because it’s light and it has TTL flash metering.  New enough to have TTL flash, old enough to have no heavy features like autofocus.  The FG is no longer made, you have to get a used one (same as the FE2…) I can weigh my FG and FE2 and get back to you if you want. Note that all these older Nikons can use the new autofocus lenses if you also have an AF body at home.       Phil White   Tektronix, Beaverton, OR  US Mail: Mail Stop 59-432, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton OR 97077-0001

Response:

The article on lightweight cameras is in the August, 1990 issue of Backpacker magazine, pages 54 to 55. It reviews about 8 different cameras.        Steve Snyder            | This space for rent, inquire within. Could you possibly give us a run-down of the results? At least mention the cameras reviewed, and the overall winners? Thanks…

Here goes… From August 1990 Backpacker magazine, pages 54-55. Article titled "Small Wonders… Compact Cameras for the Trail" by J. Michael Wyatt Reprinted without permission (sorry!)    How many times have you hesitated to dig your camera out of your pack for a single quick landscape shot? How often have you passed on grabbing a trailside candid of a companion? Ever leave your camera safely stowed because of dust, rain, or snow? Ever want to travel lighter and leave that expensive, full-sized, weighty 35mm SLR and lenses home, but bring back great photos of your trip?    It’s time you took a hard look at the world of point-and-shoot compacts. These plastic-bodied, fixed-lens wonders have taken the photo mass-market by storm by cramming more and more into smaller and smaller packages.    They offer such features as: -Sophisticated programmed autoexposure systems. -Automated built-in flash. Some models even offer intellegent flash systems that automatically compensate for backlighting. -Compatibility with DX-coded films so you don’t have to remember to set the film speed. -Weatherproof (and sometimes even waterproof) bodies. -Tele-wide dual lenses or zoom lenses. More and more point-and-shoot models are offering a combination of autofocus telephoto and wide-angle lenses. -Autowind and autorewind. -Autoloading film. Just open the back and drop in the film casette– a real boon to fumble-fingers.    But do these high-tech handfuls have anything to offer those of us who put image quality before convenience? They do, indeed. From the user’s end, these compact, lightweight cameras are simple but sophisticated and produce images of a suprisingly high quality. Granted the lenses probably won’t beat your SLR’s 50mm lens in a head-to-head test, but they will produce prints and transparencies suitable for all but the most critical uses. And the spontaneity these convenient pocket cameras bring to your on-the-trail picture taking will help ensure memorable images. After all, the real test of a camera is how often you return with pictures, right?     TIPS FOR THE BACKCOUNTRY    All of these microelectronic wonders have one thing in common: a total dependence on batteries. To avoid cold-weather battery lockups, use fresh batteries and keep an extra set in a warm place like an accessible interior pocket. If you plan to do a lot of cold-weather shooting, make sure the camera accepts lithium batteries; they offer considerably improved cold-weather performance over alkaline batteries.    Dual, telephoto, and wide-angle autofocus lens cameras offer the greatest versatility for backcountry use.    If you canoe, kayak, or hike in wet or dusty conditions, consider a weatherproof model; it will resist the entry of dust, grit, condensa- tion, fog, and light rain. If you’re particularly fond of bad weather, take a hard look at the more water- and weather-resistant waterproof cameras.    If you plan to take self-portraits or long exposures, be sure the camera has a self-timer and tripod socket. [DESCRIPTION OF CAMERAS FOLLOWS]: [All are autofocus, with programmed auto metering, autowind, autoload, and autorewind. All weights are without batteries.] [Prices not given]                                                            A-Self timer                                                            B-Tripod socket                                                            C-Weatherproof                                                            D-Waterproof Model     Lens     DX     Flash      Size      Weight   Battery   A  B  C  D Canon   |Zoom XL  |50- | Auto with   6"x3.6"   20.8 oz  two 3v    Y  Y  N  N Sureshot|39mm f3.6|3200| backlight    x2.6"    (590 g)  lithium         |  to     |    | correction         |85mm f7.3|    | Minolta |Dual 35mm|100-| Yes (can    5.8"x3"   14.1 oz  one 6v    N  N  Y  1 Weather-| f3.5 &  |1000| be dis-      x2.6"    (400 g)  lithium matic   |50mm f5.6|    | abled) Dual    |         |    | Nikon   |35mm f2.8|50- | Auto        5.2"x3.2" 17.0 oz  two 1.5v  Y  Y  Y  2 Action  |         |1600|              x2.2"    (482 g)  alkaline* Touch   |         |    | Olympus |Dual 35mm|50- | Auto with   5"x2.5"x  7.9 oz   one 6v    Y  Y  Y  N Infinity|f3.5 &   |3200| backlight     1.8"    (224 g)  lithium Twin    |70mm f6.3|    | correction Pentax  |Super    |25- | Auto with   5.7"x3.3" 24 oz    two 3v    Y  Y  N  N IQZoom  |38mm f4  |3200| backlight     2.6"    (680 g)  lithium 105     |to 105mm |    | correction         | f7.8    |    | Ricoh   |Zoom     |64- | Auto with   5.5"x2.9" 12.7 oz  one 6v    Y  Y  N  N Shot-   |38mm f3.5|3200| backlight    x2.1"    (360 g)  lithium master  | to      |    | correction Zoom    |76mm f6.7|    | Vivitar |35mm f5.6|100-| Auto        4.2"x2"   7 oz     one 3v    Y  Y  N  N AF 1000 |         |1000|              x2.5"    (198 g)  lithium Yashica | Built-in|64- | Auto with   5.1"x2.7" 9.7 oz   one 6v    Y  Y  Y  N   T-3   |CarlZeiss|1600| backlight    x2"      (275 g)  lithium         | 35mm    |    | footnotes: 1- Submersible to 15 feet            2- Submersible to 10 feet            *- No lithium batteries    CARDBOARD AND DISPOSABLE: SINGLE-USE CAMERAS    Have you ever wanted to haul your SLR out in a downpour or expose your point-and-shoot to a 40 mph sandblasting, just to get a few exposures of how well your tent was holding up (and your tentmate wasn’t)? "No way!" you say. "Water, sand, and cameras just don’t mix!" How about letting the kids loose with a lens for a while? "Even worse!" you say. "They’d be back with a bag of broken glass and a few mangled gears."    Now there’s an answer: the new single-use cameras.    These lightweight and inexpensive one-way cameras are constructed of a cardboard box with a plastic interior. They come already loaded with film and produce suprisingly good-quality images with a plastic fixed-focal- length lens and fixed-speed shutter.    Two members of Kodak’s family of single-use cameras are of particular interest to backpackers. They’re each priced under $14.00 [U.S.], weigh around three ounces, and offer features previously available only in expensive specialty cameras.    My favorite is the panoramic Stretch 35. The camera comes with 12 exposures of Kodak Gold 200 and uses a 25mm f12 lens to produce 3.5"-by-10" pictures – twice the width of standard negative.    A great backup for stormy weather is the Weekend 35. This waterproof camera comes with 24 exposures of Kodak Gold 400 and is wrapped in a durable plastic cover that will keep things dry to a depth of 10 feet.    The obvious question in this time of overflowing landfills is why would BACKPACKER plug a throwaway product? "These aren’t throwaways," says Kodak spokesman Mike Sullivan. "It’s a closed loop – the cameras come back for processing." Early this year, Kodak established a program to help photo- finishers recycle 35mm casettes and plastic film canisters, and as we went to press, they were finalizing plans to recycle the plastic interiors of their single-use cameras. "At first, it’s going to cost us more money," admits Sullivan, "but it’s obviously the right thing to do." End of article.

Response:

    With the number of threads recurring on this matter, wouldn’t it have been easier had we had a backpacking cameras FAQ? =20

=09I would like one too! If there is r.b FAQ, I’m ready to give my 2cents for it. =09Tapio V=E4ist=F6

Response:

    With the number of threads recurring on this matter, wouldn’t it have been easier had we had a backpacking cameras FAQ?                                                   Matt Delevoryas

Response:

I am out in the elements a lot and the Pentax IQ-Zoom WR is the best thing out there.  It has all of the features of any other camera and is more or less waterproof (but won’t ‘take’ pictures underwater).  I use it WW kayaking and have had no trouble with it. True, it only goes down to 32mm, but zooms to 90mm and has a remote for doing those still shots where you need a cable. Happy shooting (pictures)! Robb

Response:

I am out in the elements a lot and the Pentax IQ-Zoom WR is the best thing out there.  It has all of the features of any other camera and is more or less waterproof (but won’t ‘take’ pictures underwater).  I use it WW kayaking and have had no trouble with it.

I have this camera as well. It has been submerged both with the power off and with the power on and lens out (a no-no according to the manual and the guy who sold it to me) and is still OK.  Mine has been pretty well abused, and has held up well and takes really good shots for a compact "point and shoot".  I’ve recommended it to a few of my friends and would not hesitate do do so again.

Response:

I own the Olympus IS-100 (European version of the IS-10). It is an perfect camera with a fine lense. I bought an convertor so the zoom range is 28-180mm. You are right it is relatively bulky, but the weight is low. In Europe they now sell a newer version of the IS-100, it has a longer range in time (till 60 sec)

Response:

I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking.  I

I just purchased one for mountaineering, backpacking and rock climbing.   At that time (last summer) there wasn’t a good waterproof or water resistant camera with the important features all there so don’t be surprised if you can’t get that feature. Look for a zoom that covers pretty wide (say 35 or less) to get those landscapes and greater than 80 (say 100) for zooming in on more distant subjects.  That will narrow selections down quite a bit.  I also required some feature that allows me to bracket or over/underexpose in steps so I can correct for bright backgrounds, etc.  You can’t take decent pictures without that or some monkeying around (sometimes you can fake out the exposure by locking on another scene–yuck what fun).  There are only about two cameras with that capability.  Similarly, the ability to use a fill flash is quite useful. You need a timer so you can jump into the photo.  A camera that beeps or flashes (beep is better) as the timer countsdown helps prevent those shots of you coming back to see if it took the picture yet. The one I got is expensive–Nikon ZoomTouch 800 but it works great. Now, if you asked me what I’d like if I could design my own camera for backpacking… Brian C. Wadell Guided Wave Solutions RF, uW, and Test Hardware and Software (617)-942-WAVE

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking.  I have read a lot and looked at several different cameras, but I am still uncertain how to handle the trade-offs among size, weight, weatherproofing, features (such as zoom lenses), and lens quality.  At one end is the minimalist Yashica Super T4 (weatherproof, compact light, excellent lens quality, fixed 35 mm focal length); in the middle is the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer (not weatherproof, good lens quality, 28-70 mm zoom, relatively compact); at the other end is the Olympus iS-10 (relatively bulky, 28-110 mm zoom, not weatherproof, LOTS of features).  (I like the idea of having a 28 mm wide-angle focal length available for scenery shots.)  And there are other cameras scattered along this continuum as well, and probably lots that I haven’t even thought of. So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA. I’ve used the Yashica  T4 (including Date Stamp feature) for about 3 years on my backpacking trips (about 120 days).  Have found it to be more than adequate for my basic "point-and-shoot" interest.  Would not hesitate to recommend it to any non-hobbyist/professional whose interest is also in a basic "point-and-shoot" camera.

I just bought the new Super Yashica T4 and got my first prints back from an ice climbing trip.  The pictures were equal to the quality from my larger olympus IS3 that also takes great phots.  I was really impressed wither  small size the the T-4; fits in a shirt pocket while climbing. Bob —        Bob Broeking in Montgomery,AL (I am only here 8 months)      " I’ll get the rope…" Anderl Hinterstoisser, North Face of the

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking.  I have read a lot and looked at several different cameras, but I am still uncertain how to handle the trade-offs among size, weight, weatherproofing, features (such as zoom lenses), and lens quality.  At one end is the minimalist Yashica Super T4 (weatherproof, compact light, excellent lens quality, fixed 35 mm focal length); in the middle is the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer (not weatherproof, good lens quality, 28-70 mm zoom, relatively compact); at the other end is the Olympus iS-10 (relatively bulky, 28-110 mm zoom, not weatherproof, LOTS of features).  (I like the idea of having a 28 mm wide-angle focal length available for scenery shots.)  And there are other cameras scattered along this continuum as well, and probably lots that I haven’t even thought of. So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA.

I’ve used the Yashica  T4 (including Date Stamp feature) for about 3 years on my backpacking trips (about 120 days).  Have found it to be more than adequate for my basic "point-and-shoot" interest.  Would not hesitate to recommend it to any non-hobbyist/professional whose interest is also in a basic "point-and-shoot" camera. Previously used a slightly larger/heavier camera with a zoom option. Found that I seldom benefited from use of the zoom and have concluded that it merely added to weight without corresponding benefit. bond  My opinion is neither copyrighted nor trademarked, and it’s  price competitive.  If you like, I’ll trade for one of yours.

Response:

I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking. So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA.

I travelled for half a year through Indonesia and Australia, which are quite moist and hot countries. In Indonesia we have been into the jungle on Sumatra and Irian Jaya. Before we went I asked the same question. Should I bring a very light camera or an waterproof one, etc. I had very good experience with my Canon equipment (AE-1), but I wanted something lighter and auto-focus. I want good quality shots but the journey is more important. I got the newest Canon EOS camera, the EOS-5, together with two lenses from Canon: 28-80 zoom and 75-300 zoom. I also took the flash-light 430EZ, because of the low capacity of the build in one. I also took some filters, of which I used the polarisation-filter most. My camera never failed one moment! It’s now 3 years old and still operating perfectly. The lenses however are a bit of a compromise between weight and functionality. — With kindest regards, Edwin van Ree. Just being happy with my NT powered machine, if not in my Lycoming powered one

Response:

I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking. snip- So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA.

I bought a Pentax 928 (?), their top-of-the-line point-and-shoot.  I really wanted a waterproof/resistant camera, but found most of them limited.  The 928 has a 28-90 zoom; I agree with Steve that anything longer than a 28mm lens is inadequate for "scenery" shots. The 28mm lens requirement eliminates at least half of the point-and-shoots.   Another feature I find critical is over or under exposure capability.  It is a critical feature if you shoot lots of photos in snow (I’m in Idaho).  I bracket alot of shots (i.e., shoot the same shot normally and with an under and over exposure) to increase my odds of getting the shot just right.  The 928 is pretty small and is completely loaded.  As far as toughness; I’ve only had it 9 months, but it’s been fly fishing, skiing, backpacking, etc. and has exceeded my expectations (e.g., doing a face plant with it in my fanny pack while skiing).  My dealer will handle all warranty work, so even if I have a problem, they’ll deal with it and I avoid the hassle.  To fantastic photos….

Response:

I am looking for a point-and-shoot camera to take backpacking and trekking.  I have read a lot and looked at several different cameras, but I am still uncertain how to handle the trade-offs among size, weight, weatherproofing, features (such as zoom lenses), and lens quality.  At one end is the minimalist Yashica Super T4 (weatherproof, compact light, excellent lens quality, fixed 35 mm focal length); in the middle is the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer (not weatherproof, good lens quality, 28-70 mm zoom, relatively compact); at the other end is the Olympus iS-10 (relatively bulky, 28-110 mm zoom, not weatherproof, LOTS of features).  (I like the idea of having a 28 mm wide-angle focal length available for scenery shots.)  And there are other cameras scattered along this continuum as well, and probably lots that I haven’t even thought of. So… What camera do you use?  What would you recommend?  What have been your experiences?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  TIA.

Response:

Question:

Forget it. Nothing but frustration in store for you. Get some float tubes instead.

Response:

I would like some information regarding the usefullneess of this boat for two persons flyfishing. Specifically:

Response: