Next time make mine turbo

Morne

Morne

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
699
Display Name
Display name:
Morne
Crossed Lake Michigan today coming home. Eastbound I was at 11.5k and she just didn't want to climb to 13.5k. Yeah, we were heavier than average with a week's worth of bags and the shopping done by my wife. Still, when over open water I like altitude.

Don't get me wrong, I love my NA 182. Being east of the Mississippi I heeded folks who said that you don't NEED turbo. But the more I fly these long (500+ nm) trips over sparse areas and/or open water the more I want to be in the flight levels. Once I finish my instrument rating there is no reason not to be up there.

Yeah, yeah - turbo equals more maintenance. So what. It also gives more piece of mind. Next time I will buy a turbo bird. Lesson learned.
 
Morne said:
Crossed Lake Michigan today coming home. Eastbound I was at 11.5k and she just didn't want to climb to 13.5k. Yeah, we were heavier than average with a week's worth of bags and the shopping done by my wife. Still, when over open water I like altitude.

Don't get me wrong, I love my NA 182. Being east of the Mississippi I heeded folks who said that you don't NEED turbo. But the more I fly these long (500+ nm) trips over sparse areas and/or open water the more I want to be in the flight levels. Once I finish my instrument rating there is no reason not to be up there.

Yeah, yeah - turbo equals more maintenance. So what. It also gives more piece of mind. Next time I will buy a turbo bird. Lesson learned.
Click to expand...

And it keeps you above some TCU, or at least allows you to fly between at a safe distance, especially if you can get to FL250.
 
It certainly gives you a lot more options. I think you need a TN Bonanza. :)

I love spending other people's money.
 
Unless you're pressurized, which is obviously an option, there are numerous reasons to to be up there.

Morne said:
Crossed Lake Michigan today coming home. Eastbound I was at 11.5k and she just didn't want to climb to 13.5k. Yeah, we were heavier than average with a week's worth of bags and the shopping done by my wife. Still, when over open water I like altitude.

Don't get me wrong, I love my NA 182. Being east of the Mississippi I heeded folks who said that you don't NEED turbo. But the more I fly these long (500+ nm) trips over sparse areas and/or open water the more I want to be in the flight levels. Once I finish my instrument rating there is no reason not to be up there.

Yeah, yeah - turbo equals more maintenance. So what. It also gives more piece of mind. Next time I will buy a turbo bird. Lesson learned.
Click to expand...
 
When I had the Turbo Viking I did FL210 on a couple of occasions. I discovered what I ate the night before in uncomfortable ways. 16 & 17k are practical limits for non-pressurized aircraft. It will still get you above most nimbostratus. High enough to see and avoid.
 
Can't be that high without oxygen anyway. I've crossed the lake a bunch of times at 10.5 or 11.5K. The aircraft doesn't know the difference, and it doesn't bother me any.

My most memorable flight across took place East to West to avoid thunderstorms, and was utterly unplanned. It was also one of the most gorgeous things I've ever seen with my own eyes, the lake cleared of mist and haze, looking like a giant pond. I did have to contemplate what to do if the mill quit. If I couldn't glide to shore which was worse, blunt force trauma, drowning, or slow hypothermia. Certainly passes the time.
 
steingar said:
Can't be that high without oxygen anyway. I've crossed the lake a bunch of times at 10.5 or 11.5K. The aircraft doesn't know the difference, and it doesn't bother me any.

My most memorable flight across took place East to West to avoid thunderstorms, and was utterly unplanned. It was also one of the most gorgeous things I've ever seen with my own eyes, the lake cleared of mist and haze, looking like a giant pond. I did have to contemplate what to do if the mill quit. If I couldn't glide to shore which was worse, blunt force trauma, drowning, or slow hypothermia. Certainly passes the time.
Click to expand...

When I'm out over the ocean, I look for boats.
 
We flew across Lake Michigan at 8k. No problem. In the Cherokee Six. There was 20 minutes of "we'll just have to land in the lake and hope for the best" We were on an IFR flight plan so it wouldn't have taken long for ATC to get someone to us.
 
saracelica said:
We were on an IFR flight plan so it wouldn't have taken long for ATC to get someone to us.
Click to expand...

I had no illusions about the latter. It takes time for the Coast Guard to spool up a helicopter, and even more for them to get a boat out my way. And it takes time for them to become informed of the situation. I don't think you have more than about 30 minutes in Lake Michigan before you become utterly useless unless you have a survival suit. I have no hopes whatsoever of rescue if I go down there.

Didn't see any boats last time I did it either.
 
We were already sucking oxygen from my portable bottle. I always use it above 10K just to help feel better when I arrive (use a finger pulse oximeter at 10K on yourself and you'll do the same).

So having to suck oxygen is not a drawback for me. I do it routinely already. Pressurized would be nice, as would multi-engine, but we'll see. I have four (4) years until I can afford to feed my next step up.
 
steingar said:
I had no illusions about the latter. It takes time for the Coast Guard to spool up a helicopter, and even more for them to get a boat out my way. And it takes time for them to become informed of the situation. I don't think you have more than about 30 minutes in Lake Michigan before you become utterly useless unless you have a survival suit. I have no hopes whatsoever of rescue if I go down there.

Didn't see any boats last time I did it either.
Click to expand...
I think it's a good thing to be aware of the realities of this risky activity we engage in. Beyond that, I don't spend time worrying about crossing the lakes any more than I do about flying at night, which based on sheer time of exposure is much likelier to be when my engine quits, and the consequences of which would likely be equally as dire. I have only slightly more than zero hope of rescue before dying of my injuries if I go down at night almost anywhere in Michigan outside the city.
 
You just need a super 172. I hear they get up to FL190
 
azure said:
I think it's a good thing to be aware of the realities of this risky activity we engage in. Beyond that, I don't spend time worrying about crossing the lakes any more than I do about flying at night, which based on sheer time of exposure is much likelier to be when my engine quits, and the consequences of which would likely be equally as dire. I have only slightly more than zero hope of rescue before dying of my injuries if I go down at night almost anywhere in Michigan outside the city.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to decide if I'd be better off just jumping out of the Flybaby at night versus trying to land it if I had a catastrophic engine failure at my typical 8,000 ft cruise.

I've got about a 5:1 glide ratio so I've got about a 6 mile glide at best from that altitude. I also have no landing lights.

But..touching down..is done very slowly and I do have a four point harness. Decisions, decisions :)
 
jesse said:
I've been trying to decide if I'd be better off just jumping out of the Flybaby at night versus trying to land it if I had a catastrophic engine failure at my typical 8,000 ft cruise.

But..touching down..is done very slowly and I do have a four point harness. Decisions, decisions :)
Click to expand...

That's just plain silly! Everyone knows to go inverted at 15 AGL. That way, when the aircraft wants to flip at touchdown (they always do), you'll be right side up again! Problems solved!:D
 
jesse said:
I've been trying to decide if I'd be better off just jumping out of the Flybaby at night versus trying to land it if I had a catastrophic engine failure at my typical 8,000 ft cruise.

I've got about a 5:1 glide ratio so I've got about a 6 mile glide at best from that altitude. I also have no landing lights.

But..touching down..is done very slowly and I do have a four point harness. Decisions, decisions :)
Click to expand...

If you hold the stick back at stall plus 5 and drop in that attitude, what is your descent rate? Survivable?
 
airguy said:
If you hold the stick back at stall plus 5 and drop in that attitude, what is your descent rate? Survivable?
Click to expand...
Like a brick, you'd be toast. It's 5:1 glide ratio at best glide.

The bigger problem is if you hit something or flip it. Flipping it and starting on fire would be a bad ending.
 
jesse said:
Like a brick, you'd be toast. It's 5:1 glide ratio at best glide.

The bigger problem is if you hit something or flip it. Flipping it and starting on fire would be a bad ending.
Click to expand...

I know you aren't truly worried about a deadstick at night, but I do have a question: is there enough room in there for you to wear a parachute and still fit in the seat?
 
jesse said:
I've been trying to decide if I'd be better off just jumping out of the Flybaby at night versus trying to land it if I had a catastrophic engine failure at my typical 8,000 ft cruise.
Click to expand...

I would if I had one. My mill goes quit, I fly it to the landing or the crash. Up to Murphy which it will be.
 
spiderweb said:
I know you aren't truly worried about a deadstick at night, but I do have a question: is there enough room in there for you to wear a parachute and still fit in the seat?
Click to expand...

He posted photos. Yup. He's a skinny dude. ;)
 
spiderweb said:
I know you aren't truly worried about a deadstick at night, but I do have a question: is there enough room in there for you to wear a parachute and still fit in the seat?
Click to expand...

I wear a parachute every time I fly it with a PLB attached to the parachute. Hence why I wonder if I'd be better off to just jump out if I had an engine failure at night.

The blue thing behind me is a parachute:
576965_3758235195848_669616072_n.jpg
 
azure said:
I think it's a good thing to be aware of the realities of this risky activity we engage in. Beyond that, I don't spend time worrying about crossing the lakes any more than I do about flying at night, which based on sheer time of exposure is much likelier to be when my engine quits, and the consequences of which would likely be equally as dire. I have only slightly more than zero hope of rescue before dying of my injuries if I go down at night almost anywhere in Michigan outside the city.
Click to expand...
Night flying is another routine part of my mission. I often fly over West Virginia and southeast Ohio after sunset. While the mountains are not very high the land is still not smooth. Furthermore, the number of airports to instantly divert to is not very great. Casually reviewing my normal business flight I see 3 stretches of more than 20nm where I am outside of my glide range from an airport while over rocky terrain at night.

Now if I have turbo I can effectively double my glide range by doubling my AGL. Options grow with this approach and dangerous gaps shrink. I like that.

In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that for me and my mission a turbo is a bigger helper than a second engine. Why? Because relying on a second (NA) engine to get you out of hot water presumes that you didn't do the most common engine stoppage trick - run out of fuel! Even if I run my turbo bird at FL190-200 dry as a politician's brainpan it'll still GLIDE plenty far enough for the places I typically fly.

Of course, a multi-engine turbo would be the perfect, if most expensive, answer.
 
Looks to me like all you need is a combine head and that thing would pay for itself in about a week.

jesse said:
I wear a parachute every time I fly it with a PLB attached to the parachute. Hence why I wonder if I'd be better off to just jump out if I had an engine failure at night.

The blue thing behind me is a parachute:
576965_3758235195848_669616072_n.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Morne, I've been up to 16.5 in an NA O-470 C182. It sure took a while, but it was "doable". Service ceiling on that bird was 17,200 IIRC.

Just takes patience.

That having been said, I have TWO turbos....
 
Morne said:
Crossed Lake Michigan today coming home. Eastbound I was at 11.5k and she just didn't want to climb to 13.5k. Yeah, we were heavier than average with a week's worth of bags and the shopping done by my wife. Still, when over open water I like altitude.

Don't get me wrong, I love my NA 182. Being east of the Mississippi I heeded folks who said that you don't NEED turbo. But the more I fly these long (500+ nm) trips over sparse areas and/or open water the more I want to be in the flight levels. Once I finish my instrument rating there is no reason not to be up there.

Yeah, yeah - turbo equals more maintenance. So what. It also gives more piece of mind. Next time I will buy a turbo bird. Lesson learned.
Click to expand...


Meh, our 206 will go full gross up to 18k if needed. The turbo is just another point of failure that I'd rather go without.

Rock solid at low alt > Maintenance queen at high alt
 
jesse said:
I wear a parachute every time I fly it with a PLB attached to the parachute. Hence why I wonder if I'd be better off to just jump out if I had an engine failure at night.

The blue thing behind me is a parachute:
576965_3758235195848_669616072_n.jpg
Click to expand...

So my next question would then be, do people regularly mow that grass strip from which you are about to take off?
 
bbchien said:
Morne, I've been up to 16.5 in an NA O-470 C182. It sure took a while, but it was "doable". Service ceiling on that bird was 17,200 IIRC.

Just takes patience.

That having been said, I have TWO turbos....
Click to expand...

. . . attached to a beautiful, almost perfect airplane!
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Meh, our 206 will go full gross up to 18k if needed. The turbo is just another point of failure that I'd rather go without.

Rock solid at low alt > Maintenance queen at high alt
Click to expand...

You don't have a "late model" 206, I'd bet.
 
Another option would be DiamondStar DA40. Glide ratio 8.8 i.e. 1.45NM for each 1000ft altitude with windmilling prop and with stationary prop 10.3 I.e. 1.7NM. Max demonstrated operating altitude 16,400ft gives above 23NM radius.
 
There is a reason I fly a twin - I'm surrounded by water..
While I have made the trips across single engine and way up high many times, I prefer having two fans and spend the time sight seeing instead of calculating every 60 seconds whether to turn back or go ahead if the fan quits in the next 60 seconds...
Door County is gorgeous
Beaver Island is remote and wild
Mackinac Island is scenic
Drummond Island is paradise
Lake Erie is full of islands
All well worth the gas to go see...
 
Dr. O said:
There is a reason I fly a twin - I'm surrounded by water..
While I have made the trips across single engine and way up high many times, I prefer having two fans and spend the time sight seeing instead of calculating every 60 seconds whether to turn back or go ahead if the fan quits in the next 60 seconds...
Door County is gorgeous
Beaver Island is remote and wild
Mackinac Island is scenic
Drummond Island is paradise
Lake Erie is full of islands
All well worth the gas to go see...
Click to expand...
It's all a question of personal risk tolerance. I'm surrounded by the same water, but I've gone to most of the above places in a single. My philosophy is that I'd rather die doing something I love than in a nursing home, looking back on a life where I was too afraid to do the things I really wanted to do, because I insisted that I needed to buy something I really couldn't afford first. I just couldn't afford to operate a twin.
 
azure said:
It's all a question of personal risk tolerance. I'm surrounded by the same water, but I've gone to most of the above places in a single. My philosophy is that I'd rather die doing something I love than in a nursing home, looking back on a life where I was too afraid to do the things I really wanted to do, because I insisted that I needed to buy something I really couldn't afford first. I just couldn't afford to operate a twin.
Click to expand...
See, I am WILLING to cross that water and the Appalachians at night in a NA single, but I would RATHER have more safety margin.

I have crossed that lake before at the same altitude. But every other time, I was with another pilot. A kindred soul who understands and accepts the risks we all do. This was the first water crossing with a non-pilot in the right seat, and more importantly that passenger was my wife!

I can tolerate risk. Back in my slimmer days I used to go rock climbing. But I don't like putting that risk onto others, especially my family.

Does that mean I don't fly with my honey? Of course not. But what it does mean is that I should make every reasonable effort to minimize those risks. Adding altitude so as to be able to glide to a safe destination is reasonable. Buying a more capable craft when funds allow is also reasonable.

Four years from now, when the house is paid off, I will be able to afford to operate a twin. I just hope the market for twins stays depressed that long...
 
I routinely flew the Great Lakes area for 20-odd years and haven't crossed the lake yet. In the big scheme of things, how big a deal is it to just fly around it?

Back home we called it "drawing bulls-eyes around the bullet holes."

Morne said:
See, I am WILLING to cross that water and the Appalachians at night in a NA single, but I would RATHER have more safety margin.

I have crossed that lake before at the same altitude. But every other time, I was with another pilot. A kindred soul who understands and accepts the risks we all do. This was the first water crossing with a non-pilot in the right seat, and more importantly that passenger was my wife!

I can tolerate risk. Back in my slimmer days I used to go rock climbing. But I don't like putting that risk onto others, especially my family.

Does that mean I don't fly with my honey? Of course not. But what it does mean is that I should make every reasonable effort to minimize those risks. Adding altitude so as to be able to glide to a safe destination is reasonable. Buying a more capable craft when funds allow is also reasonable.

Four years from now, when the house is paid off, I will be able to afford to operate a twin. I just hope the market for twins stays depressed that long...
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I routinely flew the Great Lakes area for 20-odd years and haven't crossed the lake yet. In the big scheme of things, how big a deal is it to just fly around it?

Back home we called it "drawing bulls-eyes around the bullet holes."
Click to expand...
I fly direct as often as possible. I go around the lake if ceilings are low or winds are against me.

Besides, going across at 10k+ you can keep flight following, try that detouring around Chicago!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top