what do I need to know about buying a new experimental airplane?

[James331]

Max_reason, just wanted to share what I mapped out in ForeFlight. But knowing that you would be carrying 300 liters (79.25 gallons) of fuel, and assuming you took off from Santa Ana (KSNA) and did a direct flight to Hilo (PHKO), I mapped these scenarios. (Note that at the time of this writing, the headwinds were lowest from 1,000-4,500 AGL (1 knot) and got worse at altitude. 10,500-12,000 was about 9 knot headwind.)

That being said, the images are below for you to review. Two scenarios at the 148 knot cruise with a very generous 5 gph fuel burn. I suspect fuel burn will be higher at that cruise speed. And one scenario at 130 knots at 4.2 gph (which is what I found on the internet as the published fuel burn rate at that 75% cruise speed.)

What I see is pretty concerning. Specifically:

1) At 148 knots and a low altitude for more favorable headwinds, (which I would HATE to do over open ocean) you would land with 4 gallons remaining in supremely optimal conditions.

2) At 148 knots and a high altitude (9 knot headwinds) you will have .35 gallons (1/3 of a gallon!) of fuel remaining... if it is at all usable. And this is against the FAA flight rules for having a safe amount of fuel to complete a mission (which is 1 hour of fuel remaining for night flights which yours would most likely be.)

3). At 130 knots (most economical cruise) and 4.2 gph fuel burn at 4,500 feet AGL, you’d need 17 hours and burn 72.1 gallons under optimal conditions, leaving 7.1 gallons.

This is straight line to the nearest airport in Hawaii (Hilo). No change of course for weather, no climbs (higher fuel burn) once at altitude... like I said, best case scenario.

For me, these odds are pretty slim and I’d plunk down cash for a commercial flight and rent a plane in Hawaii. Or ship the plane via cargo ship.


View attachment 69292
View attachment 69289

View attachment 69293

Yuup

Just get a certified plane with ferry tanks, but even then you still have all the other issues, mostly with the PIC

 

[Greg Bockelman]

One is not committed until the point of no return

And then if the winds turn against you, you land short in the water.

before I try a 3800km flight across the ocean,

Where are you from? We in the aviation world use nautical miles or maybe statute miles, not kilometers.

Where would I get one of these radios that communicate from anywhere? Are they a type of avionics transceiver?

It is just a standard HF radio. I would think there are avionics shops that could set you up with one.

For sure cumulus clouds can extend above 23,000 feet, but usually not,

No offense, but I think you don't know what you don't know.

One can compute in gallons per hours and speed, or one can compute in miles per gallon at specified speed (cruise speed or economy speed). I don't see the difference when the question is "will we make it?".

How do you compute miles per gallon when you can't be sure of what your ground speed will be? Winds can and do change over the course of 2,000 miles.

-cut-

Sigh. I wish you well. You have a TON more homework to do.

 

[James331]

I look forward to reading more on kathryns report

 

[max_reason]

Max_reason, just wanted to share what I mapped out in ForeFlight. But knowing that you would be carrying 300 liters (79.25 gallons) of fuel, and assuming you took off from Santa Ana (KSNA) and did a direct flight to Hilo (PHKO), I mapped these scenarios. (Note that at the time of this writing, the headwinds were lowest from 1,000-4,500 AGL (1 knot) and got worse at altitude. 10,500-12,000 was about 9 knot headwind.)

That being said, the images are below for you to review. Two scenarios at the 148 knot cruise with a very generous 5 gph fuel burn. I suspect fuel burn will be higher at that cruise speed. And one scenario at 130 knots at 4.2 gph (which is what I found on the internet as the published fuel burn rate at that 75% cruise speed.)

What I see is pretty concerning. Specifically:

1) At 148 knots and a low altitude for more favorable headwinds, (which I would HATE to do over open ocean) you would land with 4 gallons remaining in supremely optimal conditions.

2) At 148 knots and a high altitude (9 knot headwinds) you will have .35 gallons (1/3 of a gallon!) of fuel remaining... if it is at all usable. And this is against the FAA flight rules for having a safe amount of fuel to complete a mission (which is 1 hour of fuel remaining for night flights which yours would most likely be.)

3). At 130 knots (most economical cruise) and 4.2 gph fuel burn at 4,500 feet AGL, you’d need 17 hours and burn 72.1 gallons under optimal conditions, leaving 7.1 gallons.

This is straight line to the nearest airport in Hawaii (Hilo). No change of course for weather, no climbs (higher fuel burn) once at altitude... like I said, best case scenario.

For me, these odds are pretty slim and I’d plunk down cash for a commercial flight and rent a plane in Hawaii. Or ship the plane via cargo ship.

View attachment 69292
View attachment 69289
View attachment 69293

Okay, a few comments. Santa Ana to Hilo is roughly 3990km. Monterey to Hilo is roughly 3735km. I'm not saying that is a huge difference, but that is a 255km == 155 mile difference, which is something. In terms of fuel, that is roughly 3 gallons. Again, not much in the greater scheme of things, but worth knowing. And, as far as I'm concerned, more than sufficient reason to leave from Monterey instead of Santa Ana in an extreme case like this. I know it seems Santa Ana should be closer than Monterey, but the coast of California is not north-south, the coast extends quite a bit further west as you move north, and thus locations like Monterey are closer to Hawaii, even though Hawaii is well south of anywhere in California.

I'm not sure where you got your numbers. Please refer to page 5 of this PDF document. There you will see (in the left column) that 75% throttle "cruise speed" is 147 knots == 273kph and the fuel consumption at 75% throttle "cruise speed" is 15.7 liters per hour == 4.2 gallons per hour. It also states "endurance" at 75 throttle "cruise speed" == 5.8 hours. This is for the standard fuel tanks, which are 100 liters, which is 1/3 as much fuel as the optional "extreme range" tanks contain (which is what we are considering here). Therefore, if you just take their numbers (5.8 hours * 3 == 17.4 hours @ 273kph) == 4750km range, compared to the actual distance of 3735km. Therefore the range is roughly 1000km more than the actual distance of 3735km. 1000km/3735km == 26.7% safety margin. This safety margin would be eliminated by a constant 40 knot headwind.

Note that this does not consider that substantially better fuel economy is achieved at the "economy speed" of 240kph. This does not consider that better fuel economy is achieved at high altitudes (11,000 to 16,000 feet). This also assumes I do not carry an additional 20 to 25 gallons in fuel bladders in the cockpit (where a connect exists to pump fuel from fuel bladders into the tanks). I hope to not need these fuel bladders, but obviously if test flights indicate I do, then I would take them. An extra 20 gallons of fuel @ 4.2 gallons per hours == 4.75 hours more flying time @ 273kph == 1300km additional range, which is an additional 34.8% safety margin. As I said, I hope to not need to carry additional filled fuel bladders, but I could if my 6 months of experiments before flying across the ocean indicate I should.

I'm not sure where you got your numbers. Maybe you think pipistrel is lying. However, every owner I have figures from indicate they get better fuel economy than is claimed in the pipistrel document, and they all agree that they get even better fuel economy at lower speeds (hitting maximum fuel economy at 220kph ~ 240kph, depending on owner). Those who tried also get better fuel economy at 11,000 feet to 16,000 feet altitude, but many don't have oxygen and thus haven't tried this experiment.

I have said this many times already, but I must repeat this again. The standard pipistrel virus is powered by a Rotax 912UL or 912ULS engine. The airplane I am quoting is powered by a Rotax 912iS Sport engine which gets 25% to 33% better fuel economy due to its fuel injection and modern computer control system (compared to the other engines which are standard old-style carburetors without computer control). So if you pull data off the internet and don't make sure you are reading data for the Rotax 912iS engine... your calculations will be 25% to 33% worse. That's roughly what your numbers look like.

I appreciate the great effort you went to. I really do. But your inputs appear to be wrong, due to the wrong choice of source data. Take a look at the PDF file that I provided a link to above. If you don't want to account for flying at the more efficient "economy speed", fine. If you don't want to account for the more efficient "higher altitude" flying, fine. If you don't want to account for additional fuel bladders, fine. But at least account for the actual engine that will power the airplane.

When you do that, I believe you'll find that ~25% safety margin is correct. Maybe that's not sufficient. Maybe you're correct that accounting for headwinds and accounting for zigzags to avoid tall clouds here and there requires more than 25% margin to be sufficiently safe. If so, I'll have to bring along 5 or 10 or 20 more gallons in fuel bladders. I don't want to... but I could. And I will if the safety margin is too low.

 

[rtk11]

I don’t think that Pipistrel is lying. I just took available information that was on the web. However you must know that fuel burn with a heavy load will be much higher than a lighter load. And your speed will be lower with a heavy load than a lighter load.

Whatever the case may be, I think the pilot community here is trying to advise you to be extremely conservative. I’ve got no dog in this hunt and mapped a course out of interest. But whatever guidance you choose to take, good luck to you.

 

[max_reason]

So, let’s say you LEGALLY do it VFR.

You’re going to get to a point of no return, ie after which point you can not turn back and make land.

So you’re buzzing along and along and along, cross that point and viz goes to 6, 3, 2, 1, IMC. What’s your call go VFR into IMC and likely lawn dart and die (number 1 cause of death in GA) or turn back and crash VMC into the ocean?

If you can’t go IFR you’re playing the odds in a bad way, and you’re already playing the odds bud.

Well, the instrumentation I specified includes GPS, moving maps, synthetic vision (not that there are many mountains in the pacific ocean), and autopilot. So my answer to your bad case scenario is the following. If I don't have enough fuel to zigzag around clouds, and therefore need to enter IMC in a disaster situation like you describe, then the autopilot (unless it is broken) will fly the airplane wings level to wherever I tell the autopilot to go. As long as there is SOMEPLACE within range (when the airplane gets [back] to California or Hawaii) where the clouds and fog do not extend all the way to the ground, then when I pop out the bottom of the clouds I can return to VFR flying. If literally everywhere has fog to the ground, I'm probably dead meat... though with GPS and synthetic vision for position and altitude, and the extreme slow speed the airplane can fly (especially when totally out of fuel), maybe I could "crash gently" right on (or next to) the runway of a big airport like Monterey? I mean, when everything goes wrong, why not try anything plausible? Or if some random grass covered mountaintop is sticking up through the clouds, this little sucker only needs 20~50 meters to land STOL style, which I used to be damn good at (and will be again before I fly across any ocean).

If you're talking about going past the point of no return, so I need to land in Hawaii, that is a better case. I lived on Maui for 16 years, and I don't think I ever saw even ONE day where the clouds and fog extended all the way down to ground level everywhere on the island (much less all the islands). That's just not how weather works in the Hawaiian islands. So this is similar to the case of turning around before the point of no return and returning to California (as described above). I'm not certain the same applies to south pacific islands, but from what I've heard, the weather behavior is similar.

To answer your specific question, if I really got into that situation where the choice was take my chances in IMC or surely crash in the ocean VFR... I would definitely go for the IMC option. The first reason is... I might not crash whereas the other option is certain crash. The second reason is... I got the GPS, synthetic vision and autopilot for precisely this reason (as well as other reasons). So the situation isn't like being completely blind in the fog where internal sensations can make you screw up. However, I will say that I had some IMC training as part of my private pilot training, and unlike most people I found it easier to trust the instruments than my internal sensations. Still, I would definitely not want to be in that kind of situation for hours and hours. That would be terribly dangerous without GPS and autopilot... even over the ocean where you can't run into an unexpected mountain.

As far as I'm concerned, ANY flight across an ocean is playing the odds. No question about that!

 

[James331]

Sigh...I’m not gonna to write for days.

For many in this forum going IMC is no big deal.

With that thought process of yours you will die

 

[max_reason]

I don’t think that Pipistrel is lying. I just took available information that was on the web. However you must know that fuel burn with a heavy load will be much higher than a lighter load. And your speed will be lower with a heavy load than a lighter load.

Whatever the case may be, I think the pilot community here is trying to advise you to be extremely conservative. I’ve got no dog in this hunt and mapped a course out of interest. But whatever guidance you choose to take, good luck to you.

Well, one reason the owners get better fuel economy is because they are rarely loaded up to the maximum weight... while the pipistrel numbers assume maximum weight.

I accept and appreciate the conservative nature of the people here. Believe me, when my life is on the line, I am conservative too. One factor that everyone seems to forget, even though I've stated it a few times, is that I will test all these supposed performance numbers for 6 months or more in my own airplane before trying an over-ocean trip. Therefore, I will have real numbers, and will act accordingly. If the real numbers are worse than pipistrel quotes, I think "no go" or "fuel bladders" will be the answer. If the real numbers are better than pipistrel quotes, and experiments indicate those other tricks (slower speed, higher altitude) increase the safety margin even further, then I will likely feel confident enough. I will, of course, also test the GPS, synthetic vision and autopilot in VFR while pretending I can't see anything... to see how well they can actually get me out of an IMC disaster... and even down to a few feet above a runway. I am a HUGE believer in first-hand observation and experimentation! So performing those observations is even more important to me than all the theory in the world.

 

[max_reason]

Sigh...I’m not gonna to write for days.

For many in this forum going IMC is no big deal.

With that thought process of yours you will die

I did well in IMC training during my private pilot training... probably because I trust instruments over my sensations more easily than most people. However, flying manually in IMC for several hours sounds like a fairly likely way to die, because it doesn't take too long to get an airplane into a nearly irrecoverable situation in IMC. Flying instruments in IMC for a few minutes seemed easy enough. For several hours, seems like too many opportunities to lose focus for a couple seconds.

I'm hoping the GPS + synthetic vision + autopilot (plus normal attitude instruments as a visual backup for me the pilot) will make longer periods in IMC much safer. But that remains to be seen, since I've never tried that before. Never had GPS, never had synthetic vision, never had autopilot. So I don't know how trustworthy or problematic they are.

Obviously flying in IMC for an IFR rated and practiced pilot should not be a big deal. But I don't have IFR rating, only VFR plus some practice flying in IMC (but not approach or landing IFR).

I'm not sure how much time is required to add IFR to my skillset. If it isn't too much, maybe I'll do that. I don't need to add much avionics to make the airplane fully IFR capable.

 

[max_reason]

Yuup

Just get a certified plane with ferry tanks, but even then you still have all the other issues, mostly with the PIC

Okay, let's be clear up front. You know it all, and I know nothing. What's more, even after I spend 6 months measuring the actual performance in the actual airplane, and accumulating performance statistics at lower speed (economy speed) and higher elevation (economy altitude), you will still know it all, and I will still know nothing.

I'm glad we understand each other. Also, obviously the PIC will destroy everything, no matter how great the weather is, no matter how many extra fuel bladders I bring, no matter how long I wait for perfect weather conditions and forecasts, no matter anything. I'm dead already. I might as well buy a gun and end my misery right now.

At least we're now clear about everything important.

 

[James331]

Okay, let's be clear up front. You know it all, and I know nothing. What's more, even after I spend 6 months measuring the actual performance in the actual airplane, and accumulating performance statistics at lower speed (economy speed) and higher elevation (economy altitude), you will still know it all, and I will still know nothing.

I'm glad we understand each other. Also, obviously the PIC will destroy everything, no matter how great the weather is, no matter how many extra fuel bladders I bring, no matter how long I wait for perfect weather conditions and forecasts, no matter anything. I'm dead already. I might as well buy a gun and end my misery right now.

At least we're now clear about everything important.

Affirmative

You are investing into a airplane first, this is your fatal failure, you should invest in the PIC first.

 

[max_reason]

Affirmative

You are investing into a airplane first, this is your fatal failure, you should invest in the PIC first.

That's what the first 6 months of flying in my new airplane are supposed to be for. But don't worry, I won't learn anything, because it won't matter. I'm dead already.

Note: I didn't post this message to get into these issues. I posted the message to figure out what category it needs to be and stuff like that. However, the conversation has gotten a bit off the wheels lately. You know, I can't practice on the airplane... until I get the airplane. And I can't get the airplane until I order the airplane. And I can't order the airplane until I resolve quite a few questions. So maybe we're getting the horse before the carriage a bit.

Once I know how to order the airplane, I'll have 5 months before delivery to get some more training. Then I'll have 6 months or more in the airplane, and that's lots of hours because I don't need to split my focus between job and flying. But somehow I should wait to order the airplane until... well... forever. Because I have to get all my practice on the airplane before I order the airplane. Anyone see a problem with that? Nah, must be my stupidity.

 

[WannFly]

Think OP has met all 4 out of 5 of the hazardous attitudes that FAA lists..... well at least he is not trying this before getting his PPL. Wait, that’s a diff thread with much shorter distance.

 

[max_reason]

Fortunately some people here tried to be helpful... and were helpful. At least I have that to be grateful for.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Interesting thread, and max_reason, I applaud your sense of adventure. You clearly have spent a lot of time researching and building your plan. And even if the legalities/practicalities don't work out as you planned, simply having given it a go is something to hang your hat on.

Speaking as an aviation safety researcher for the last 20 or so years, I want to bring up one thing. People have what is known as confirmation bias. People tend to excessively discount evidence against their stance and excessively accept evidence that confirms their stance. Think internet politics. Recognize that phenomenon, and do your best to really understand WHY people raise concerns with your plan.

One thing I have noticed is that you repeatedly mention being willing to wait weeks if the weather requires it. My 30 years of GA flying suggest that you are greatly underestimating the power of get-there-itis. Make sure you set personal weather/fuel minimums and stick to them always. And when you set them, recognize that the weather forecasts are like scouting reports. They say the Citadel can't play with Alabama point for point for an entire half, but the game is played on the field, not on paper. Weather forecasts are almost always wrong. Sometimes conditions are better than forecast, sometimes worse. Be prepared for "worse." Even "much worse."

Good luck on your adventures. I will read the book when it comes out!

 

[Ravioli]

Ravioli can't believe he's typing this:

@max_reason Have you looked into whether special permission to land on Midway Island is possible for your adventure? That would greatly increase your safety, and you only need perfect weather for half the route at a time.

Who knows, maybe they'll allow it to save them the trouble of shipping your body home after you drown.

Also, can you have the plane delivered to HI and fly it to CA after 6 months? Then you'd at least have the wind at your back and hulluva lot more over water flying time.

 

[rtk11]

Max_reason, I don’t know if you’ve flown one yet, but if not, I really would suggest you get some time in one. My recollection of the Virus is that the seating position is low to the floor with an outstretched leg position. You may want to spend some time in the plane as comfort may/may not be an issue.

In terms of the Virus with the 912is and fuel burn, here is the official Pipistrel supplement stating 4.2 gph at 75% cruise with the 912is and without the extended range tanks for extra weight (i.e. the 24.5 gallon, or 93 liter, tanks). See below.

Don’t forget to rig wiring to extend the range of your radios, and a handheld satellite phone and personal ELT may not be bad to add to your kit.

Good luck!

https://www.pipistrel.si/index.php?q=en/fajl/download/442_537255b6a3f6/Supplement Rotax912iS-1.pdf

 

[RyanShort1]

I'm thinking I'd want the motorglider variety and make sure that you order a 'chute - who knows, you might just luck out and be able to shut the engine off and thermal for a while, and then if you run out of gas a few miles from shore at least you don't have to try and ditch. Maybe think about floats, too.

Look, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but enthusiasm isn't going to get you far. I'm as big of a wannabe Pipistrel pilot as anyone (having flown the motorglider version), but I wouldn't even think of trying this. Someone mentioned the seat ergonomics - very, very valid point. That could get really old after 4 hours (I spend four hours in a Cardinal 177RG regularly).

 

[Bill Watson]

I did well in IMC training during my private pilot training... probably because I trust instruments over my sensations more easily than most people. However, flying manually in IMC for several hours sounds like a fairly likely way to die, because it doesn't take too long to get an airplane into a nearly irrecoverable situation in IMC. Flying instruments in IMC for a few minutes seemed easy enough. For several hours, seems like too many opportunities to lose focus for a couple seconds.

The intro you get in PPL training is just that, an introduction. Fact is, that initial entry into IMC is where you are most likely to ‘lose it’ no matter how well you did in training. Hand flying for several hours in smooth IMC is mainly boring and exhausting but quite doable once established. However you will end up exhausted afterwards.... that’s what will be difficult to deal with.

I'm hoping the GPS + synthetic vision + autopilot (plus normal attitude instruments as a visual backup for me the pilot) will make longer periods in IMC much safer. But that remains to be seen, since I've never tried that before. Never had GPS, never had synthetic vision, never had autopilot. So I don't know how trustworthy or problematic they are.

Obviously flying in IMC for an IFR rated and practiced pilot should not be a big deal. But I don't have IFR rating, only VFR plus some practice flying in IMC (but not approach or landing IFR).

I'm not sure how much time is required to add IFR to my skillset. If it isn't too much, maybe I'll do that. I don't need to add much avionics to make the airplane fully IFR capable.

Every aspect of the flights you describe is a big deal to every IFR rated and practiced pilot here (not including any actual IFR flying in IMC).

The PIC needs to be as capable as the aircraft. Your vision of what it takes to make that so is not accurate at this point.

I’m shocked at how civil and helpful everyone is being!
Says a lot about how outrageous statements/stories/plans/adventures are taken more seriously than everyday rational stuff.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Dave Theisen]

Personally, this isn’t something I’d want to try once, let alone think about doing it with regularity. (And I’m an 11,000 hr. ATP)

I don’t think you fully appreciate the affect that a headwind can have on a 14 hour flight.

You say you want to go VFR, but keep saying you can go up to 23,000 ft. You will have to stay below 18,000. And in a 14 hour span, it’s going to be dark at some point. Out over the ocean on a moonless night, it’s going to be IMC whether you think so or not.

 

[vman]

One thing I have noticed is that you repeatedly mention being willing to wait weeks if the weather requires it. My 30 years of GA flying suggest that you are greatly underestimating the power of get-there-itis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

Probable cause
The investigation concluded that the fundamental cause of the accident was that captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten attempted to take off without clearance. The investigators suggested the reason for this was a desire to leave as soon as possible in order to comply with KLM's duty-time regulations (which went in place earlier that year) and before the weather deteriorated further.

<snip>

Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten, a KLM training captain and instructor for over 10 years,

 

[WmInce]

FAKE THREAD.
Guys . . . don’t waste your time here.

 

[Ravioli]

FAKE THREAD.
Guys . . . don’t waste your time here.

Oh no, this is real thread. yours was the 102nd entry to it.

Everything else about it likely trolling ********, but thread itself is not fake. <- not sure what that fact means to anyone?!?

 

[benyflyguy]

Oh no, this is real thread. yours was the 102nd entry to it.

Everything else about it likely trolling ********, but thread itself is not fake. <- not sure what that fact means to anyone?!?

Who has the time and energy to troll this hard A lot of time and energy went into this guy’s posts. They are insane though. When I read these posts I can’t help but think someone forgot to take the biopolar meds. These thoughts are very manic. Seriously.

 

[RyanShort1]

Who has the time and energy to troll this hard A lot of time and energy went into this guy’s posts. They are insane though. When I read these posts I can’t help but think someone forgot to take the biopolar meds. These thoughts are very manic. Seriously.

Not necessarily. Unfortunately as an instructor that used to be more full-time in the light sport side of things I used to hear a lot of very passionate dreams like this from otherwise rational seeming individuals. Some of them were very successful businessmen who just thought they could make it work like some accountant’s balance sheet. I humored a few, too to my own regret. There was this guy that said he owned three taildraggers and finally wanted to get legal and he seemed like he could talk the talk... when it came to flying, it was quite scary, but I tried to let him prove himself wrong. That part wasn’t sooo very scary as it maybe could have been, but he couldn’t hold centerline to save his life. He took me to the edge several times and I would take it back but then an FAA guy later questioned me why I was letting a student get that far (I thought I was doing my job as a line of defense in this case). My belief at the time was that this particular student who did hold a pilot certificate wasn’t ever going to be “safe” to solo in tailwheel because of his hazardous attitudes and lack of ability to accurately self-evaluate and I had to let him figure that out within my comfort zone and I will say he *kept* taking it to the edge. I sent that guy home without an endorsement with a very good conscience. There were others that this thread reminds me of even more...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juliet Hotel]

You're asking questions but don't seem to like the answers you're getting. So I don't expect this to have any impact or sway you, but I'm going to say it anyway. Trying cross an ocean VFR is nothing short of idiotic. Instrument ratings exist as to plenty of airplanes that can legally operate IFR. It ain't rocket science or uncharted territory, get an instrument ticket and get an airplane that can legally fly instruments or don't do it.

Because here's the thing, its all well and good if you don't care whether you end up as a corpse in the ocean. But should that happen, people will be obligated to look for you and will therefore be forced to put themselves in harms way due to your poor choices. Any way you slice it, that ain't cool.

 

[max_reason]

Ravioli can't believe he's typing this:

@max_reason Have you looked into whether special permission to land on Midway Island is possible for your adventure? That would greatly increase your safety, and you only need perfect weather for half the route at a time.

Who knows, maybe they'll allow it to save them the trouble of shipping your body home after you drown.

Also, can you have the plane delivered to HI and fly it to CA after 6 months? Then you'd at least have the wind at your back and hulluva lot more over water flying time.

Actually, I had not looked into that possibility. Good call. Perhaps from Midway to Wake and then onto the dozens and dozens of islands in the south pacific.

Midway to Wake is about 1900km, or 1/2 the distance of the 3800km flight from California to Hawaii.

Wake to Kwajalein is about 1200km, or 1/3 the distance of the 3800km flight from California to Hawaii.

Then I'd have various options to fly from Kwajalein to the endless clusters of islands in the south pacific. For example...

Kwajealein to Vanuatu is about 1800km.

Vanuatu to Fiji is about 1200km.

And then work my way back eastward, perhaps via:

Fiji to Samoa, about 1200km.

Samoa to Cooke Islands, about 1600km.

Cooke Islands to Tahiti, about 1200km.

Tahiti to Totegegie, about 1600km.

Totegegie to Easter Island, about 2600km.

Easter Island to Isla Robinson Crusoe, about 3000km.

Isla Robinson Crusoe to Valperiso on the mainland of Chile, about 700km.

I'm sure most of the people here will get a belly laugh out of the fact one of the last stops is in Isla Robinson Crusoe.

Hahaha. I can appreciate the humor and irony of that too.

BTW, the reason I haven't seriously considered the "ship the airplane" approach is... what you read above. Namely, my plans include several long range flights of 1200km or further, so shipping the airplane from island-group to island-group would cost a great deal of cash. I'm in the unfortunate situation of not having much more life savings than I need to buy the airplane, and insufficient ongoing regular income to pay for more than flying expenses and living a frugal lifestyle. The good news is, I've always been frugal, so living that way doesn't bother me.

I had not considered what you suggest for the following reason. My previous plans did not connect the north pacific and south pacific. In fact, given that I lived in Maui for 16 years, I'm not even sure I would ever get to north pacific flights. I'm sure that surprises many here, because I often give the example of California to Hawaii to illustrate what I'm trying to do. A lot more people who read the messages I post about long range, over ocean trips can relate to California to Hawaii, because many of them have flown to Hawaii on vacation at some point in their lives. And, the flight distance from California to Hawaii is the same as the longest flight I thought I need to make to cross the south pacific... where there are literally many dozen if not over 100 islands I could explore in my airplane. And that is my goal... to explore hundreds of islands in the south pacific. That I need to fly these long range flights is an unintended consequence of that goal, not my primary purpose. In fact, I'd love to avoid the necessity of those long flights, but I cannot afford any way to ship my airplane from island-group to island-group. Hence the topic we're discussing here more than the current topics I need to resolve (like category of airplane and such).

As you may notice, I found an alternate way to fly the southern route. Just yesterday I added about 30 or 40 new airports in the south pacific to google earth. Unfortunately, the information sources I have don't say whether most of them have fuel available at the airport or not, so for current [conservative] planning purposes I do not plan to find fuel anywhere fuel is not explicitly stated as available. In fact, I have two international airports that don't say whether they have fuel available or not!

That Totegegie airport has 100/130 octane low-lead aviation (blue) gasoline listed as available. That gives me a way to avoid the 3800km flight in the south pacific that I thought would be necessary.


##### continued in next message ::: character limit exceeded #####

 

[max_reason]

##### continued from previous message ::: character limit exceeded #####

However, I'm starting to label my place markers with islands that have "tiny towns", "small towns", "large towns" or "small cities" on them, as well as mentioning those towns on which I can see cars in the google-earth photos. The point being, islands with towns are likely to have at least one automobile gasoline station, and islands where I can see at least one or two cars on the road also probably contain at least one automobile gasoline station.

The point being... I and my 912iS engine VASTLY prefer unleaded premium automobile gasoline over aviation 100LL gasoline. My intention is to be "anal" about my Rotax 912iS engine and never add leaded fuel (100LL) in order to exclude as much "gunk" as possible. I am only slightly less "anal" about never adding gasoline with ethanol. I already have a list of many places I can buy ethanol-free premium gasoline in the western USA, and I'm researching devices that can remove ethanol from standard 10% ethanol gasoline.

And therefore, my plans are likely to evolve over the next few months as I find towns along my route where I can buy premium automobile gasoline "in town". I understand this will make some of my stops quite a bit more a hassle due to the obvious question... how to get 50 to 80 gallons of fuel from a gasoline station to my airplane... or vice versa (find a 100+ meter place I can land in town at/near the gasoline station).

Note also that a great many small islands without airports or airstrips but with small towns have places where I can land this airplane (which only needs 100 meters of semi-level dirt-road, paved-road (uncommon on very small islands), grass lawns, open fields, areas with hard-packed sand... and so forth. Actually, the airplane needs considerably less than 100 meters in normal circumstances, but not after I add 80 gallons of fuel and need to take-off again!

And so, with these new ideas in mind, I have a lot more detailed investigation to perform... followed by many attempts to identify and contact individuals on promising tiny/small islands to ask up-to-date questions about fuel and potential landing areas I've identified via google-earth. To get current photos of the gasoline situation (including photos of octane ratings on the pumps), and current photos of potential landing sites (including wires and potential obstacles not visible on google-earth (not to mention permission from the land owners, who are likely friends and neighbors of whomever I find and contact)).

And so, my guess is, I will be able to reduce the distances of a great many of those legs I mentioned above. Unfortunately, there are still a couple rather long stretches in the south pacific where no islands exist for a long way.

However, I am fairly certain I will be able to break up many of the legs listed above into 2, 3, 4 or more shorter legs... once I find out where all the automobile gasoline stations are located on all the small islands in the south pacific.

AARG... I don't look forward to writing all the emails/letters... as well as taking other measures I need... to figure out where all the gas stations are in the south pacific! However, what needs to be done, needs to be done. And I'll do it... because I'm not suicidal or irresponsible. I am, from time to time... adventurous. And the time in life to be adventurous again has arrived. Well, the time to plan, prepare, practice and experiment to get ready has arrived.

For those who think I'm crazy, insane or irresponsible... I respect your opinions and accept that your approach to this issue is almost certainly correct... for you. For those who understand that life can be better than what most people live, and that taking prudent risks can be an acceptable trade-off for more enjoyment in life, I appreciate your help or encouragement.

More than likely, I will stick to the "direction" I originally planned. In other words, I will probably fly down to northern Chile (the Atacama Andes) and spend 1, 2, 3 months or so exploring that part of the world. I've explored that area before, albeit unfortunately not low-and-slow from a small STOL airplane, and so far that area is far-and-away my favorite place in the world. Barren, empty, no rain in the past 10,000 years in certain areas (according to scientists). And the best night skies anywhere on planet earth... which I can confirm from considerable personal experience, since I've worked and observed from many of the best observatories on the planet.

From Chile I'll fly to the large airport on Isla Robinson Crusoe and explore that island and the next one over (Isla Alexander Selkirk). It looks plausible that I may be able to land near the top of Isla Alexander Selkirk, at about 4150 feet altitude. That is an extremely fascinating island, and I've long wanted to explore the more awesome higher elevation areas on that island. But that's just a side trip. If that "short hop" of only 700km over open ocean doesn't scare me away, after a week or three or whatever it takes to satisfy my desire to explore those islands is satisfied, I will fly west along the general path I described above... except in reverse order (bottom to top AKA east to west).

As I said, after I accumulate a great deal more information about dozens of small islands along the way, I will fly to dozens and dozens more islands than I mentioned above, and quite probably never fill up my fuel tanks at an airport, instead opting for automobile gas stations on dozens of small islands along the way. But I still feel it prudent to start with an analysis of the most conventional approach, namely "refuel at airports" (which sadly means 100LL everywhere). BTW, almost everywhere lists the available fuel as "[mil-spec] aviation 100/130 low-lead [blue]". I take that to mean what we call 100LL here is called 100/130 low-lead (blue) elsewhere, correct? Or are they saying they have two fuels, one is 100 octane and the other is 130 octane? I assume not, but maybe someone hear knows.

PS: If I make these flights, post a few dozen videos on youtube, and it ends up being an awesome blast... I hope you skeptics can at least enjoy sharing the experience with me vicariously. OTOH, my whole life, my nature has been to be quiet, a hermit, outta sight outta mind. So who knows, I might not post videos to youtube. I haven't so far.

And thanks again to those who prefer to help, give thoughtful advice, or just sane/prudent encouragement. I do appreciate that.

BTW, about those who keep thinking I ignore warnings and suggestions. You are wrong. However, I'm sure it looks that way. You see, I've been a scientist, engineer, inventor, product developer my whole life. My modus-operandi is not to give up at the first negative thought or evidence. Just the opposite. My modus-operandi is to accept every negative thought or evidence... and then work hard to find viable, prudent, feasible ways to overcome those potential roadblocks. In most cases, I succeed and find ways to achieve what I want to achieve. That approach had led me to introduce very cool new products and inventions in a few areas of science, engineering and technology. That has also made me the guy NASA and AirForceResearchLabs calls when they encounter an "impossible problem" their hoards of PhDs can't solve. Usually I manage to "do the impossible" and solve their problems. But sometimes, even I can't find a way.

However, the flip side is also just as real. Sometimes I can't solve problems. Sometimes the risks or potential negative consequences of a possibly viable approach is too great and I "give up".

If you've been reading these messages, you will have noticed that right from the start I have said it was possible that after all my research and attempts to reduce risk... that I will give up and blow off these long range flights across empty ocean. And indeed, I might. At this point, I don't think that will be my conclusion, but it most certainly could be my decision.

I also stated that even if that happens, I have two other goals/missions for this airplane. STOL flights to wild, crazy, remote, awesome spots in the boonies, and years of exploring the extreme boonies in the general area of northern Chile, southern Peru, nearby Bolivia, nearby Argentina. I totally love that area, but could never find all the crazy amazing spots that exist by wandering around on the surface. A side consequence of the above is... I plan to move to either this super-dry, super-clear, super-awesome area near northern Chile... or to some remote (and possibly unoccupied) awesome little island in the south pacific that I discover in my exploration. If I don't end up flying all over the south pacific for 3, 6, 9, 12 months (or years), then I will be more than happy and satisfied with the alternative... the Atacama Andes.

And so, unless there is some very fundamental fatal flaw with this airplane, or there is no registration category that lets me do what I want to do, I'll still buy the airplane and enjoy my exploring. And so, all the ideas people give me, and all the research I will be doing will almost surely pay off. If not, so be it.

I don't give up easily.

But if I must, I will.

 

[Ravioli]

please stop stating things in kilometers. No one uses km for aviation or marine distances. It is always Nautical Miles, which is apropos since your discussing flying over water.

Also, this here is pilots of AMERICA. Ground distance is Statute Miles.

 

[TCABM]

Wow. Someone who rivals Nate in words per post.

 

[Grum.Man]

Sounds like you have it all planed out, good luck! I will say you would be much better off making this trip in a certificated airplane. Some countries will not allow experimental category aircraft land there. You will also stand a much better chance getting a part of finding a mechanic familiar with certified airplane than an experimental one. For the price of that plastic fantastic you can get a nice Bo or 210 that will make the trip much more enjoyable.

 

[kyleb]

This guy needs a boat, not an airplane.

 

[James331]

Guess we’ll read about your journey on Katherine’s report

 

[Dave Theisen]

SPLASH

 

[max_reason]

Interesting thread, and max_reason, I applaud your sense of adventure. You clearly have spent a lot of time researching and building your plan. And even if the legalities/practicalities don't work out as you planned, simply having given it a go is something to hang your hat on.

<clipped to meet character limit>

Good luck on your adventures. I will read the book when it comes out!

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, I spent years considering and researching this plan... ever since the pipistrel virus sw with 912iS engine and 300 liter "extreme range tanks" was introduced a few years ago. However, I still must do several times as much research and experimentation before I make a final "go or no" decision for the long range over ocean part of the plan.

Yes, I understand "confirmation bias". I'll make you worry even more with the following statement. Which is, I understand a great many more weaknesses of human consciousness too... when practiced as most humans operate their consciousness. In fact, I understand consciousness quite a bit better than anyone else you know. Yes, I know... now you're more worried than before, because you think this is more evidence of what you worry about. Just leave open the possibility that what I say is actually true, that I do understand these issues well, and will remain honest and clear headed throughout the analysis process to the point where I make a final decision to "pull the trigger... or... just say no".

In a message I posted earlier today, I discuss this a bit. I explain that what I do for a living more-or-less requires me to purposely and self-consciously adopt a "positive bias"... which you might call "confirmation bias". It isn't "confirmation bias" however, it is a bias necessary for someone who attempts to solve very difficult (or supposedly "impossible") problems. If the first time the problem looks overwhelmingly difficult to solve, I just quit... then BY DEFINITION I will not solve the problem. This is more like a "self-fulfilling prophesy" than "avoiding confirmation bias".

What you don't know, and what nobody in this forum knows, is whether I can remain positive throughout an investigation and attempt to problem-solve, yet remain perfectly able to come to the conclusion "I can't do this" or "the risk is too high" or "not worth continuing to pursue this forever" at the appropriate point (the end). While I suppose most people can't do this very well, this is what I've been doing my entire life. I have invented and developed several products and technologies that others considered "inherently impossible" or "far beyond my capabilities". Note that I have funded all of these with my own savings, and never borrowed a penny from anyone for my projects. Though I never planned to risk my entire life savings on any one of these projects (no more than 1/3 was my self-imposed rule), note that I completed every single one of my projects once I reached the point of "pull the trigger or don't". Given the nature of the projects I do, once I "pull the trigger", I almost immediately spend 75% to 100% of the funds the project requires (according to my estimates). And so, if I "pull the trigger", I'm essentially "all in", succeed or fail.

And I have decided on several occasions to NOT "pull the trigger" and move on to other ideas... even though I was exceedingly interested in that idea or project.

So, let's just say this. Though you have no way to know, it is possible I am someone who can pursue an investigation, but still retain the honesty and prudence required to NOT "pull the trigger" when rational judgement off the situation indicates I shouldn't.

This specific project is a bit worse/better than most. It is "worse" in the sense that I won't limit myself to 1/3 of my savings, but instead more like 3/4 or 7/8. OTOH, it is "better" in that I have three goals/missions for my airplane (which you can see if you read my previous messages today), and the other two are not nearly as "risky" or "problematic" as the "long range across open ocean" portion. And so, if I decide flying across the ocean blue is too risky, I can still enjoy 2/3 of my goals and missions, and still enjoy pursuing those other goals/missions.

Also, for whatever it is worth, let us remember that an individual already few this same airplane around the world TWICE, once east-to-west and once west-to-east. Of course that doesn't prove much, because maybe he is totally insane. Right?

You say I should understand WHY others raise concerns. And I do. If I was "normal", I suppose I'd be on the edge of insane to attempt the kind of south-pacific exploration missions I describe. But... I'm not "normal". I'm about as far from normal as you're likely to meet. Just one example. For 7 years I lived alone at a remote, self-sufficient mountaintop research station (astronomical observatory). Everyone said I was insane, everyone said I would totally hate it, everyone said it was much too dangerous. Let's just say that the end result was probably the most enjoyable and productive 7 years of my life. And this is just one out of many examples. One other small example. I started earning money for my inventions when I was still in junior high school. Yes, small money at that point. By the time I finished high-school however, I was earning enough money on my own inventions and products I developed that... I never took a job as an employee for the rest of my life. I always worked for myself. While I accepted a few specific-purpose contracts from NASA and AirForceResearchLabs and astronomical observatories and tech companies over the years, they were short-term (a few weeks or months), I was an independent contractor (self-employed), and I worked "at home" (in my lab and shop).

If I thought or behaved like "regular folks", I could never live my life as I have so far. Hopefully you see that one consequence of living this way is... I have a LOT of practice making rational judgements. If my judgements were not rational, I would not have been able to keep this going for decades. That doesn't prove every judgement I ever make will be perfect. If I started to think that way, that "my future judgements will be good because my past judgements were"... that is the exact trap you mention. Every judgement must be made on the basis of the current idea, project, situation... and nothing else.

I am exquisitely aware that the risks of the "long range over open ocean" are physical... and terrible if all goes wrong. Even if I get my self-inflating raft out of the passenger seat and into the ocean, maybe it is defective and all I'll have is the life-vest I'm wearing. Or maybe it develops a leak after a while and sinks. Or maybe my spotify and/or other devices that report "I'm going down at <GPS coordinates>" and "I went down at <GPS-coordinates>" doesn't work. Or maybe I'll be stupid and forget to hit the button before I crash land in the ocean. Or maybe I'll be an even more stupid and fail to securely attach it to my body for the entire trip so I can't forget to bring it into the water. Or maybe... fill in the next 100 or 1000 blanks. But at least most are unlikely, because my nature is not to be careless or unprepared.

I will indeed plan for "much worse". In fact, I'll plan more-or-less fairly close to how I would if I figured the chance of crashing into the ocean was a 30% or 50% or 80% probability. Except... at some point safety precautions begin to measurably increase chances of disaster! By overloading the airplane for instance. As someone pointed out already, if I count on being able to pull everything you brought along out of every nook and cranny of the cargo hold and passenger foot-well and everywhere else before the airplane sinks, I'd be unrealistic. What's more important is making sure that the most crucial actions and supplies are successfully taken and extracted from the airplane.

As for weather, I agree. However, from living 16 years in Hawaii, I understand that some negative weather phenomenon simply don't ever happen there, while others are common. I still need to research south-pacific weather more thoroughly. But my point is, to know what kinds of negative weather phenomenon are common and which are not will lead me to prepare for likely problems, not infinitesimally unlikely problems. And so I shall.

BTW, if anyone reading this can point me at a report of a real case where the reported current weather and forecast for the next 24 hours is ABSOLUTELY AWESOME... and then unexpectedly turns into TERRIBLE... I would very much appreciate you pointing me at those reports. You may not believe it, but I know for myself that I am willing to NOT be infected by get-there-itis. If you are incapable of understanding that not everyone behaves the same, I understand. However, when you read my plans to spend many, many months flying around and exploring islands in the south-pacific, you should at least question whether anything in those plans sounds the least bit like "pressure to fly NOW when conditions or circumstances are anywhere near marginal". I will have NO time pressures. In fact, the whole point is to take my time and explore. Understand there is a difference between "make an appointment" or "achieve some time sensitive goal"... and "take my time and explore". Ask yourself this. How many private pilots plan to be away from home on their flying trip for... 3, 6, 12 months? Yup, none! So at least consider how a "no pressure" plan might lead to different behavior... even in someone who does not have a lifetime of being prudent.

Thanks for your concerns and observations.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Here is what I don't understand. You're looking at buying a new factory built airplane that will cost well north of $100k. You intend to do something with this airplane it really was not designed to do. There are plenty of certified airplanes available that cost the same or less and are much better suited to what you intend and will be able to do the task with a much better margin of safety. Why this airplane when there are so many others that can do the job better for similar money?

 

[max_reason]

Max_reason, I don’t know if you’ve flown one yet, but if not, I really would suggest you get some time in one. My recollection of the Virus is that the seating position is low to the floor with an outstretched leg position. You may want to spend some time in the plane as comfort may/may not be an issue.

In terms of the Virus with the 912is and fuel burn, here is the official Pipistrel supplement stating 4.2 gph at 75% cruise with the 912iS and without the extended range tanks for extra weight (i.e. the 24.5 gallon, or 93 liter, tanks). See below.

Don’t forget to rig wiring to extend the range of your radios, and a handheld satellite phone and personal ELT may not be bad to add to your kit.

Good luck!

https://www.pipistrel.si/index.php?q=en/fajl/download/442_537255b6a3f6/Supplement Rotax912iS-1.pdf

View attachment 69304

Yes, I flew with a pipistrel virus owner for a three hour flight... plus a couple short flights. The seats were reasonably comfortable. The width was a bit tight, but adequate. I found that if we both gently leaned against our doors, we had enough room to be comfortable. But it is a small airplane. There is also lots of extra room in the passenger foot well, at least for wimps like me (being only 5' 7" tall). While I'm not 100% certain, the chances are probably 95% that I will not have a passenger on the "long range over-ocean" hops. This liberates all the space the passenger would consume, which is obviously fairly substantial... at least compared to the cargo area behind the seats.

It is also possible to organize the passenger area to allow the pilot to assume different postures. Especially when flying on autopilot, of course!

I will say, I don't expect the longest of my flights (which will probably be somewhere between 10 and 15 hours). Those flights are not what I look forward to, those flights are what are necessary to put me in area where there are 100s if not a couple thousand small islands to explore. So most of my flying will be weeks of short flights within the various island groups. That's what 99% of the enjoyment comes from.

I assume the "emergency ELT" is the spotify gadget, right?

Yes, I still need to research over-ocean communication. I haven't done this yet, but obviously it is an important item on my list.

From a brief glance at what you posted, that appears to agree with page 5 of the PDF I posted links to in some of my previous messages. I will, of course, fly several test flights before I fly across the ocean blue. Assuming I follow my current plans, which involves flying from the USA to northern Chile, that flight will also provide good evidence of actual real-world fuel consumption in my specific airplane, with my specific load. OTOH, I might carry a passenger on that flight, and that would make that test flight provide somewhat pessimistic numbers (due to the extra weight of the passenger, which presumably won't exist on my over-ocean flights).

As I said before, I will order the airplane with hookups so I can connect fuel bladders in the cabin and pump that fuel into the wing tanks. If I find it is necessary or prudent, I can also order their 50 liter accessory fuel tank that bolts into the cargo area. That would increase my total fuel from 300 liters to 350 liters... roughly a 15% increase. OTOH, I would rather carry the extra 50 liters in fuel bladders that don't consume volume in the airplane except when I need them. At the very worst case, for over ocean flights I could of course carry both the 50 liter accessory tank and 50 liters or more in fuel bladders (in the cargo area or passenger area). I don't think my tests will indicate this is necessary, but we shall see.

And that will remain the case. No matter what specifications say, carefully measured results from actual flights is ultimately more reliable, and ultimately what I will depend upon more than theory.

 

[max_reason]

FAKE THREAD.
Guys . . . don’t waste your time here.

Thanks for the attempt to make people think this is a fake thread. Is that also what you told the guy who flew this same airplane around the world twice? Once east-to-west and once west-to-east. And over the top of Mount Everest. I guess the books he published with photos taken from the airplane during his trips were also fake. Right?

Oh, wait. You're not jealous because your airplane can't fly 5000km non-stop... are you?

Nah, that can't be it.

But sure, let's ignore the fact that he already did what I'm planning... twice.

 

[Ravioli]

you mention the fuel, in liters of course to tick us all off. GALLONS!

Anyway, what is the oil consumption on that bad boy over a 17+ hour continuous flight? Do they have "oil bladders."?

Please reply in Quarts.

 

[max_reason]

Who has the time and energy to troll this hard A lot of time and energy went into this guy’s posts. They are insane though. When I read these posts I can’t help but think someone forgot to take the biopolar meds. These thoughts are very manic. Seriously.

Like I said, someone already did this... plus a lot more... in the same airplane, a few years ago.

What about him? Was he insane? Was he bipolar? Was he off his meds?

As far as I know, he might have been insane, bipolar, and off his meds. But he already proved it can be done... in this airplane. So I'm not the pioneer here, and my purpose isn't to set records or be the first to do anything. My purpose is to enjoy flying over and to many of the thousands of islands in the south-pacific ocean, which exist clumped relatively near together in "island groups".

The way some of you guys react is like I said I'm going to pedal a bicycle to Mars.

Get a life! You obviously need one.