Would you?

I have a slightly skewed sense of comfort from flying offshore between the coast and oil platforms, so it would not bother me to fly that route in a single engine airplane.

The reason so many sexy helicopters have two engines is because they need both of them!
 
I have flown from Miami to Cozumel direct. For most of that flight we were not far from Cuba. I don’t think I would do this trip in a single engine piston.
 
DesertNomad said:
I have flown from Miami to Cozumel direct. For most of that flight we were not far from Cuba. I don’t think I would do this trip in a single engine piston.
Click to expand...
Cuba would be an interesting emergency landing spot
 
Refer to the post on the Cirrus that had an engine failure over trees July 27th or so.

Everyone has their comfort level. For me, if there’s any doubt, there’s no doubt.
 
IK04 said:
Yes. Sort of... There is voice and ADS-B coverage over most of the GOM and some RADAR.

I'd do it with the proper overwater gear in an airplane or a helicopter. No biggie...
Click to expand...
Agree. As for the radar, Houston ctr can see you, however due to distance from the ant, no radar service. I recall the distance from New Orleans to Merida is 500NM. Merida is on the NW corner of the Yucatan and has a big NDB. I notice that the direct rte goes through Warning Area 92. (S of New Orleans) Usually hot above 10K. Get a good brief from FSS. Better yet, get the direct phone # off the chart and call the user at JRB N.O. Its the "Coon A## Militia, LA ANG. Expect F-15s doing ACM. Call sign JAZZ.
 
I got nervous just doing the 10 mile water crossing of Long Island Sound... :frown2:
 
Rebel Lord said:
Do you think a light twin at gross would have any different outcome if it lost an engine?
Click to expand...

If you lost an engine at gross it means you must have just taken off. Twins burn enough fuel if you lost an engine at the half-way mark you'll be below gross, believe me. :cool:Different performance. Different decision.

AdamZ said:
I don't think that CAPs works as well with a decent into water. The Cirrus for example has a main gear that absorbs a good amount of the energy on ground contact after CAPS deployment as does the honeycomb seat design on the cirrus. going straight down in water renders the gears and to a lesser extent the seats useless for energy dissipation...
Click to expand...

One of the most prominent CAPS pulls was off the coast of Hawaii. Pilot encountered some sort of fuel system problem trying to ferry the SR22 from Tracy, California. Ditched a couple hundred miles short of his destination and was picked up by a cruise ship tender. Coast Guard C130 caught the whole thing on video.

 
Caramon13 said:
No difference flying over all that water then flying over mountains or flatland or desert, etc. Engine fails you're going to put it down. With the proper equipment you should be fine. It's about preparation.
Click to expand...
If you're somewhat lucky, maybe.

On the other hand, your landing might be survivable without being ideal. How well do you swim in the open ocean with a broken leg? How well do you sit under a tree in one place waiting for SAR with a broken leg?
Lindbergh did it way back then without all the fancy gadgets folks put in their planes today.
Click to expand...

True. And so did Earhart!

Oh, wait...
 
Sure. The Velocity would easily cover 700 miles no problem. If engine out, I have a raft and PLB. Might not even need the raft if she keeps floating. I fly over miles of wilderness at night in a single engine helicopter all time. An acceptable risk.
 
GRG55 said:
If you lost an engine at gross it means you must have just taken off. Twins burn enough fuel if you lost an engine at the half-way mark you'll be below gross, believe me. :cool:Different performance. Different decision.



One of the most prominent CAPS pulls was off the coast of Hawaii. Pilot encountered some sort of fuel system problem trying to ferry the SR22 from Tracy, California. Ditched a couple hundred miles short of his destination and was picked up by a cruise ship tender. Coast Guard C130 caught the whole thing on video.

Click to expand...
Yes, you're losing 150lbs an hour in the Aztec vs say 50-70% of that in a HP single so you're losing weight fast
 
In another life, I got paid to fly these guys to South America:

11739550305_e52d6d4a4f.jpg


Also, a flight of 5 of these to Bolivia:

26058907671_042a3dc0f3.jpg


That said, single engine I would stay as close to land as possible. Failing that, on shipping routes.
 
All this talk about losing an engine has me recalling a statistic that has been around for ever. A turbine is seven times more reliable than a recip. A twin turbine would be seven times seven more reliable.
 
unsafervguy said:
do it all the time, but I also have 200 people sitting behind me when i do................
Click to expand...
I remember telling somebody once that "etops" meant "engines turn or people swim", after I was asked what it meant when it was painted on the little door by the nose gear

Maxnr said:
All this talk about losing an engine has me recalling a statistic that has been around for ever. A turbine is seven times more reliable than a recip. A twin turbine would be seven times seven more reliable.
Click to expand...
statistics are a little dubious with that though. I agree, I'd far rather be in a turbine, but all of the flights are independent events. If a profilactic is 99% effective that does not mean you will have one pregnancy for every 100 intimacies..

And there are a decent amount of failures from the venerable and beloved indestructible pt6 turbines. Everything can break. It is nice to have redundancy for situations like this
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Cirrus SF50 Jet. Single engine with CAPS....and discuss...
 
david.h said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Cirrus SF50 Jet. Single engine with CAPS....and discuss...
Click to expand...
And it's a turbine! And there's no gearbox like with a turboprop!

I would do it in the SF50. And realistically probably a TBM as well. But I'd prefer the Cirrus
 
Rebel Lord said:
How


Heres a question, Would yall rather fly 4 hours over water in clear day or 4 hours over forest and mountains?

I fly around a lake that is heavily populated and then thick forest with 50' pines. I've often thought that if I lost my engine I would ditch in the lake rather than hit a house or power line and not even risk the trees.
Click to expand...
I asked an old guy who’s been flying seaplanes around the Adirondacks for his entire life where he would put down if he lost an engine, he said “pine trees”.
 
mryan75 said:
I asked an old guy who’s been flying seaplanes around the Adirondacks for his entire life where he would put down if he lost an engine, he said “pine trees”.
Click to expand...

He would put a plane designed to land in water in pine trees?
 
david.h said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Cirrus SF50 Jet. Single engine with CAPS....and discuss...
Click to expand...

Does it have the range for this trip, with any sort of reasonable cabin payload?
 
GRG55 said:
Does it have the range for this trip, with any sort of reasonable cabin payload?
Click to expand...
You can probably take get pilot and one or two pax and some luggage and have no issues with range.. 1,200 nm max range, about 500 lbs max fuel payload.. so 700 nm trip you should be okay
 
SkyDog58 said:
Too bad that direct US to Cuba travel is off the table now. That would be a fun trip. It is so stupid that we can't do it.
Click to expand...

I went to Cuba in my plane in 2016. The Mexico and Guatemala trip was in 2018 and we just flew near Cuba.
 
DesertNomad said:
I went to Cuba in my plane in 2016. The Mexico and Guatemala trip was in 2018 and we just flew near Cuba.
Click to expand...

The US government policy towards Cuba was far more intelligent in 2016.

Did you enjoy the trip? I’ve talked to a couple of other people who went while it was an option and they say it was a great trip.
 
Younger, yep, sure would have.

But not now - I was out about 65 - 70 miles, off Atlantic City a couple years ago, at night, SEL. It began to dawn on me it was stupid place to be - springtime, cold water, I was in a USCG supplied "survivor suit", but it was late evening. Even if I survived the ditching, got out of the airplane, they gonna find me at dawn? And I was in radio contact with several agencies, and the Coasties were listening.

Long winded "no", I guess.
 
The way I think about it.

When I was doing my PPL in the late 90s, it was more or less drilled into my head that ditching was bad, ditching far from shore was much much worse. Even if you survived unharmed(big if), you may not be found before you freeze or run out of stamina. Navigation over open ocean was also pretty sketchy.

Things are a bit different today. GPS takes care of navigating. You have a pretty high probability of being unharmed with a parachute splash. We have sat phones, personal sat emergency locators, and personal survival gear small enough to fit in a small plane.

Gulf of Mexico is pretty warm too

So I think it’s a pretty acceptable risk in a Cirrus
 
Tantalum said:
You can probably take get pilot and one or two pax and some luggage and have no issues with range.. 1,200 nm max range, about 500 lbs max fuel payload.. so 700 nm trip you should be okay
Click to expand...
That's pathetic...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top