Would you?

Rebel Lord

Rebel Lord

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
581
Location
Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Rebel Lord
If this cut your fuel cost and travel times by over half and it was sky clear all the way there, would you in your plane?


Capture.PNG
 
DA62 / MU2 with a life raft, locator beacon, and vests plus some basic rations and a sat phone, yes. Anything single engine is out of the question

There was a picture somewhere on some forum that somebody posted of them basically doing that route in their Mooney and zooming all the way out on the Garmin and seeing nothing but blue and no airports on the nearest airport list at all. Nothing within 200 nautical miles

we all have different levels of risk, single-engine over that much water is beyond mine
 
Would you have radio and radar coverage over that much water? Or do you just check back in at some point with another controller..?
 
no can do with my 48 gal tank and not doing it in single engine either. I don't swim that good and I don't like sharks
 
WannFly said:
no can do with my 48 gal tank and not doing it in single engine either. I don't swim that good and I don't like sharks
Click to expand...
With my cherokee 235 and 84 gallon tip tanks I could theoretically do it and still land with a hour of fuel. This kind of makes me want to get my multi engine.
 
In a PA24 with tip tanks. Yeah, I'd do it without a second thought. Probably have a raft just in case. But I'm not flying a clap trap some of you obviously are based on your responses.
 
Tantalum said:
DA62 / MU2 with a life raft, locator beacon, and vests plus some basic rations and a sat phone, yes. Anything single engine is out of the question

There was a picture somewhere on some forum that somebody posted of them basically doing that route in their Mooney and zooming all the way out on the Garmin and seeing nothing but blue and no airports on the nearest airport list at all. Nothing within 200 nautical miles

we all have different levels of risk, single-engine over that much water is beyond mine
Click to expand...

Do you think a light twin at gross would have any different outcome if it lost an engine?
 
In a PA24 I’d want a raft. I’d bring my satellite communicator.

Probably would not do on a regular basis, but would be a good adventure.
 
Man you guys are so cautious about flying over water in a single engine. If you don't trust your plane, why get into it? Given a properly maintained plane, flown often and a pilot with the necessary skills and emergency supplies, a twin is no better than a single.

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.

Lindbergh did it way back then without all the fancy gadgets folks put in their planes today.

Do you take two rolls of toilet paper into the stall just in case one fails too?
 
Tantalum said:
Would you have radio and radar coverage over that much water? Or do you just check back in at some point with another controller..?
Click to expand...

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...
 
Rebel Lord said:
Do you think a light twin at gross would have any different outcome if it lost an engine?
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm not aware of any light twin that cannot maintain level flight above sea level

..you are aware that a DA62 has a single engine max gross climb rate of 400ft/min and has a single engine ceiling of 13,000 ft.. right? I'm pretty sure that's going to be better than a single that's lost its engine

Caramon13 said:
a twin is no better than a single
Click to expand...
Caramon13 said:
If you don't trust your plane, why get into it?
Click to expand...
wow... so much fodder in this post.. I don't know where to start. I'll start with "a twin is no better than a single" - for a littany of reasons it absolutely is.. when flown by a qualified proficient pilot. Every light twin that I'm aware of can maintain above sea level flight and they will all at least extend your engine out range as well as give you more time to call for help, etc. Next, "if you don't trust your plan why get into it" - there are reasonable risk levels for everyone, and everyone's standards are different. Yes, I trust the Nexrad, FIKI icing system, and Caps handle as well as the conti on the Cirrus and my abilities.. but I also would not launch into a zero vis takeoff in snowstorm conditions.. even though theoretically the plane should be able to do it

But I digress, for the OP's question I wouldn't go.. many others may indeed.. and I can live vicariously through them!


PS, before someone quotes me from another thread where I came to the conclusion that a twin is pretty much no better than a single, I based that off of the typical aviator who flies <100 hrs a year and their ability to stay proficient in a twin and actually land it and keep it in one piece with an engine inop. If I'm flying 700 nm overwater routes I'm a proficient pilot and doing so in a twin.. preferably a DA-62.. or an MU2, which as many of you may not know was originally designed by the Japanese as a maritime patrol aircraft
 
How
Caramon13 said:
Man you guys are so cautious about flying over water in a single engine. If you don't trust your plane, why get into it? Given a properly maintained plane, flown often and a pilot with the necessary skills and emergency supplies, a twin is no better than a single.

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.

Lindbergh did it way back then without all the fancy gadgets folks put in their planes today.

Do you take two rolls of toilet paper into the stall just in case one fails too?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Caramon13 said:
Man you guys are so cautious about flying over water in a single engine. If you don't trust your plane, why get into it? Given a properly maintained plane, flown often and a pilot with the necessary skills and emergency supplies, a twin is no better than a single.

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.

Lindbergh did it way back then without all the fancy gadgets folks put in their planes today.

Do you take two rolls of toilet paper into the stall just in case one fails too?
Click to expand...

Yes it is different. If I survive the landing, I won’t drown. Big difference.
 
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 like 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...
Great question.. many people see it no different, in fact a friend of mine here prefers the Catalina over water routes as opposed to the desert legs you'll find going inland. My case is a little different as I could at least use CAPS as a tool.. if I have to go into the trees I'd rather do it vertical and 500 ft/min but zero forward velocity vs horizontally at 200 ft/min but 75 knots

Either way it's going to suck.. and if you are proficient I'd rather be in a twin in both situations

But yes, I do fly over water and over large expanses of inhospitable terrain. It doesn't stop me, just gives me pause. I would however draw the line with 700nm over the GOM. Lake Superior.. that I'd probably cross though
 
Tantalum said:
Yes. I'm not aware of any light twin that cannot maintain level flight above sea level

..you are aware that a DA62 has a single engine max gross climb rate of 400ft/min and has a single engine ceiling of 13,000 ft.. right? I'm pretty sure that's going to be better than a single that's lost its engine



wow... so much fodder in this post.. I don't know where to start. I'll start with "a twin is no better than a single" - for a littany of reasons it absolutely is.. when flown by a qualified proficient pilot. Every light twin that I'm aware of can maintain above sea level flight and they will all at least extend your engine out range as well as give you more time to call for help, etc. Next, "if you don't trust your plan why get into it" - there are reasonable risk levels for everyone, and everyone's standards are different. Yes, I trust the Nexrad, FIKI icing system, and Caps handle as well as the conti on the Cirrus and my abilities.. but I also would not launch into a zero vis takeoff in snowstorm conditions.. even though theoretically the plane should be able to do it

But I digress, for the OP's question I wouldn't go.. many others may indeed.. and I can live vicariously through them!


PS, before someone quotes me from another thread where I came to the conclusion that a twin is pretty much no better than a single, I based that off of the typical aviator who flies <100 hrs a year and their ability to stay proficient in a twin and actually land it and keep it in one piece with an engine inop. If I'm flying 700 nm overwater routes I'm a proficient pilot and doing so in a twin.. preferably a DA-62.. or an MU2, which as many of you may not know was originally designed by the Japanese as a maritime patrol aircraft
Click to expand...

For certain things, no debating a twin is better. But, sorry you will not convince me that trip is somehow better just because you have another engine, or that you need two in order to make that trip. I think many pilots (myself included) would be thrilled to do that single engine.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Yes it is different. If I survive the landing, I won’t drown. Big difference.
Click to expand...
YES! People forget about the aftermath part of it. Chances are if you are remote it will take SAR several hours to get to you. It's much easier to find a crashed plane and big orange parachute in the woods than it is to find a single little head bobbing up and down in the water. And if you watched at least a few episodes of Les Stroud or have any basic survival skills you could at least survive a few days in the woods waiting for help, vs succumbing to hypothermia after a few hours (best case scenario) and drowning

**A few years ago there was a Cessna that went down from Catalina to Van Nuys.. a route tons of people do in beat up rentals and without even a single life preserver and always say "just aim towards a boat if the engine fails".. but I'll tell you what, those two people who went down in their Cessna were never found. There's bravery, and confidence, but also blind stupidity when it comes to risk tolerance. Machines are fallible.. the most perfectly maintained plane could throw a valve, lose it's oil pressure, blow a cylinder, etc. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-missing-plane-catalina-20160531-snap-story.html
 
I guess....the 182 would do it in about 4.8hrs and 65 gallons. I'd much rather be in a twin or jet
 
Caramon13 said:
For certain things, no debating a twin is better. But, sorry you will not convince me that trip is somehow better just because you have another engine, or that you need two in order to make that trip. I think many pilots (myself included) would be thrilled to do that single engine.
Click to expand...
I didn't say carte blanch any trip any where is better in a twin. I was speaking relating to the OP's 700nm overwater trip. I fly 120 hr/yr all single engine, most of trips are 200-600 nm and cover various types of terrain. And I generally totally agree that burning twice the fuel and incurring twice the costs to go (maybe) a little faster is not worth it. But there are some missions where I'll acquiesce and say that a twin is going to be a better bet.. this, for at least my preferences, would be one of them
 
Caramon13 said:
For certain things, no debating a twin is better.
Click to expand...
Out of friendly curiosity, what kind of trip or mission would that be then? Say your choices are a Lance / Mooney / Cirrus / C340 / Baron.. when would you take the twins? A while ago I resolved that twins don't help you over mountains becuase of the whole single engine service ceiling thing, but I feel like (outside of useful load in some situations) over water / forest is prime areas where a twin is better. I'm just curious what kind of mission you would say is better for a twin? Unless you're speaking strictly to get cabin class amenities.
 
I would in one of the planes I'm flying(CAPS with enough fuel for this range given some tailwind). Only alone though. Wouldn't want to take my family with me. It's not so much for safety reasons as proper equipment and CAPS will not make it too dangerous. Honestly, CAPS would be my preference to 2nd engine as 1 engine failure is not the only thing that can go wrong. But if something were to happen, that's a lot of hours of "i told you so" and "I'm never flying with you again" :)

No CAPS or second engine.. probably not. I don't have a lot of confidence in my never tried ditching skills.
 
26885B97-F4C9-4CA2-83C9-29DA4BBABE8D.png I can’t see ever doing that, unless on a well-equipped ferry flight, solo.

I do like Cancun, but have no interest flying a light aircraft into Mexico. I’ll find a place in FL, or at most the Bahamas to visit. It’s enough to deal with Lake Michigan, cooler waters I know.

With the warmer water temps, water survival gear, a personal beacon & the rest, I wouldn’t mind a ‘reasonable’ distance over Gulf waters.

Here is a current snapshot of ships in the Gulf, another option if needed, possibly.
 
genna said:
I would in one of the planes I'm flying(CAPS with enough fuel for this range given some tailwind). Only alone though. Wouldn't want to take my family with me. It's not so much for safety reasons as proper equipment and CAPS will not make it too dangerous. Honestly, CAPS would be my preference to 2nd engine as 1 engine failure is not the only thing that can go wrong. But if something were to happen, that's a lot of hours of "i told you so" and "I'm never flying with you again" :)

No CAPS or second engine.. probably not. I don't have a lot of confidence in my never tried ditching skills.
Click to expand...
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.

Also FWIW Ted Dupius did that trip I think it was in the Aztruck.
 
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'd rather fly over forest than a huge ocean. While you might decide to set down in the lake, you're doing it by the shore. kind of a best of both worlds. plus, frequently, there's a bit of beach at the transition where you could land riight at water's edge, not drown, and not fall 50' to the earth either, while having land to stand on
 
Tantalum said:
Out of friendly curiosity, what kind of trip or mission would that be then? Say your choices are a Lance / Mooney / Cirrus / C340 / Baron.. when would you take the twins? A while ago I resolved that twins don't help you over mountains becuase of the whole single engine service ceiling thing, but I feel like (outside of useful load in some situations) over water / forest is prime areas where a twin is better. I'm just curious what kind of mission you would say is better for a twin? Unless you're speaking strictly to get cabin class amenities.
Click to expand...
Tantalum, you need to discover these
406610-9029.jpg
 
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.

Also FWIW Ted Dupius did that trip I think it was in the Aztruck.
Click to expand...

There is a pretty well publicized CAPS deployment in the Pacific Ocean. IIRC, it went pretty well.
 
Even in a thick forest there are usually Beaver sloughs, marshes, or thinner areas. They may not compare with a KS wheat field, but something to work with. Paved roads in such areas usually have light traffic, N WI, wherever.

Sometimes a bit other than GPS direct is a reasonable choice, altitude being your friend.
 
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...

Trees can absorb a lot of energy. I know a guy personally who put a Cherokee into the trees at just above stall. After breaking off a few tops, he caught one right at the wing root and corkscrewed all the way down to the ground. Got good and banged up, but walked out.
 
MIFlyer said:
Tantalum, you need to discover these
Click to expand...
lol, thing of beauty, right? The SR22 I fly has a TN, and feel totally fine going more or less direct from KMYF up to Tahoe or Mammoth around 16K or higher. I guess I worded my post poorly, I meant that if you are in a twin and lose an engine very few (if any?) have the kind of one-engine-out service ceiling (turbo or non) and performance that will be of much help over the Sierra Nevada or rockies.
 
how about a single engine service ceiling in the teens....
Tantalum said:
lol, thing of beauty, right? The SR22 I fly has a TN, and feel totally fine going more or less direct from KMYF up to Tahoe or Mammoth around 16K or higher. I guess I worded my post poorly, I meant that if you are in a twin and lose an engine very few (if any?) have the kind of one-engine-out service ceiling (turbo or non) and performance that will be of much help over the Sierra Nevada or rockies.
Click to expand...
I meant a supercharged or turbocharged twin. my wish list plane has a single engine ceiling of 16,000
 
MIFlyer said:
my wish list plane has a single engine ceiling of 16,000
Click to expand...
Yeah? Sounds bad ass... what is that? I know some Riley versions of the Cessna twins have some absurd overall ceilings around 30,000 ft
 
Rebel Lord said:
Do you think a light twin at gross would have any different outcome if it lost an engine?
Click to expand...
Yes. Probably won't want to climb very fast, but if handled properly it should hold altitude just fine. Besides, a light twin at gross isn't going to stay at gross very long on a trip like that.

A better question is will a light twin have enough fuel to get you someplace dry to set it down on if one quits on you around the halfway point.
 
MIFlyer said:
how about a single engine service ceiling in the teens....

I meant a supercharged or turbocharged twin. my wish list plane has a single engine ceiling of 16,000
Click to expand...
NA 182 is like 18,000. Anything FI should be a lot higher than that
 
ktup-flyer said:
NA 182 is like 18,000. Anything FI should be a lot higher than that
Click to expand...
single engine is 16k. if both mills are turning it's "25,000" which is a certification limit, I suspect the plane would fly much higher than that if you wanted to fly unpressurized that high for some reason.
 
No, I would not do it. Especially considering the two qualifiers given: lower fuel and time.

I don’t get into flying a single engine thinking about fuel savings or time savings. I like flying. Commercial is cheap and fast if that was my goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top