What air plane would you need to make this direct route?

midcap

midcap

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,513
Location
South Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
midcap
I enjoy going to flight planner and messing around with different routes and such. So I plugged in this route (keep in mind, I am a noob).

KHUM direct to KEYW.

562 nm and right under 4 hours at 135 knots. A Comanche has the legs and speed for this on paper.

The long way around flying over land the whole way is 730nm and 5 hours.

Do people take single engine piston aircraft over water like that?

I'd imagine a life raft, EPIRB, food and water would be need to be on board in case you have to ditch.

Trips like this seem to be where a twin would come in handy.

What do you seasoned aviators think?
 
Some do, some don't. Raft, etc is a good plan but they need to be where you can reach them and get them out in a very short time. I, personally opted for the down the island chain when I flew to KMTH (Marathon, just up the chain from KEYW) in a 172. I didn't fly across Florida Bay, much less the Gulf of Mexico. But that's me.

John
 
I guess whats good about following the coast it that you can land on a beach if you need to emergency land.
 
Yeah, I'm sure you'd be fine, I wouldn't do it though.

KHUM KAAF KEYW something more like that looks good to me.

I mean for me to do that crossing, just to save 45 minutes, F' that noise, plus I have zero desire to sit in a plane that long, scenic along the coast, stretch and grab a bite and fuel at KAAF, head down the pretty coast again to your destination, seems like a no brainer.
 
A Comanche 250, with sux tanks would have plenty of range and about 3:45 min flight zero wind.

Less than an hour longer staying within glide range of the shore... just don't see the need to go direct.
 
how often you doing this a year? if just a few i am down with james unless you get something with a pt6 and even than its a lot of water.along with all of james pluses another would be a quick inspection of the aircraft while being fueled, i have found some discrepancies at the first stop and was grateful i did not go direct as it might have puked before i was over land.
 
Twin for certain is my vote. I'm partial to 310's but as long as it can maintain altitude as loaded somewhere above sea level others will work. If I was stuck in a single I would fly the longer land route within gliding distance.

There is a good ASF video of a mooney from TPA area to KEYW that became a glider.
 
I would Consider doing it in my 182. The plane doesn't know the difference if it's over water or not. I've done a bit of unglideable water stuff (DAB-CHS, various Florida west coast airports direct key west etc), granted this is slightly longer so it would take some more evaluation.I have a life vest for all occupants, and a raft/survival kit combo with all the goodies one hopes they never need. Personally I'd rather be in the ocean than the Everglades but that's just my two cents. Usually I'll go to 9 or 10k so if there is an issue there's more time to radio for help and get someone on the way etc. For your specific route though that's like an hour longer than my body needs limit so I probobaly wouldn't go direct, but that has nothing to do with it being over water or not. Now que the many who disagree with me! There's plenty people who take singles to Mexico from Florida and such, it's just up to your personal comfort level and what you view as safe an acceptable risk/reward ratio. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, and there certainly is no harm in taking the longer way around
 
I don't care how many engines you have, going that far out over open water vs over nice beaches, for a 45 minute or less savings is a fools errand.

Even more so in a FASTER twin, maybe the second engine might make you think you're safer, but the biggest risk here from what I've read, is the PICs poor reasoning. There are some legs where you have no other good option but to go over open water, this ain't even close to one of em'
 
Last edited:
JustinD said:
I would Consider doing it in my 182. The plane doesn't know the difference if it's over water or not...
Click to expand...

But you will when you touch down and flip in open salt water, how many full engine failures have you had?
 
James331 said:
I don't care how many engines you have, gong that far out over open water vs over nice beaches, for a 45 minute or less savings is a fools errand.

Even more so in a FASTER twin, maybe the second engine might make you think you're safer, but the biggest risk here from what I've read, is the PICs poor reasoning. There are some legs where you have no other good option but to go over open water, this ain't even close to one of em'
Click to expand...

To each their own. I wouldn't say it's fools errand to do it in a single (providing proper safety precautions are taken) although I did state that I personally wouldn't. The vast majority of twin engine-out problems happen right after take off where Vmc is a problem. Simply securing an engine and trimming for single engine cruise is indeed safer and has a infinitely higher likely hood of making a landing at an airport than a single that loses an engine (obviously assuming a good airworthy aircraft and properly trained and proficient pilot).

I know I probably should have just let this go, honestly not trying to create a single vs twin measuring contest. Simply think open water travel is safer in a twin and that's just my opinion.
 
that is a fact, none, and I hope it stays that way, my point being that some people are concerned of going over water as if there is suddenly more of a chance of it failing over water than over land. over mountains out west is technically over land, but touching down on that terrain out there won't provide much more upright of a touchdown either, yet many people don't even give it a second thought. There was an interesting article i once read about survivability factors of over land vs over water engine out situations, and the climate associated with the occurrence. I can't seem to find it now but it was very interesting, I'll keep looking
 
Personally, I wouldn't do that direct route it in a twin.

It is more than just range and engine out considerations. You are transiting several Whiskey areas. You can legally do it VFR, but I wouldn't recommend it. If you go IFR, you probably won't be direct anyway. Also need to consider the ADIZ crossing.

Flying direct in this case is simply not a matter of load it up and launch.
 
Radar Contact said:
To each their own. I wouldn't say it's fools errand to do it in a single...
Click to expand...

It's a fools errand to do it to only save 45 minutes or less.

It's a super fools errand to do it in a twin where you're going to be going faster then the PA24s 135kts, because now you're doing it to save even less time.


JustinD said:
that is a fact, none, and I hope it stays that way, my point being that some people are concerned of going over water as if there is suddenly more of a chance of it failing over water than over land. over mountains out west is technically over land, but touching down on that terrain out there won't provide much more upright of a touchdown either, yet many people don't even give it a second thought. There was an interesting article i once read about survivability factors of over land vs over water engine out situations, and the climate associated with the occurrence. I can't seem to find it now but it was very interesting, I'll keep looking
Click to expand...

It's not that the engine is more likely to quit over water, just that landing the OPEN water would suck, especially in a fixed gear plane, where as depending on your skills, airframe and the beach, landing on a beach can be a complete non event, heck I've landed on beaches before for fun.
 
James331 said:
Yeah, I'm sure you'd be fine, I wouldn't do it though.

KHUM KAAF KEYW something more like that looks good to me.

I mean for me to do that crossing, just to save 45 minutes, F' that noise, plus I have zero desire to sit in a plane that long, scenic along the coast, stretch and grab a bite and fuel at KAAF, head down the pretty coast again to your destination, seems like a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Curious, when you are making the leg from AAF to EYW and you are west of George Lewis 78 nm from shore... exactly how less dead will you be ?
 
James331 said:
Yeah, I'm sure you'd be fine, I wouldn't do it though.

KHUM KAAF KEYW something more like that looks good to me.

I mean for me to do that crossing, just to save 45 minutes, F' that noise, plus I have zero desire to sit in a plane that long, scenic along the coast, stretch and grab a bite and fuel at KAAF, head down the pretty coast again to your destination, seems like a no brainer.
Click to expand...

That's a good point....I am sure my Px would want to take a brake after 2 hours of being in the plane.
 
midcap said:
Do people take single engine piston aircraft over water like that?
Click to expand...

Yes. Some people take single engine aircraft across the atlantic or out to Hawaii.

A couple of years back someone in a Malibu or Meridian when swimming in the gulf. Iirc just within range of the coast guard helo.

Trips like this seem to be where a twin would come in handy.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe.

I believe he was planning for some longer over-ocean trips at the time. Instead he went swimming off Destin.

NTSB Identification: CEN12LA652
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, September 20, 2012 in Gulf of Mexico, GM
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/06/2013
Aircraft: BEECH 95-C55, registration: N265Q
Injuries: 2 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

While on a cross-country flight, the pilot detected smoke in the cockpit. He attempted to identify the source of the smoke but was not successful. When the pilot saw flames behind the cockpit panel, he descended and ditched the airplane in the water. The pilot and passengers got out of the airplane and the airplane sank. Due to the depth of the water at the accident location, the airplane was not recovered. Without recovery of the airplane’s wreckage, further examination was not possible, and the source of the fire could not be determined.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
  • An in-flight fire, which resulted in the airplane’s forced landing in water. The source of the fire could not be determined because the airplane wreckage was not recovered.


What do you seasoned aviators think?
Click to expand...

How good of a swimmer are you ?

I think it is unwise considering that with a couple hours extra flying you can go around.
 
jaybee said:
Curious, when you are making the leg from AAF to EYW and you are west of George Lewis 78 nm from shore... exactly how less dead will you be ?
Click to expand...

Just a ruff idea, I'm not going to sit and plan the whole flight, my point was to stay within gliding distance of the beach.
 
James331 said:
Just a ruff idea, I'm not going to sit and plan the whole flight, my point was to stay within gliding distance of the beach.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

That is more than just 45 minutes. Could have made your point without the hyperbole.
 
I would fly high, stay within gliding distance of land, use cross city vor as a waypt
My plane could do it without stopping.
 
midcap said:
I enjoy going to flight planner and messing around with different routes and such. So I plugged in this route (keep in mind, I am a noob).

KHUM direct to KEYW.

562 nm and right under 4 hours at 135 knots. A Comanche has the legs and speed for this on paper.

The long way around flying over land the whole way is 730nm and 5 hours.

Do people take single engine piston aircraft over water like that?

I'd imagine a life raft, EPIRB, food and water would be need to be on board in case you have to ditch.

Trips like this seem to be where a twin would come in handy.

What do you seasoned aviators think?
Click to expand...
Lake Renegade
 
I take oxygen just so I can fly as high as possible when going over Lake Michigan, and I only will do that July- September (lake temps are warmest then). That's 90 miles across, and I'm in contact with atc the whole way. Even then it freaks me out a little.
560 nm to save an hour? Nooooo sir, not me. Not to mention, I'd get one hour into the flight and I'd have to pee...
 
tawood said:
I take oxygen just so I can fly as high as possible when going over Lake Michigan, and I only will do that July- September (lake temps are warmest then). That's 90 miles across, and I'm in contact with atc the whole way. Even then it freaks me out a little.
560 nm to save an hour? Nooooo sir, not me. Not to mention, I'd get one hour into the flight and I'd have to pee...
Click to expand...

I guess I am not that bothered by the water, since I have been out in the Gulf my whole life fishing, swimming etc.

What I don't like are the Alligators in the swamp...:eek:
 
I worked with a guy based out of Marathon, FL and would often work in TX. He bought an Aerostar for the route after ruling out a Lancair due to the overwater route.
 
midcap said:
I enjoy going to flight planner and messing around with different routes and such. So I plugged in this route (keep in mind, I am a noob).
Click to expand...

plug in this route almost the same exact over water mileage... :D

khse txkf
 
midcap said:
I guess I am not that bothered by the water, since I have been out in the Gulf my whole life fishing, swimming etc.

What I don't like are the Alligators in the swamp...:eek:
Click to expand...

The longer you fly and read about flying and talk to old timers about flying, the more concerned you'll get with the water as well as other hazards of flight. Ditching a plane in the Gulf is not just going for a swim, or going fishing. Ditching a plane can be problematic and quite dangerous depending on the type of plane. Your odds of dying that day goes way up.

Sticking to the shoreline and over land is much, much safer, but of course you will do what you'll do. There should be someone along soon who will tell you they fly direct over the Gulf all the time no problem. The usual "The airplane doesn't know..." stuff. There are lots of affordable GA panes that can do this trip direct, non stop. I just hope you do your homework and really think about it first and please, for the love of aviation, please inform your passengers of the very real risks they face.
 
midcap said:
I enjoy going to flight planner and messing around with different routes and such. So I plugged in this route (keep in mind, I am a noob).

KHUM direct to KEYW.

562 nm and right under 4 hours at 135 knots. A Comanche has the legs and speed for this on paper.

The long way around flying over land the whole way is 730nm and 5 hours.

Do people take single engine piston aircraft over water like that?

I'd imagine a life raft, EPIRB, food and water would be need to be on board in case you have to ditch.

Trips like this seem to be where a twin would come in handy.

What do you seasoned aviators think?
Click to expand...

KGPT KECP KCTY 6FD7 CAVIS I like flying and living! I'd do it in my cherokee six.
 
I could do easily do it in the Velocity in 3+30. I suppose the Clearwater guys could pick me up if I went down in the drink but it's not a flight I'd try. Personally, I would stay within gliding distance of shore and take the extra 30-45 mins. While my plane has a chance of floating, odds are she'll sink and be unsalvageable.
 
tlrussell said:
KGPT KECP KCTY 6FD7 CAVIS I like flying and living! I'd do it in my cherokee six.
Click to expand...

Pretty good route, but I wonder if there is much benefit of flying down to CAVIS? It takes you down the coast for sure, but you'll within glide distance of the Everglades and I'm not sure that landing in there is any safer than the open ocean. Maybe worse. Maybe some Florida locals could enlighten us. Is there any value in flying close to the Everglades?
 
Dav8or said:
The longer you fly and read about flying and talk to old timers about flying, the more concerned you'll get with the water as well as other hazards of flight. Ditching a plane in the Gulf is not just going for a swim, or going fishing. Ditching a plane can be problematic and quite dangerous depending on the type of plane. Your odds of dying that day goes way up.

Sticking to the shoreline and over land is much, much safer, but of course you will do what you'll do. There should be someone along soon who will tell you they fly direct over the Gulf all the time no problem. The usual "The airplane doesn't know..." stuff. There are lots of affordable GA panes that can do this trip direct, non stop. I just hope you do your homework and really think about it first and please, for the love of aviation, please inform your passengers of the very real risks they face.
Click to expand...

that's why I asked....safety is always my first worry
 
It doesn't have to be a full-out engine failure. Can you think of any other situations where you just gotta get the plane on the ground NOW? It's an individual choice. I'd rather be near land.
 
Dav8or said:
...Ditching a plane can be problematic and quite dangerous depending on the type of plane. Your odds of dying that day goes way up.

...
Click to expand...

I used to think the exact same thing.

But some PoAers pointed me to a couple of sources with actual statistics (yes, I understand that facts can be heresy, worthy of permanent excommunication, in certain situations around these parts ;) ).

One of these links might be a worthwhile re-read:
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

The other is some postings by an PoAer named Ken Ibold, who has done quite a few (more than 2 dozen iirc) crossings to the Bahamas alone. He's written some articles for aviation publications and some postings on this forum. Best to use a search engine to track those down.

None of this would convince me to go direct over water when it wasn't necessary (as it isn't in the routing on this thread). It is riskier. But not so much as I used to believe.
 
I've made the trek over Lake Michigan to Chicago in a plain Jane 172 once. Keep within gliding distance to the shore line, a little nervous but it was fun. then again, nothing went wrong. Honeslty, I'm not sure I would do it again, ok, i would. But yeah, don't go directly over water, if
Something goes wrong, Sploosh. No good
 
Last edited:
this sparks a business idea....for me...do what they do in the oil field with water survival but instead of helicopters use GA aircraft.
 
midcap said:
this sparks a business idea....for me...do what they do in the oil field with water survival but instead of helicopters use GA aircraft.
Click to expand...

You talking about adding inflatable floats to GA planes or dunker training? I have friends who have done the later and said it was the worst experience of their lives. Fortunately, I missed that invaluable training experience. :D
 
Velocity173 said:
You talking about adding inflatable floats to GA planes or dunker training? I have friends who have done the later and said it was the worst experience of their lives. Fortunately, I missed that invaluable training experience. :D
Click to expand...

dunker training....most of my friends work offshore and they all had to go through it. they didn't like it either.lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top