Would you?

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Rebel Lord, Aug 5, 2019.

  1. Rebel Lord

    Rebel Lord Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    546
    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
     
  2. WannFly

    WannFly En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    4,254
    Location:
    KFAR
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Priyo
    not sure how far that is, I am fairly positive I have to pee if I see so much water around me...
     
  3. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    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
     
  4. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    Would you have radio and radar coverage over that much water? Or do you just check back in at some point with another controller..?
     
  5. Rebel Lord

    Rebel Lord Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rebel Lord
    about 700nm
     
  6. WannFly

    WannFly En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    4,254
    Location:
    KFAR
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Priyo
    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
     
    Todd82 likes this.
  7. Rebel Lord

    Rebel Lord Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rebel Lord
    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.
     
    WannFly likes this.
  8. luvflyin

    luvflyin Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    6,652
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    If I get the airplane I want, yes. The planes I am able to fly now, no.
     
    MIFlyer likes this.
  9. EdFred

    EdFred Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    23,184
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    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.
     
  10. Rebel Lord

    Rebel Lord Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rebel Lord
    Do you think a light twin at gross would have any different outcome if it lost an engine?
     
  11. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,305
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    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.
     
  12. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,047
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    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?
     
  13. IK04

    IK04 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2018
    Messages:
    1,180
    Location:
    Copperas Cove, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    LNXGUY
    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...
     
    Tantalum likes this.
  14. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    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
     
    mryan75 and ktup-flyer like this.
  15. Rebel Lord

    Rebel Lord Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rebel Lord
    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.
     
    mwagg737 likes this.
  16. Morgan3820

    Morgan3820 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,510
    Location:
    New Bern, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Reno
    Yes it is different. If I survive the landing, I won’t drown. Big difference.
     
    Todd82, ktup-flyer and Tantalum like this.
  17. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    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
     
  18. Caramon13

    Caramon13 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,047
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Romeo
    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.
     
  19. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    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
     
    flyingcheesehead likes this.
  20. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,930
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    I guess....the 182 would do it in about 4.8hrs and 65 gallons. I'd much rather be in a twin or jet
     
    TipTanks likes this.
  21. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    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
     
  22. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    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.
     
    flyingcheesehead likes this.
  23. genna

    genna Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,182
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ТУ-104
    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.
     
    Tantalum likes this.
  24. sourdough44

    sourdough44 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,614
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    WI Flyer
    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.
     
  25. AdamZ

    AdamZ Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,531
    Location:
    Montgomery County PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Adam Zucker
    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.
     
    flyingcheesehead likes this.
  26. MIFlyer

    MIFlyer Line Up and Wait PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    958
    Location:
    Mercer Island, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MIFlyer
    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
     
  27. MIFlyer

    MIFlyer Line Up and Wait PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    958
    Location:
    Mercer Island, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MIFlyer
    Tantalum, you need to discover these [​IMG]
     
    Zeldman likes this.
  28. genna

    genna Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,182
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ТУ-104
    There is a pretty well publicized CAPS deployment in the Pacific Ocean. IIRC, it went pretty well.
     
    Tantalum likes this.
  29. sourdough44

    sourdough44 Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,614
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    WI Flyer
    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.
     
  30. Chip Sylverne

    Chip Sylverne En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,665
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fear is the poison of our lives.
    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.
     
  31. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    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.
     
    MIFlyer likes this.
  32. MIFlyer

    MIFlyer Line Up and Wait PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    958
    Location:
    Mercer Island, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MIFlyer
    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
     
  33. Tantalum

    Tantalum En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,892
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    San_Diego_Pilot
    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
     
  34. SkyDog58

    SkyDog58 Ejection Handle Pulled PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    13,538
    Location:
    My own special place.
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Canis Non Grata
    Well since my plane is a club 172, no.

    In the plane I want? Yes.

    [​IMG]
     
  35. Juliet Hotel

    Juliet Hotel Cleared for Takeoff PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2018
    Messages:
    1,342
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Juliet Hotel
    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.
     
    flyingcheesehead likes this.
  36. ktup-flyer

    ktup-flyer En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,930
    Location:
    Tupelo, MS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    ktup-flyer
    NA 182 is like 18,000. Anything FI should be a lot higher than that
     
  37. MIFlyer

    MIFlyer Line Up and Wait PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    958
    Location:
    Mercer Island, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MIFlyer
    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.
     
  38. David Herzfeld

    David Herzfeld Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    David H
    UAL regularly scheduled flight with a drink service. ;)
     
    Groundpounder and Zeldman like this.
  39. Kenny Phillips

    Kenny Phillips Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2018
    Messages:
    2,239
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kenny Phillips
    I'd do it single engine, in a Pilatus PC-12, a TBM 700 through 950, or an F-16.
     
  40. TheFB

    TheFB Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2017
    Messages:
    115
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    TheFB
    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.