So what was the episode Auxtank referred to?
Here's another article that was published after her press conference in Belgium.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...o-record-books
Based on this and two NYT articles (that I won't link to because moderators will then delete the whole post because you see a registration request if you have tried to access more than three articles in that month on your browser), I have a couple of mostly technical questions:
- What is the fuel consumption per hour or per 100 km in cruise (ie. at 130 kn = 250 km/h)? The engine seems to use 18.5 l/h at 75% power
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912, but at what power is it used in cruise?
- The engine likes to run on unleaded automobile fuel, which is known to vary from country to country. Is MOGAS now routinely available at big and small airfields around the world and is there a certain standard to be met? I suppose she couldn't just hitchhike to the next gas station with a jerrycan.
- What is the failure rate of the engine, apparaently a Rotax 912ULS? The manual does not seem reassuring: "
The manual states that Rotax gives no assurances that the engine is suitable for use in any aircraft, and that the engine may seize or stall at any time, which could lead to a crash landing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912
- What is the difference between the certified and the uncertified version other than the paperwork? The warning apparently applies to both versions.
- She states that she was worried about an emergency landing in Siberia because she didn't have the survival gear to survive -35° for hours on end. What about the overwater flights - did she have the kind of cold suit donned by the pilots of the dual BN2 ferry flight for overwater legs? Would a cold suit also help against dry cold air?
https://airlebnis.homepage.t-online.de/serv01.htm
edit: I just realized the picture with the cold suits does not always load, so here's a direct link
https://airlebnis.homepage.t-online....utzanzuege.jpg
- Both NYT articles stress that flying in the North Atlantic at 200 ft to stay below clouds was not a very safe thing to do (presumably because of loss of radio contact and lack of time/altitude to troubleshoot any occurence). Would it have been safer to fly into clouds no matter what the certification says, given that no traffic was to be expected at that altitude in that area?