Best single for a long flight?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
From: New York City
Best single for a long flight?
A question from a helo pilot for the fixed-wing experts in this forum.
If you were planning a long flight (6000 nm), and your route required several hours over hostile terrain with little or no emergency services available, and you could choose any single you wanted, which airplane would you choose and why?
Speed is important but that might be outweighed by other factors.
B.
If you were planning a long flight (6000 nm), and your route required several hours over hostile terrain with little or no emergency services available, and you could choose any single you wanted, which airplane would you choose and why?
Speed is important but that might be outweighed by other factors.
B.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: PADLI
If you are on budget, pick Cirrus SR 20 or 22. It has speed. consume around 11 gallon per hour. Lean assist. Roomy inside. Great for passengers on board. And FAST.
Hostile terrain? No worry. CAPS is there. Fly airways.
Pilatus PC 12 if you have loads of dosh. Much more comfortable. Pressurized. More loads, more heads, higher cruising altitude. FASTER.
I assume that your 6000 nm journey does has a few stops for refuelling.
Hostile terrain? No worry. CAPS is there. Fly airways.
Pilatus PC 12 if you have loads of dosh. Much more comfortable. Pressurized. More loads, more heads, higher cruising altitude. FASTER.
I assume that your 6000 nm journey does has a few stops for refuelling.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Polly Vacher did well indeed but her flights were much more of a massive logistics exercise than flying, or navigation. Same is true of all long trips like that.
So what can one do to make it less complicated?
The OP has given away very little
However there isn't a 6000nm trip on which you will find avgas all along - unless you fly in circles around Bembridge So, a turboprop is the only way. (Thielerts are finished for now, and anyway the engine would probably not last 6000nm).
There must be an operating cost issue. If the OP did not care about money he would have chartered a 737.
A PC12 or a TBM700 has a DOC of some £500/hour. The only cheaper options are a Meridian or a Jetprop but neither of those are OK for dirt strips - if indeed dirt strip capability is required. A Caravan is maybe another option but it won't get above any real weather.
So what can one do to make it less complicated?
The OP has given away very little
However there isn't a 6000nm trip on which you will find avgas all along - unless you fly in circles around Bembridge So, a turboprop is the only way. (Thielerts are finished for now, and anyway the engine would probably not last 6000nm).There must be an operating cost issue. If the OP did not care about money he would have chartered a 737.
A PC12 or a TBM700 has a DOC of some £500/hour. The only cheaper options are a Meridian or a Jetprop but neither of those are OK for dirt strips - if indeed dirt strip capability is required. A Caravan is maybe another option but it won't get above any real weather.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
From: Abroad
Not an expert by any means, but why a PC-12 and not a PC-6? It's cheaper to operate, at least just as tough, and tailwheel (thus more character 
)
On the other hand, if we're talking light singles in the spamcan category, then there are a number of them (think Super Cub or a Mousquetaire) which can be modified for MOGAS.
I'm curious to know what Mr. Bronx is up to
)On the other hand, if we're talking light singles in the spamcan category, then there are a number of them (think Super Cub or a Mousquetaire) which can be modified for MOGAS.
I'm curious to know what Mr. Bronx is up to
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
Or, on the low end of the scale, something with a Rotax 912, 912S or 914 engine. That means you can use mogas, which is available everywhere. (Assuming the rest of the fuel system is mogas-rated, and no legal restrictions forbid its use.)
There are aircraft with these engines that do very impressive speeds for such low horsepowers - the MCR4 for instance I believe cruises at 135 knots.
That's still about 45 hours flying in still air for 6000 miles but the total fuel consumption will only be (rough calculation) 750 liters or so.
So that solves the fuel availability issue. Furthermore, the 912 and 912S have a very good reliability record. I don't know how well it compares to turboprops, but they're easily on par with Lycosauri, and better than Thielert.
And of course, with the rather low cruise speed also comes a low landing speed, increasing survivability in a crash landing in hostile terrain.
Guy named Thomas Scherer flew his Rotax 912-powered homebuilt Europa across the Atlantic. Twice. Once via the "traditional" Greenland-Iceland route, and once via the Azores to Newfoundland direct - 13 hours non-stop I believe. That hostile enough for you? (His website :: This Site is Under Construction :: seems to be down though but if you Google for N81EU you might find stuff in Googles cache.)
And only slightly outside the OP specs, Tecnam now does a Rotax-powered twin. A MEP rating on that one would probably be easier and cheaper to get than a SET rating.
There are aircraft with these engines that do very impressive speeds for such low horsepowers - the MCR4 for instance I believe cruises at 135 knots.
That's still about 45 hours flying in still air for 6000 miles but the total fuel consumption will only be (rough calculation) 750 liters or so.
So that solves the fuel availability issue. Furthermore, the 912 and 912S have a very good reliability record. I don't know how well it compares to turboprops, but they're easily on par with Lycosauri, and better than Thielert.
And of course, with the rather low cruise speed also comes a low landing speed, increasing survivability in a crash landing in hostile terrain.
Guy named Thomas Scherer flew his Rotax 912-powered homebuilt Europa across the Atlantic. Twice. Once via the "traditional" Greenland-Iceland route, and once via the Azores to Newfoundland direct - 13 hours non-stop I believe. That hostile enough for you? (His website :: This Site is Under Construction :: seems to be down though but if you Google for N81EU you might find stuff in Googles cache.)
And only slightly outside the OP specs, Tecnam now does a Rotax-powered twin. A MEP rating on that one would probably be easier and cheaper to get than a SET rating.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
From: UK, US, now more ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
I'm just pilot-in-the-making (over couple years) but I do fancy both FW and RW on top of 'recreational flying' aka non-powered. I'm with BackPacker.
I admired some gliders on http://www.pipistrel.si and there's that light sport 'tour glider' ie two seater with around 20-25 glide ratio (can't remember, it's all there), basically, Cessna's new SkyCatcher category but I believe it's superior to C162.
I've seen the same (to me) airframe marketed in the US pilot mags as Remos G3. I've also read somewhere it's actually German-build, so Pipistrel may be somehow related. Either way, with Rotax 912 or 912S, avgas/mogas, almost unbeatable fuel consumption for the capabilities, etc etc.
In theory you could do with handful refuelling stops on 6000nm It's late to calculate km to nm and back. 
Right, it's not pressurised, obviously, but it's basically glider. Can either be trike or TW model.
The website mentions RTW or serious XC (cross-continent) flying. Think one of the pilot was/is Czech.
I'm surely yet to befriend pressurised piston twins or TPs, but for the flying I'd love to do RTW, this would be it. Plus on a budget as well.
barit1, that machine looks damn mean. Haven't seen that one before. Must have been interesting to fly that one in it's hey-day times (if one's in the mil)
I admired some gliders on http://www.pipistrel.si and there's that light sport 'tour glider' ie two seater with around 20-25 glide ratio (can't remember, it's all there), basically, Cessna's new SkyCatcher category but I believe it's superior to C162.
I've seen the same (to me) airframe marketed in the US pilot mags as Remos G3. I've also read somewhere it's actually German-build, so Pipistrel may be somehow related. Either way, with Rotax 912 or 912S, avgas/mogas, almost unbeatable fuel consumption for the capabilities, etc etc.
In theory you could do with handful refuelling stops on 6000nm
It's late to calculate km to nm and back. Right, it's not pressurised, obviously, but it's basically glider. Can either be trike or TW model.
The website mentions RTW or serious XC (cross-continent
) flying. Think one of the pilot was/is Czech.I'm surely yet to befriend pressurised piston twins or TPs, but for the flying I'd love to do RTW, this would be it. Plus on a budget as well.
barit1, that machine looks damn mean. Haven't seen that one before. Must have been interesting to fly that one in it's hey-day times (if one's in the mil)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
From: Warwick
"Anything other than a Caravan is a no brainer if you have the funds!!
"
I am sorry to say the ONLY 1 MUST be the AN2 land any were has its own onboard fuel pumping system for fuel drums put any think in it / sleep in it very simple to maintain or repair. Slow so you can enjoy all the views !!!
"I am sorry to say the ONLY 1 MUST be the AN2 land any were has its own onboard fuel pumping system for fuel drums put any think in it / sleep in it very simple to maintain or repair. Slow so you can enjoy all the views !!!
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 760
Likes: 34
From: Rural England, thank God.
I take the points about turboprops and mogas. However if a piston single and fuel consumption are not OK, then how about a PA32?
A consideration on long flights over water has to be ease of access to a liferaft, and a PA 32 has plenty of space, partic if you take some seats out. On second thoughts a design with doors both sides may be better....
A consideration on long flights over water has to be ease of access to a liferaft, and a PA 32 has plenty of space, partic if you take some seats out. On second thoughts a design with doors both sides may be better....
