Well over 12 hours spent out over the Pacific in a Navajo. Looks like a pulse-raising experience, especially as it seems the flight is taking longer than originally planned for. Anyone with any inside scoop as to how much fuel was stuffed into ferry tanks and whatnot?
Jetjeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1447 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7413 times:
I think i would rather not choose a navaho to cross the pacific. Especially with enough fuel in the ferry tanks im surprised
it would have gotten off the ground for a 12 hr flight. I would think the pilot would have had some hesitation. How did they do it back in the old days put them on ships or what..
Type-Rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7390 times:
If you can make it SFO/OAK-HNL then you can hop anywhere else across the Pacific just by island hopping.
I imagine those pilots will have the sound of those engines in their ears for days to come! That is a long flight!
Or I suppose you could rig up the sort of pee-tube some gliders have - essentially a funnel with a hose leading to the outside, with suction increasing with airspeed. But I would be very nervous about putting my bits anywhere near one of those...
On the scale of balls... I give more credit to the Navajo. Turbines are a bit more reliable than Pistons. Either way, they've both got more than I ever would... you'd never catch me flying in something like that from the mainland to a Pacific island.
This is the new ETOPS 240 qualified Saab 340, right?
Charles A. Lindbergh carried an empty coffee can with him on his famous New York-Paris flight.
Quoting C680 (Reply 9): My preferred jumping off point is MRY - it's the shortest by a mile or two, and the FBOs there are more Hawaii bound aware for GA pilots.
Being totally silly here, pilots can take advantage of MRY's downhill runway 28L, after all the west end of the runway is over 100ft (31m) LOWER than the east end (according to the FAA's PDF http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0704/00271AD.PDF).
The only time an aircraft has too much fuel is when it is on fire.
CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4947 times:
Quoting PapaNovember (Reply 15): Why was their altitude (the Navajo) only 6,000 ft. Wouldn't you want to be much, much higher!?
If it is pressurized, it can. But if it is not then they would have to be at a lower altitude. Any flying around 8,000 to 10,000 feet you need supplemental oxygen to survive at that altitude and you have to make certain that the engine will be able to operate at that altitude. If you check the Saab's flightplan (in the 10th post through the link), they are going to 22,000 feet. The airplane is pressurized and that may be the highest operating ceiling for the turboprop.
[Edited 2007-07-01 20:41:38]
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
FlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4830 times:
Quoting CcrlR (Reply 17): Any flying around 8,000 to 10,000 feet you need supplemental oxygen to survive
I used to file 10,500 or 11,500 when I did my solo cross countries in a C-172. Granted they were never more than a couple hours at that altitude. But the point is, someone who is used to it can survive there no problem. You're not exactly exerting yourself in such a way that you need all that extra oxygen you'd find at 6,000 feet. And of course we all know what the FAR's say about supplemental O2 in a non-pressurized aircraft: Any flight in excess of 12,500 feet for more than 30 minutes requires the pilots to be on supplemental oxygen. So back to the Navajo, it would have probably been more economical for them to file 10,000 or something around there. Not to mention it gives you extra time should something go wrong.
Flyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 905 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3096 times:
I read a book about a ferry flight to Hawaii in an Otter. It lasted around 24 hours. There was an airline pilot talking to him on the radio on his way to Honolulu, and on his way back the next day the Otter was still going. There was also only one pilot in the Otter.
As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.