Crossing the Pacific - non-tubeliner question

[ford_friendly 2]

Okay, with time on my hands and dreams of Powerball winnings making garbage of the darkness between my ears, I started to do a "round the world flight planning" thought exercise and have run into a problem.

 

First, I don't fly tubeliners - ever. If I did, this would not be a difficult mental puzzle; it would be a relatively simple process.

 

Second, I have figured out multiple routes 3/4 of the way round the world from various starting points in a turboprop. My problem comes down to crossing the Pacific. Even if I route myself northward Hong Kong-Japan-Aleutians-Canada, I have trouble making the distance because I can't match a long-range aircraft with a route across the Pacific (shades of Amelia Earhart?) that still allows a 30 minute fuel consumption safety margin.

 

I have placed upon myself a restriction of not allowing any landing or refueling in Russia (just cuz'/shades of Cold War politics applied to today [just cuz', like I said]). This pretty much rules out the above-mentioned "Northern route". I could be over-looking a long-range plane that would make it from Northern Japan to the western Aleutians.

 

If I try going south, I run into the Hawaii-(continental North/South) America long haul gap. Again, I run into the problem of making it with any fuel left, if I make it at all.

 

Either way, the closest I have come to solving this problem, so far, is still about 200 miles short.

 

So, can anyone suggest a turboprop aircraft and flight route combination that makes it across the Pacific without landing in Russia and still has a 30 minute margin for fuel?

[amalishkin 10]

Strange in regards of Russia,  they haven't restricted any flights or landings/refueling even with all politics and sanctions in past 30 years, they have been playing cool, but getting back to ur flight going to be tough to do flight northern part without touching Russia, maybe go more south? Hawaii, Polynesia etc and then hit up towards japan, china, etc.  I did few round world flights and really enjoyed flying very northern parts of Russia and getting hit with -50C temps and flying through some very challenging weather.

 

good luck.  By the way Russians are not as bad as everyone keeps painting.  just like US they have interests that they protect that we might not like but as superpower they do have that right.

 

 

anyways good luck.   

[scottb613 1,186]

Hi Folks,

 

You may find this interesting - I know I did... A whole YouTube series on a doctor who bought a C172 and flew it across the pacific to Australia and back... His longest leg was over 20 hours...

 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF4D05E02F5FA1A3

 

Regards,

Scott

[amalishkin 10]

Pacific is easier to cross i think few hotspots to land

[ford_friendly 2]

Pacific is easier to cross i think few hotspots to land

With the self-imposed restriction of flying a non-tubeliner and not landing or refueling in Russia, distance makes crossing the Pacific a bit of a b****. I'm also looking at a non-jet, again, just becuz'.

 

There're just not many refueling points within range on certain possible legs - I'm assuming/hoping for a 2200 mile range for a twin engine turbo-prop based on 'Net research and restricting myself to a FSX/FS9 "standard" aircraft - not something specially modified as has been done in the real world and not flying with unlimited fuel as a computer program allows. If you think that's not the case, please, enlighten me - that's the whole point of this thread, actually. To find a plane and route combination that meets my "absurd" criteria - then I might try virtually flying it just to prove it can be done.

 

The difficult and somewhat obvious route legs I have looked at include (but all fall into the realm of being range difficult to impossible given my restrictions):

1. Sapporo/Northern Hokkaido to Alaska (if I allowed myself to land/refuel in Petropavlosk, this would be the easiest route)

2. Hawaii-California/Central America/South America (the "straightest"/most direct route, but there's no margin for safety fuel-wise in any twin engine turboprop I have researched and most can't make the range, period)

3. Australia/New Zealand-French Polynesia-Easter Island-South America (same problem as #2, that last leg is just a few hundred miles too long/has no margin for safety)

 

Heck, I've even looked at Philipines-Midway/Wake-Hawaii and then North or South somewhere before trying to reach the American continents. No obvious solution arises, at least to me.

 

I looked at Amelia Earhart's planned route. She was going to fly Hawaii to Oakland/'Frisco. But her Lockheed Electra was a highly modified for long-range aircraft - something FSX doesn't allow for unless one checks the unlimited fuel option in the Realism Settings.

 

FWIW, that C172 cross-Pacific set of videos shows the guy had modified his plane with a large, in-cabin fuel tank. See the previous paragraph for why I won't/can't do that. I'm trying to do it with a "stock" aircraft within the limits of FSX

 

So, you think that this is easy? I'm not insulted at all. But, Please, enlighten me. I would love to be shown something easy about this that I have overlooked. I may have set myself a challenge that cannot be met - I hope not. But it's possible that I have.

 

You guys, as a whole, probably know more things about planes, ranges and routing than I will ever know. There's my challenge for you.

 

--- --- ---

Edited to add: I am currently looking at trying to use a Cessna C441. Fingers crossed.

[amalishkin 10]

dear friend clearly you didn't understand my sense of humor but thats ok, web doesnt do good job of relaying that.  anyways,

 

the task is monumental,  granted you didn't fully select a platform to use as crossing, so i would start there first get a ride that meets req of long distances, then use flight planning tools and plan based on your max distances -10-15% for headwind calc etc that helps you start creating your radius distances, then start looking at ur airport choices on what you can hit in those radius and sometimes you might have to make drastic deviations like go north more to hit airport or south rather then west etc. 

 

just my two cents.  lots of planning

[fppilot 4,335]

Check out this link:

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2008/March/1/Endurance-Test-Circa-1958

[Cat_Dad 17]

 Remember Max Conrad?

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Conrad

 

He flew Pipers single and twins over lots of water too.

 

Terry

[ViperPilot 81]

A couple of years ago, I was following a Thread over at AvCanada about a Pilot who was ferrying a Twin Otter from BC to Singapore, and took the Route past the Aleutians and down to Japan. He did stop in Russia once for petrol and a good bed.

 

He used Ferry Tanks (!), which are hard to model in FS... but it was a fun story to follow!

 

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=79032&hilit=twin+otter+ferry

 

Alan   :smile:

[ford_friendly 2]

amalishkin - I meant nothing bad in my own response and took no insult at yours. As you said, things don't necessarily come across as intended in text. Your advise is on-target and I am actually at that point where I'm reaching the max range of the desirable aircraft (no jets/tubeliners, no regional commuters,  no "classic" four prop airliners, that sort of thing). Ultimately, that means a modern, twin-engined turbo-prop that seats no more than 8-9 that is considered "stock" in FSX. The Cessna 441 looks like it just might work, but it's gonna take tight planning, good fuel management in flight and favorable weather conditions to cross the Pacific.

 

Considering the other linked references and stories, all have/had modified planes with in-cabin auxiliary fuel tanks, something not available in FSX. It's that simple. Great stories and good inspiration, but not something I can directly use for this particular "problem".

 

And one guy stopped and refueled in Russia violating one of my self-imposed restrictions. While I may have to modify that particular aspect at some point, I'd simply rather not. If it makes it harder to find a plane to accomplish the route planning/flight, then so be it. I just don't want to have to stop in Russia (though, believe it or not, I am a big Russophile in other aspects of life interests).

 

If landing in Russia was not a restriction, I could do what this guy says "in a BE20... we have the ability to one hop from Shemya to Petropavlosk and then Sapporo, Japan"

[Holdit 551]

For what it's worth, the Piper Cheyenne has slightly longer legs than the 441,about 80nm worth, I think. 

 

I believe there is also a freeware moveable aircraft carrier that might be able to help you out.

 

Failing that, although you can't model additional internal tanks directly, you could decide what the capacity of such a tank would be i.e. your remaining payload weight, less the weight of bags, food, survival equipment etc. Add "passengers" to make up that weight, and "move" them to the fuel tanks as required.

[ford_friendly 2]

For what it's worth, the Piper Cheyenne has slightly longer legs than the 441,about 80nm worth, I think. 

 

I believe there is also a freeware moveable aircraft carrier that might be able to help you out.

 

Failing that, although you can't model additional internal tanks directly, you could decide what the capacity of such a tank would be i.e. your remaining payload weight, less the weight of bags, food, survival equipment etc. Add "passengers" to make up that weight, and "move" them to the fuel tanks as required.

Very imaginative solutions you propose there. Lol. Not sure that I'll use them, but I have to admit that I like the creativity. (Not sure how I would "'move' them to the fuel tanks as required". I'll have to give that some thought.)

[Holdit 551]

Very imaginative solutions you propose there. Lol. Not sure that I'll use them, but I have to admit that I like the creativity. (Not sure how I would "'move' them to the fuel tanks as required". I'll have to give that some thought.)

 

Go to Aircraft...Fuel & Payload...pick one of the "passengers", change their weight to 0, then increase the fuel in the tanks by the same amount. The advantage of this solution is that you can actually include the weight of the extra fuel from the start rather than just adding it by magic whenever it's needed, making it more realistic because you'll be paying the cost in fuel burned for carrying all the extra fuel.

[ford_friendly 2]

Thanks. I didn't know how to do that...

[ford_friendly 2]

In case ya'll are curious, I found my plane and route combo... Yeah for me!

Plane: payware Cessna 441, I'd probably go with the Flysimware version based on recommendations and online reviews.

 

Cross-Pacific route:
Memanbetsu Airport, North Central Hokkaido, Japan to Adak, Alaska ~1880 miles - then Adak, Alaska to Anchorage, Alaska ~1400 miles (following the island chain and routing over Kodiak means the only section without any bailout/emergency airport is the long over water stretch from Hokkaido to Shemya). Flying West to East has the advantage of flying with the winds most of the time instead of into headwinds. And I lived in the Aleutians for a couple years - the weather not only routinely sucks, it's VERY changeable. So, I like the safety margin flying in this direction provides.

That solves the problem as getting to Hokkaido, Japan is relatively easy from anywhere in Asia/SE Asia and once in Alaska, well, there are literally thousands of routes to anywhere I start and end in the USA.

 

Routing across the Atlantic is unbelievably easy in comparison. Three routes were/are historically used by aircraft that didn't/don't have the legs to make it in one go. Bailout points and emergency landing/repair points are much more abundant than in the Pacific.

 

One route is New England/USA - Nova Scotia - Greenland/Iceland - Ireland - Continental Europe. This is basically the Lindbergh route though he flew non-stop.

 

A second route is Florida, USA - Caribbean - Santa Luzia area,Brazil - (emergency airport -Vila dos Remedios island) - either Freetown, Sierra Leone or Monrovia, Liberia, African continent
This Southern route was used a lot during WW2 to get USAAF aircraft to the European Theater from the USA.

 

A third route, often used by seaplanes was Florida - Bermuda - Azores - either Spain or North Africa depending on the ultimate destination. But that route needs an aircraft with some serious legs too.

 

So, the purely mental challenge has been completed. Now to decide if I am going to actually virtually fly this and, if so, I need to go find, download and install the appropriate afcads/sceneries in order to connect the pan-Pacific route to the Europe to SE Asia route. I figure it's going to take me another week to decide and start the process, not to mention I have to practice about 50 landings in a new-to-me airplane. Also, it's been a while since I considered myself truly competent in landing any FSwhatever aircraft (I've been away from simming for a couple years).

 

Thanks for indulging my fantasy and helping me think this through.

 

Added: Wouldn't you know, just after I typed the above, a friend sent me a link to this page which goes into detail about solo circumnavigating the globe by air. Lots of route and other good information. I mostly came to the same conclusions, but he's written it out in quite a bit of detail.