I have made the trip across the North Atlantic with a pair of reliable Pratt And Whitney -60A's at 35,000 and 300 knots. My observation 400nm into an 800nm leg over water leg is that is a long cold and deep piece of water. I also noticed halfway into the 800nm leg it was a 400nm swim to the bank in either direction.

No way in HELL would I do it in a single engine anything especially one built by Cirrus. I will say the record of the JT15-5 in my experience is Nothing less than stellar. Through ice, rain, snow, incredible turbulence and even bird ingestion not once has one quit, but I do have a trip Tuesday.

PC12's are built in Switzerland and flown to the USA for paint and interior...... almost all of them.

PC12's are built in Switzerland and flown to the USA for paint and interior...... almost all of them.

PC12's are built in Switzerland and flown to the USA for paint and interior...... almost all of them.

Yeah, they send out about 5 for every three that make it. It's baked into the process, that's why they are so expensive.

Having flown myself across the Atlantic 3 times, I would not choose to make the trip in a single engine plane.

Bring a raft and wear a survival suit and if you manage to successfully exit the plane you may get more time to ponder the reliability of modern turbine engines.

To me the S/E over big water quandary comes down to imagination, some pilots look at the extremely small chance of engine failure and imagine a failure won't happen (to them), others (like me) imagine that today we will be the one to draw the short straw and having a 2nd motor will allow us to imagine being able to continue on or divert to an alternative airport for landing.

It two is good, then surely 4 is better.

If you make safety decisions (twin vs single, chute vs no chute, piston vs turbine) using anything other than statistics you are just making decisions based on emotion. In that scenario, you are no smarter than the typical non flying person who won't get on a airplane because they are unsafe but doesn't think twice about hopping in a car or motorcycle.

Now if you said, I'm hesitant to get in an SF-50 because they have little safety record yet, I'd buy that

This airplane will likely have some initial teething issues, as does most everything. However, I believe Cirrus has been through the process a few times and likely have become very good at it.

It's also my opinion that the SF50, although somewhat limited in performance and altitude capability, will be appealing to a large audience of owners/pilots. Its the logical next step to those loyal to Cirrus. If you've drank the Cirrus KoolAid, where does one go from here if higher and faster are your desires? The simplicity of a single engine operation with the ability to deploy the Chute in an extreme emergency is the appeal.

I was able to take my first ride in a G1 SR22 a week ago. My brother in-law bought one. On the surface, the little speedster is pretty amazing. If I was a private pilot with instrument rating, the SR22 does many things well and I would likely head off in the Cirrus direction. However, I'm not that guy, and well...........I like a bit more redundancy and capability.

I'm curious though about what's next in the Cirrus progression? I believe the follow on aircraft will fly higher, faster, and farther, and have 6-8 seat belts. Will it be an evolutionary extension of the SF50, or another clean sheet design? It would seem obvious to me that to go higher, a second source of pressurization air will be needed? How that's accomplished with a single engine would seem challenging and might be easier with just making it a twin, which provides some other benefits.

To the naysayers I say, "I understand" but just stay tuned. Cirrus has been successful in understanding who their customer is. Am I on there prospect list? Not yet, but it's what comes next that has me watching with a raised eyebrow.

Of course 4 are better, if someone else is paying for the cost of operation.

I don't know the survival stats are for aircraft that end up ditching in the North Atlantic, but I suspect they are grim.

Looking down from up high on a pretty day the water, ice, and rocky coast lines make for a spectacular view.












No matter where you might end up, on that route, if you go down, you are going to be a long way from help.

Geesh: reminds me they just found some of the Franklin expedition's remnants from that mission in 1845 to find the Northwest Passage. Sorry to get off topic, but pretty grim below that area. (Of course Franklin was west of there, but still representative.)

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/21/520818684 ... -was-found

Those photos were taken in Mid June 2014.

I cannot find the info, but a ferry pilot at one point posted stats on multi-engine versus single engine ocean crossings. A few points I recall, in piston aircraft, single engine was much safer, enough that it was outside a statistical error point. The primary cause was fuel exhaustion, twin engine piston planes tend to get worse MPG, which often means more complex fuel systems or ferry fuel tanks. This increases the risk. The second big point was with turbines, there was no statistical difference between one turbine and two or more. However, the sample data size was small enough, that it was considered "suspect".

However, I would still like that second engine.

Tim

Zzzzzzz

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

SNORE!

Huh, who, what? I'm sorry..... I must have fallen asleep while you were telling your story about your "comfort level".

A new PC12 is $5MM BTW.

It is obvious that you have thought about these issues. The reality is when things work right people look smart and the reliability of turbine aircraft lulls many into thinking that engines do not quit.

Look on the bright side, If you are able to exit and are wearing a survival suit the bright colors and the cool water makes for a well preserved corpse.

How many of the ferried TBMs and Pilatuses have been lost since 1995 ?



There was a SETP that went down in the 'Sea of Ochotsk' during a RTW flight and someone dunked a Meridian in the GOM. Any others ?