Some really endless ocean ahead now..,
August 6, 2016 7:15 AM   Subscribe

Crossing the Atlantic in a Beechcraft 76. "In 2013 the flight school I worked at in Sweden decided to sell their two old Beech 76's in favor of a new DA42. The buyer was in San Diego, Cali. So me and three friends had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to fly them across the Atlantic and through the US. These are some of the pictures I took on that trip."
posted by blue_beetle (29 comments total) 44 users marked this as a favorite
 
This summer I was in a flight that took a similar path across the Atlantic itself (Paris to Iceland, stop in Iceland, then over Greenland and Newfoundland down to New York) The weather cleared up while we were passing over southern Greenland, and the pilot actually pointed out that we had a brilliant view of it out the window. It was stunning. We had people crowding three deep around the windows to have a look; vast fields of white with tips of mountains poking up here and there, the stripey white-and-blue of glaciers moving, and in one spot I saw three peaks clustered near each other, all of them with impossibly steep sides and sharp summits, like isocoles-triangle pyramids.

And not a single sign of human habitation. I think the only cities or towns were further north than we were passing, and one guy who was looking out the window with me thought the white speckles on the ocean were boats, but we then realized we were too high up and they were probably icebergs.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:31 AM on August 6, 2016 [11 favorites]


That was absolutely fascinating! It made me want to learn to fly.
posted by ashbury at 8:26 AM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is a truly insane flight. They seemed to have been incredibly lucky with the weather; those northern airports in Greenland and Iceland are constantly battered by strong winds and storms, many of them are located in difficult terrain at high altitudes, and it would be very easy to get yourself killed if you're not careful. Picking up ice in a plane like that is not a joke, either.

Looks like it was a lot of fun, though!
posted by backseatpilot at 8:27 AM on August 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


This scratched the same itch as people's accounts of sailing around the world, thanks!
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:34 AM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bad weather! My first thought was how did they poop? Clearly, I am no viking adventurer.
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:39 AM on August 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


12 hour shifts stuffed into a dry suit, sitting in an airplane? i bet that shower at the end of the day felt real nice.
posted by indubitable at 8:43 AM on August 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


This ferry route for small airplanes is well established; the usual way to get an American plane in Europe is to buy it in the states and have someone ferry it over. It takes good weather, good planning, and some courage and faith in your engine. But it's achievable for ordinary pilots with a bit of preparation. My partner and I talked about doing it and did some research but we've never quite decided to just do it.

That ILS approach into Vagar in the Faroes is no joke. You're threading up a fjord and the best they can do is get you down to 1300'. If the clouds are lower than that it's pretty awkward, it's not like there's a nearby alternate airport you can divert to. The visual approach is pretty crazy too, basically turning through fjords to make the runway. I did it in a commercial plane and it was beautiful.

I once met a man who flew a Beechcraft around the world, just some nice older guy hanging out at the Mineola airport. There's a pretty short list of folks who've done that. In addition to the unpleasantness and danger of multihour water crossings in a single engine plane, there's also the logistics. Arranging for trustworthy fuel in, say, Borneo isn't so simple. And it's probably best to be your own mechanic. Light aircraft are pretty finicky machines.
posted by Nelson at 8:46 AM on August 6, 2016 [10 favorites]


Seeing them fly those 76's (Watch the Vlog linked at the end of the picture set! It's great) brought back a lot of memories. I did my primary multiengine training in a 1979 model Duchess, very similar to the ones they were flying. Oh, to be young and indestructible again!
posted by pjern at 8:51 AM on August 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, I thought I was quite the explorer when I flew a C-182 across the English Channel in 1978. Heh.
posted by pjern at 8:52 AM on August 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was enjoying the personality coming through the writing and it was, shall we say, something less than a surprise to see a Star Trek joke in there (Borg reference). Amusing.
posted by Brockles at 10:12 AM on August 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, that looks like it was a lot of fun. If only I was Swedish, in my 20s and licensed to fly airplanes!

I found it interesting that planning required treating the legs across water as the more dangerous ones, while the most severe hazards dealt with in-air were all over land. It makes sense, though: Alternative routes might not be possible over water, and a forced landing on water might mean dying of exposure/starvation/weather before being rescued.
posted by ardgedee at 10:53 AM on August 6, 2016


At Oshkosh in 2009 I was fortunate enough to meet CarolAnn Garratt who kindly spared several minutes to chat about her two flights around the world in a Mooney M20J, the same type as my plane. She hadn't yet started her third round-the-world trip. She was extremely friendly and encouraging of my long-term goal to cross the Atlantic in my own aircraft. So far I've only taken it to Canada and the Bahamas, and back and forth between the US coasts a few times.

A couple of observations about this interesting FPP:

They mention VHF radio. This is the standard type of radio equipped in light planes. CarolAnn told me there was good VHF coverage on this route but descending to avoid icing as these guys did could put you out of range, as it relies on line of sight to the ground station. Airliners flying above might relay messages to air traffic control on VHF. Of course they have the advantage of being higher up (better line of sight), and furthermore typically have a HF radio that can reach longer distances, over the horizon. I've heard about people installing ham radios like the Icom 706 MKII to access HF in light planes. One issue is that they need a big antenna to work well. Sometimes pilots will have a wire on a reel that they extend when they want to use HF. I forgot what CarolAnn had but I'm pretty sure she had some sort of HF, as well as special "ferry tanks" to hold extra fuel inside the cabin, with plumbing so that it is available in flight.

The one piece orange survival/immersion suits are required so that you can survive the icy water long enough to get into your raft. From what I've read, to be more comfortable it's common to wear the bottoms normally but not really get into the top (I suppose it flops over to the side), relying on the fact that you should have a few minutes to put it on completely if the engine suddenly quits. Some places rent them, but I chanced across a seller on eBay (a shipwrecker in India) selling them for less than rental fees, so I bought a pair in order to be ready and motivated for an eventual trip.
posted by exogenous at 11:15 AM on August 6, 2016 [10 favorites]


a forced landing on water might mean dying of exposure/starvation/weather before being rescued.

I'm not too sure doing putting down in the middle of northern Canada or the Greenland ice cap would have been any better, really.
posted by indubitable at 11:15 AM on August 6, 2016


Mooney represent! My father owned an old M20C for many years, and if I am ever able to overcome the variety of issues preventing me from finishing my PP/SEL, I've got my eyes on a later-model -- a J would do nicely. I doubt it'll ever happen, given the many issues confronting the US middle class these days, but you gotta have dreams, right?

These photos are amazing. Maybe someday, heh.
posted by Alterscape at 11:31 AM on August 6, 2016


"The closest available airport from Kuluusuk? Reykjavik... same as departure."
posted by ctmf at 12:44 PM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


I liked the guys in North Dakota googling their SE callsign and asking if they were really from Sweden.
posted by Bringer Tom at 1:05 PM on August 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Northern Canada and normal Canada.
posted by jeather at 3:38 PM on August 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Thanks for posting. Very interesting.
posted by sety at 4:42 PM on August 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Twin-engine? Pfft.

I have a friend who has a single-engine Beechcraft Bonanza. His corporation transferred him from the U.S. to Australia. As a condition for the transfer he required that the company pay to have his Bonanza ferried to Sydney.

The biggest hop is 2700 miles from Seattle to Hawaii, about a 12-hour flight in a single-engine airplane. Amazing that you can find people willing to do a ferry job like that -- one person, single-engine.

The pilot is sitting in his immersion survival suit for 12 hours, with a big gasoline drum in the back seats and an engine oil drum in the front seat. The gasoline flows under gravity, but he has to turn a hand crank periodically to pump oil into the engine. All the while hoping you don't hear a hiccup from the engine.

He got it to Sydney and back again several years later.
posted by JackFlash at 6:36 PM on August 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Before that trip, please fill your suits up with water in a bathtub and check for leaks. Even a tiny pinprick leak will allow your suit to fill with water, transforming it from a survival suit to a suicide suit.

Is there still the risk of the air inside the suit rushing to the lower half when you hit the water, flipping you upside down until you drown? Do you just try to squeeze all the air out before you have to ditch?
posted by indubitable at 6:53 PM on August 6, 2016




The risk is exaggerated. The simpler test is to pump it up with a bicycle pump and see if it holds a few PSI pressure. And a small leak is a small risk unless you're bobbing in the suit in the ocean for days, in which case you have other large problems.

posted by Bringer Tom at 6:56 PM on August 6, 2016


As a condition for the transfer he required that the company pay to have his Bonanza ferried to Sydney.

I'm guessing there's a good reason not to just disassemble and ship it?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:23 PM on August 6, 2016


I'm guessing there's a good reason not to just disassemble and ship it?

Where's the fun in that?

But seriously, there would be regulatory issues. Not sure how other agencies deal with it, but FAA requires US-registered aircraft to be maintained by US-registered mechanics. There are shops outside the US that are FAA certified, but they're not terribly common as far as I understand. Plus, fitting the wings back on to a fuselage is a non-trivial piece of work that I would probably only really trust the OEM to do.

There are planes nowadays that are easier to take apart - you can take a Cirrus's wings off with just a couple bolts - but "rigging" it is challenging. Getting the wings back on so that they're symmetrical and at the same angle of attack as they were before takes a lot of attention to detail.

You'd also be draining the plane of fluids, which could do a number on the engine if it's sitting around dry for a long time. Rubbery bits like rings and hoses like being lubricated, and corrosion can set in on metal if the engine doesn't have oil in it and doesn't fly for a long time.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:30 PM on August 6, 2016


I helped ship a Cessna Caravan from LAX to Australia in a 747 freighter once. It wasn't that complicated, but it took skilled mechanics and the general consensus was that it would have been cheaper to fly it because of all the fiddling to pack it up and to put it back together. They also dinged the Caravan while unloading it from the 747 in Sidney, requiring minor repairs.
The client had insisted for insurance purposes, and because of ITAR-sensitive equipment installed in the aircraft. We talked them into letting us ferry it to South Africa via India and the Arabian Peninsula a few years later rather than going through all that again.
posted by cardboard at 8:53 PM on August 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


you can take a Cirrus's wings off with just a couple bolts - but "rigging" it is challenging. Getting the wings back on so that they're symmetrical and at the same angle of attack as they were before takes a lot of attention to detail.

Taking the wings off a Cirrus and putting them back on again is an ordinary procedure accomplished by non-mechanic pilots on an almost-daily basis without even a screwdriver.

Of course I mean a Standard Cirrus, but given that glider pilots have been rigging and de-rigging their planes for the better part of a century now---a setting that's likely even more sensitive to AoA and symmetry---I'm not sure that doing the same to a modern composite single-engine plane should be that much harder.

The fuel tanks in the wings are probably a bigger deal.
posted by tss at 9:34 PM on August 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


glider pilots have been rigging and de-rigging their planes for the better part of a century now

That is because the glider wings are designed to be removed and replaced. That is not true for a Beechcraft.
posted by JackFlash at 11:28 PM on August 6, 2016


If you like this kind of thing, do check out the turboprop and small jet ferry flights (and others) posted to YT by one Guido Warnecke. As a public service, he meticulously annotates his actions and has the respect of a lot of student and qualified aviators for doing so.

I couldn't have predicted the great pleasure I derive from watching something so prima facie banal but Guido's work is such a study in courteous, thorough professionalism I find myself inspired by it in my own (non-aviation) career. Doubly so in those videos where he is working with a co-pilot. As a bonus: the toxic YT comment quotient is near-nil.

I believe his latest ferry route is, in parts, the reverse of the one in the OP.
posted by Lesser Spotted Potoroo at 3:46 AM on August 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


What a thrilling adventure. Gave me goosebumps! Thank you for sharing this.
posted by james33 at 4:04 AM on August 7, 2016


That is because the glider wings are designed to be removed and replaced. That is not true for a Beechcraft.

I think you may be surprised by the similarities in fitting the wings of both, at least in strictly geometric terms ("AoA and symmetry"). And that's the specific point I was making.

The Cirrus goes together very easily, but other popular (older) types---Schweizers, Blaniks, K-13s, etc.---do not give the impression that they were intended to come apart very often. And yet they can, if you find enough strong friends.

While there are surely important differences, my limited experience in shops suggests that light aircraft without a single-piece spar go together in much the same way: big bolts and pins, sawhorses and shop cranes, mallets and drifts, and a liberal amount of cursing. If the bolts are through and nothing's bent, the plane is square. Thousands of smaller planes were shipped and assembled this way in WWII---even a Beechcraft or two.

The detail work is in things like control and fuel hookups---and remembering not to leave a drift in the wing.
posted by tss at 6:12 AM on August 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older “This is a here for us to find us.”   |   Ship Dreams Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments