Antonio wrote:
A big chunk of Norway’s F-35 fleet is based here
No 
They are at Ørland (ENOL), the main base, and Evenes (ENEV), as the “hot” smaller base for intercepting Russian bombers. A handful is also at Reykjavik (Iceland) from time to time. Bodø can still be used I guess? Don’t know, but the whole airport is being rebuilt completely. The new runway will be displaced 1-200 meters to the south, and all the existing (if it still exist) military infrastructure will be gone.
Interesting trip and that 210 is really something
Antonio wrote:
Does that mean it makes economical sense to own a SEP in Europe for travelling? I do not think so.
Does that mean it makes sense to own a SEP in Europe for travelling? Oh yes!
Contrary to what people perhaps think, in Norway it often makes sense, also economically. You only need an economical aircraft (and not an EV ) Timewise it’s a no brainer due to the terrain and roads. I sometimes take the plane instead of driving. By plane it takes 20 min to a bit longer than an hour to go to the places I have a reason to go to. By car it would take 2-6 hours. For instance Trondheim – Kristiansund (ENVA- ENKB). By SEP cruising at 100 knots it takes roughly an hour. By car it takes almost 4 hours, if you are lucky and catch the ferry at the right time. It could easily take 4 1/2 to 5 hours. The best and fastest public transport is the speed boat (Catamaran). I think it costs about €70-80 each way. Widerøe cannot compete with that, not regarding time, and certainly not cost. I don’t think they even have routes to ENKB form ENVA. The only other alternative is bus. A bit cheaper than boat, but takes much longer, and is much less comfortable.
The catch is the weather. It’s impossible to plan a week ahead most of the time, often not even the next day. In the winter, forget all regularity whatsoever, due to snow and icing. The best aircraft is a helicopter, but economically that makes much less sense. Therefore flying (for utility) makes sense only occasionally, and mostly during the summer. It becomes a one person, flexible “jump on” kind of thing. If I need to go to Namsos for some reason (usually some aircraft related stuff), it takes 2 1/2 hour by car, 40 minutes by SEP (100 knots). ENOL is even worse (or better). It takes only 20 min by SEP, but 2 1/2 h by car, including a ferry. ENOL is military however, and requires some up front permissions and stuff. It’s not a good example, but it is a place I fly to if I can. Can’t remember the last time I used a car. It’s the least problematic regarding weather also, just follow the fjord, no mountains to pass. Then there are a bunch of smaller strips. For one person who is flexible, then a SEP is a good alternative. If more persons are involved (as passengers), then regularity and those things play a larger part, and it seldom works out in practice, because flexibility is the key here.
Regarding cost for the example to ENKB, the picture is more like this. The fuel burn in a small Rotax SEP is about 15 liters each way. Using MOGAS, the price for 98 is about €2 all things considered. Back and forth would be €60. The speed boat is about €150. Car is more difficult. The ferry alone is 15, then toll roads 5-10 each way. A gasoline car would use around the same amount of fuel, maybe even more. It would be at least €80-90 in total. Considering I already own a plane and a car, then a plane would be what represents the smallest additional cost (if we keep EVs out of the picture ). And this is me flying alone. A C-172 is another matter, because it use much more fuel. It would never represent the smallest additional cost unless more people came along, which as explained makes little to no sense anyway. A C-172 also costs much more to own each year than a UL or experimental.
As I have said before, an UL (or a Cub or similar) is what represent the most utility and the less cost. Increased utility, and greatly so, is ONLY obtained with a helicopter. If I were to start over, I would for sure go directly to helicopter. How much value does that utility really represent? To be honest, not all that much. It’s mostly aircraft/flying related businesses, that I wouldn’t have if I didn’t fly (meetings, picking up some stuff and so on) It makes sense in the grand picture of things though, living a life and all that.
I think it is perfectly possible to make economical sense of private flying compared with most other things, if that’s the goal. It seldom is the only goal though. For most parts is not a goal whatsoever. It’s all the other factors we tend to optimize.
Brilliant! Really enjoying following your trip.
The terrain loss is probably due to the way that they display the map. If it’s a flat projection, it can get really difficult the further north you go. Imagine a paper north up chart as you are 100mtrs from the north pole. It’s very difficult to display on a flat, rectangular map.
If it’s a proper spherical projection, then things such work properly at any latitude.
Having said that, 65N is very early to be dropping coverage. I seem to remember Garmin drop coverage somewhere around 70-80N. (That’s from memory). 65N is way too early IMHO.
Thanks Antonio, I am keeping track of your flying expenses !
I hope your kids are grateful for this.
That P210 seems a great traveling machine. It seems a great plane candidate for the large family we wish for, just need to find enough €€€€€ 
Nice copilot sitting on the dash
BTW : Kiel is still the birthplace of german U-boats submarines
@Antonio thanks again for letting us ride with ya
Great stuff, and interesting to read into your decision matrix, quite some intimacy here. Hats off to careful planning and execution.
You have now definitely rekindled my thirst for Norway, and planing for yet another North Cape visit in 23… all your fault of course
Peter wrote:
I don’t understand why terrain data should be suppressed above a certain latitude. And GPS is supposed to work around the poles too. Maybe worth a thread
Yep, during my Tour my Garmin stuff “only” lost magnetic, but reverted to true reference… but terrain somehow kept working.
Peter wrote:
You got some “interesting data” on database behaviour… I don’t understand why terrain data should be suppressed above a certain latitude
The database provider is Jeppesen but I purchased it from Aspen via a dealer, together with the equipment. I have not found any tech info with the detailed spec and definitely was not expecting issues at relatively low latitudes like 65N. I logged into Jeppesen and they simply have an image like this for the Aspen Nav database which includes obstacles and “cultural data”, but no mention of terrain:
The figure implies coverage up to 85N
I think the mistery can only be solved contacting Aspen customer support
LeSving wrote:
F-35 fleet is based here
No They are at Ørland (ENOL), the main base, and Evenes (ENEV), as the “hot” smaller base for intercepting Russian bombers.
Thanks for correcting me. Back in 2008, a squadron or 2 of F-16’s seemed to be based at ENBO and we watched them fly in pairs frequently for a couple of days. In this case we only saw one pair of F-35’s departing ENBO and misasumed they were the F-16’s replacement. Good to know Norway is well protected. The Gary Powers story is well known but I am sure there are myriad Cold War stories related to ENBO, ENDU and ENKR. Interesting to see now ENEV taking over.
I remember reading Firefox and Firefox Down by Craig Thomas as a teenager telling the story as they mounted a complex rescue mission in the arctic using Bardufoss, Kirkenes and other locations up North as staging posts. Being there decades later still evokes thrilling Cold War memories.
LeSving wrote:
think it is perfectly possible to make economical sense of private flying compared with most other things, if that’s the goal. It seldom is the only goal though. For most parts is not a goal whatsoever. It’s all the other factors we tend to optimize.
Interesting analysis. Thanks for taking the time. It is , as you say, very specific to Norwegian peculiarities and not exportable to most other locations in Europe. Good noting it can even pay off economically in those specific routes.
When you get into longer distances, things get more complex and yes, weather is a big factor. In my case, I pride myself that even non-deiced we managed to reasonably put together this trip. However, as you clearly realize, we managed to fly the weather with relatively minor timing adjustments, but we could not be 100% flexible: I think overall we were both lucky and blessed to play the cards we were given with the tools we had.
You could also argue we do have some anti-icing capability in the form of a turbocharger, and that is true. However, even if fully deiced, most of us would not deliberately fly in bad weather conditions unless you are really in a mission that requires so. Of course “bad weather” is relative to pilot, aircraft, route, pax and other factors.
Long distance travel without any anti-ice capabilities, just like VFR, is very limited by what kind of weather you can fly in and then the schedule cannot be flexible. Within say 200nm-300nm, it is much easier to find large weather gaps that will allow you to fly when you want, more so as look at Southern vs Northern Europe. No secrets here.
As you expand the travel distances and travel further North, the good-weather gaps are more and more scarce.
LeSving wrote:
I think it is perfectly possible to make economical sense of private flying compared with most other things, if that’s the goal. It seldom is the only goal though. For most parts is not a goal whatsoever. It’s all the other factors we tend to optimize.
For me, I have been an aviation nut all my life, and private flying has been a goal in itself. I however aim to show it can also be useful to society in general and in particular to people around me with other goals . I would like to think I partially achieved it, and this trip was an example.
THanks everyone for reading.
@jujupilote the dash copilot is Freddy Fazbear, named after a video game character..adds a touch of lightness, and as we all know, in order to fly, the lighter the better.
@jujupilote “teenager” and “grateful” do not add up together easily, but they are great kids and they do enjoy travelling
Dan wrote:
all your fault of course
I’ll gladly take the blame, eager to read about another of your flying adventures
Wonderful trip report. I’ll be looking out for the next installment.
very nice report, thanks for sharing
As others pointed out the P210 is a remarkable aircraft!
