Good SHTF Vehicles

[Siglvr]

If you are in PDX or Seattle and this terrible unspoken tragedy occurs, simply walk over to your boat, with nothing on or about you if you wish. Perhaps you have a weapon. Perhaps not. Everything you need to survive is on the boat. Shove off to anyplace in the world that has what you are looking for.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

5,000 lbs
4 wheel drive
Torque-rich V-8
Top heavy
Loaded with your family and gear ("chain saw and tools")
Posted in the "prep and survival" section.


And you're concerned about how it handles?

Chevy Suburban:
6,000 lbs
4WD
6.0L immortal V8
Seats for 9 with room for tools and cargo
17 mpg in the 1500 model

And you can tow this:

 

[bush pilot]

This is what you need !!!!

 

[The Heretic]

View attachment 476229

If you are in PDX or Seattle and this terrible unspoken tragedy occurs, simply walk over to your boat, with nothing on or about you if you wish. Perhaps you have a weapon. Perhaps not. Everything you need to survive is on the boat. Shove off to anyplace in the world that has what you are looking for.

1) Hope nobody else gets to your boat first because they are notoriously easy to steal.

2) If your boat is still there, hope it hasn't sunk. A severe earthquake or flood may sink the dock and your boat along with it. If the SHTF even includes a flooding of the river/etc. for any reason and your boat hasn't sunk, hope that you don't hit any debris in the flood waters which are very dangerous to navigate.

3) Hope that everybody else is too busy to notice a boat moving down or upriver, because you will stand out on the river like a sore thumb.

4) If it is a power boat, hope that you have enough fuel forever, because you will be extremely vulnerable pulling in anywhere to refuel. For that matter, hope that you have enough supplies forever, because you will be extremely vulnerable trying to resupply anything.

 

[CamoDeafie]

same goes for any privately owned aircraft. Those require a lot more maintenance than a normal road vehicle, and they would stick out when they're flying..if they aren't shot down. Also, notoriously bad on fuel economy relative to ground vehicles.
And that's if the runways are in still good condition.

I've heard some people saying well we'll just fly out during the SHTF to better pastures. I say to them.... good luck getting past the restricted airspace zones that the gov will set up, and good luck getting off the ground during emergencies when airspace is restricted to emergency services and military.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Really, the best number one plan is to not be there when the shtf

If you're stuck wherever, there's better odds of surviving by staying in place and defending, moving at night for supplies... than to try to get out during, with thousands taking to the roads at the same time.

 

[Who The F R U]

same goes for any privately owned aircraft. Those require a lot more maintenance than a normal road vehicle, and they would stick out when they're flying..if they aren't shot down. Also, notoriously bad on fuel economy relative to ground vehicles.
And that's if the runways are in still good condition.

I've heard some people saying well we'll just fly out during the SHTF to better pastures. I say to them.... good luck getting past the restricted airspace zones that the gov will set up, and good luck getting off the ground during emergencies when airspace is restricted to emergency services and military.

________________________________________________________________________
What ...... ? A 172 will use 2 1/2 GPH at cruise speed of 95 to 110 knot's. ( thats 110-126mph)
I think that's better than most ground vehicles.

 

[The Heretic]

________________________________________________________________________
What ...... ? A 172 will use 2 1/2 GPH at cruise speed of 95 to 110 knot's. ( thats 110-126mph)
I think that's better than most ground vehicles.

Boats and aircraft are okay for some uses, especially for getting to a BOL, but as a primary vehicle? Only in special circumstances.

A boat as a BOL? I think anybody who has suggest a boat as a BOL in general (not in special circumstances) has not spent much time on one outside of maybe a little fishing or pulling a skier.

I have spent some time in/on boats, including in inclement weather:

 

[CamoDeafie]

________________________________________________________________________
What ...... ? A 172 will use 2 1/2 GPH at cruise speed of 95 to 110 knot's. ( thats 110-126mph)
I think that's better than most ground vehicles.

Start up and taking off. Thats where most the fuel is burned up; at least from what I remember? Same idea where idling or stop and go will cause more fuel consumption than continously running at a set rpm.

 

[The Heretic]

Start up and taking off. Thats where most the fuel is burned up; at least from what I remember? Same idea where idling or stop and go will cause more fuel consumption than continously running at a set rpm.

Those are short periods of time compared to flying.

Now a boat on the other hand - those generally consume a lot of fuel for distance traveled - water has a lot more resistance than air, and is harder to get lift on - especially if your hull is a displacement hull instead of a planing hull.

 

[albin25]

Quiet, easily maintained, and maybe around 20 miles per power bar, or no fuel at all for awhile if necessary.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Those are short periods of time compared to flying.

Now a boat on the other hand - those generally consume a lot of fuel for distance traveled - water has a lot more resistance than air, and is harder to get lift on - especially if your hull is a displacement hull instead of a planing hull.

I did some reading.. apparently its not just the taking off but the climbing to alt that consumes most of the fuel in the period of time compared to cruising. 100% of power at lower speeds at an angle that the aircraft are not designed to be efficient at, until leveling out and dropping power to 20-50% at cruise speed and efficient altitude depending on engine/layout. Depending on trip length, the longer, the more fuel efficient... but short hops seems to be awful high on fuel consumption.

As for boats..yeah, unless person powered (paddles, pedals) or wind powered, which would require more than just a passing knowledge of seamanship.

 

[The Heretic]

Quiet, easily maintained, and maybe around 20 miles per power bar, or no fuel at all for awhile if necessary.
View attachment 476427

Unfortunately it is very slow, especially for senior citizens, and for those of us with health problems, the range is so limited as to be ineffectual. But may be the last resort and should always be kept on hand as a backup:

 

[Argonaut]

Those are short periods of time compared to flying.

Now a boat on the other hand - those generally consume a lot of fuel for distance traveled - water has a lot more resistance than air, and is harder to get lift on - especially if your hull is a displacement hull instead of a planing hull.

My 100 foot tugs run 10 GPH (unladen) at 10 knots or more. They weigh 300 tons and carry enough fuel to travel 4,000 miles. The only time boats are expensive to run is when you are trying to go fast. They are self contained, safe and efficient the same as a well designed airplane. My Traveler burns 7 GPH @ over 150 MPH and carries 1000 lbs of useful load, will operate on unleaded auto fuel and traveling in a much more direct route than any wheeled vehicle.

 

[The Heretic]

I did some reading.. apparently its not just the taking off but the climbing to alt that consumes most of the fuel in the period of time compared to cruising. 100% of power at lower speeds at an angle that the aircraft are not designed to be efficient at, until leveling out and dropping power to 20-50% at cruise speed and efficient altitude depending on engine/layout. Depending on trip length, the longer, the more fuel efficient... but short hops seems to be awful high on fuel consumption.

As for boats..yeah, unless person powered (paddles, pedals) or wind powered, which would require more than just a passing knowledge of seamanship.

Agreed. My father was a pilot and very anal about tracking fuel consumption. Short hops usually do not require climbing to a high altitude unless you are crossing mountains/etc., but the climbing is a higher percentage of the travel. I remember once my dad flew us from Spokane to Salem, climbed to 10K and then essentially glided the remaining distance to Salem under low power with a rate of descent calculated to come into Salem at the right altitude. I recall that the speed was one of the highest we ever went in that aircraft.

In a SHTF situation it would depend on the distance to your destination, thereafter you would probably not use the aircraft for anything, much less commuting, so fuel efficiency usually wouldn't be an issue unless you had to stop to refuel.

As for shooting down an aircraft (as someone mentioned) - easier said than done - the higher the altitude, the harder it would be, so much as to make it very unlikely.

If we were at war, then yes, air travel would be restricted, but was is much less likely than earthquake IMO.

The biggest downsides IMO are:

1) weather
2) landing and takeoff - even with a helicopter or STOL fixed wing.
3) Noise

 

[Argonaut]

Agreed. My father was a pilot and very anal about tracking fuel consumption. Short hops usually do not require climbing to a high altitude unless you are crossing mountains/etc., but the climbing is a higher percentage of the travel. I remember once my dad flew us from Spokane to Salem, climbed to 10K and then essentially glided the remaining distance to Salem under low power with a rate of descent calculated to come into Salem at the right altitude. I recall that the speed was one of the highest we ever went in that aircraft.

In a SHTF situation it would depend on the distance to your destination, thereafter you would probably not use the aircraft for anything, much less commuting, so fuel efficiency usually wouldn't be an issue unless you had to stop to refuel.

As for shooting down an aircraft (as someone mentioned) - easier said than done - the higher the altitude, the harder it would be, so much as to make it very unlikely.

If we were at war, then yes, air travel would be restricted, but was is much less likely than earthquake IMO.

The biggest downsides IMO are:

1) weather
2) landing and takeoff - even with a helicopter or STOL fixed wing.
3) Noise

He would have to be at 50,000 feet or more to glide 300 miles.........even with a generous glide slope. Thin air helps but few private planes can achieve any altitude even close to that. 20,000 feet is a lot.

 

[albin25]

As far as watercraft...
She used no more than 1qt of diesel per hour flat out at 7 knots , I often would use oars.
30hp Yanmar, 21ft w 6ftbeam, v-berth, 16" draft. Tough as nails, simple, and built like a tank (a fiberglass tank).

Selling her was one of the dumbest things in a lifetime of dumb things.

 

[Argonaut]

As far as watercraft...
She used no more than 1qt of diesel per hour flat out at 7 knots , I often would use oars.
30hp Yanmar, 21ft w 6ftbeam, v-berth, 16" draft. Tough as nails, simple, and built like a tank (a fiberglass tank).

Selling her was one of the dumbest things in a lifetime of dumb things.

View attachment 476441

Yep........over 30 MPG.

 

[The Heretic]

He would have to be at 50,000 feet or more to glide 300 miles.........even with a generous glide slope. Thin air helps but few private planes can achieve any altitude even close to that. 20,000 feet is a lot.

Agreed.

I used the qualifier "essentially". Of course we were still under power, but he cut it way back as I recall (that was my impression anyway). I do remember the speed was quite high for the plane and the trip was shorter than I expected.

 

[Pandaz3]

Well I think Helicopters are quiet..... Okay maybe not. A Hiller 12E uses a Lycoming 540 mounted vertically and has a thee place bubble style cabin/cockpit. It uses about 20 GPH if working, around 15 to 16 GPH cruise flight at a top speed of around 87 MPH. It has a forty-six gallon fuel tank. Uses 100LL Avgas. There are two auxiliary fuel tanks that could be installed each one with eighteen gallons. That means you might cover 400 to 450 miles.
There is a small baggage compartment it could handle a small tent and two sleeping bags and miscellaneous gear. (Extra oil for the engine, comes to mind) You can have outside baskets on the crosstubes, that accommodate longer items like long handled shovels or cross country skies.
It has a cargo hook for sling loads, but slink loads use a lot more fuel and really slow you down. Any extra weight slows the helicopter
Pretty uncomfortable after two hours. It flies and rides likes a dump truck, but works like one too.

A bigger Huey has a best range cruise of 112 KNOTS (Which is faster than MPH and at 128 MPH is lot faster than 87 MPH) It has about 206 gallons usable in regular tanks burning Jet fuel, and there have been many iterations of auxiliary fuel tanks but 140 extra gallons are most common. It burns 80 gallons a hour in cruise so you might expect being a extra 100 miles farther away than the Hiller and be the two hours sooner. You can carry in the cabin everything in, and outside, of that Hiller. Even a dirt bike or two.

I think my 36 gal tank in my 2012 F-150 will do most I need. I'll cover it with a space blanket for the EMP's.