Which is the longest range GA aircraft?

[AdamFrisch]

Can be anything below 12,500lbs, single or multi, jet or piston. Any ideas?

Heard Mooney Ovation can go almost 1800miles on one full tank.

[SloppyJoe]

Rutan Voyager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager)

[S-Works]

I am sure someone will be along any minute and tell you the TB20 can fly higher, faster and longer than any other aircraft that has ever seen GA service. You can cross continents in a single leap in them......;)

[A and C]

I would guess that the DR400 with the supplemental tank fitted under the baggage bay would be a contender in the fixed gear, fixed pitch class.

240lts of AVGAS goes a long way !

[EDMJ]

Heard Mooney Ovation can go almost 1800miles on one full tank.

According to Mooney's website this increases to a whopping 2,400 NM with a supplemental tank :eek:

The Flight Design CT LS and the Diamond DA 42 TDI each has a range of about 1,000 NM which isn't bad either...

[IO540]

A friend had a Mooney which could do over 2000nm to zero fuel. That is the longest I know of.

He flew Plymouth to Corfu LGKR nonstop, which is about 1300nm.

Even a TBM700/850 cannot beat that, with about 1800nm to ZF..

A TB20 can do about 1300nm to ZF, assuming a constant EGT climb to FL100-120, and a reasonable economy cruise at that level, which is about 140kt TAS. This itself is very good, for European touring.

Most GA "spamcans" do around 500nm to ZF; many could do more if they had some half decent fuel instrumentation. And this is the real problem - without an accurate fuel totaliser (Shadin, or similar) you have no way of knowing your range to better than about plus or minus ~20%, so you have to throw away a large chunk of it to be sure.

I recall reading that the DA42TDi with extended tanks had a range of ~2000nm, but one owner I spoke to recently said this was rubbish. Probably like the claim of 210kt TAS when it was flying as a prototype :)

[4015]

The Flight Design CT LS and the Diamond DA 42 TDI each has a range of about 1,000 NM which isn't bad either...

I know which one I would rather be sat in for 1,000NM. I'd be surprised if the CT could actually make it to 1,000NM - the wings would fall off first, or it would get broken by the wake turbulence from a passing pidgeon. I do not trust the CT at all!

[Pilot DAR]

Which is the longest range GA aircraft?

Any of them will have a capacity longer than that of most pilots! Aside from special purpose applications, there is not much incentive for an aircraft designer to enable an aircraft to fly that far in common service. Unless you're going to do it all the time, you're using a lot of fuel to simply carry more fuel around! Everytime you fill the tanks, and land with half tanks, you've wasted fuel. Now it may have been very worthwhile, as you can't buy fuel there to get home, and what an excellent reason, but in general, and aircraft flown so as to never get below half tanks, while happily safe, is wasteful.

Ferry fuel systems are available when you have to take the aircraft a long way, presumably over water. My personal record is 13 hours without leaving the seat on a ferry flight. I'm not eager to do that again!

A ferry pilot friend of mine delived a tanked Cessna 206 via Bermuda to Africa direct - 2800+ NM. Not for me!

[debiassi]

The mooney with the 128usg option whether the Ovation or the Acclaim.
I personally flew all the way across America in one hop from Bangor
to Seattle. I dont believe there is a competitor to take you as high, as far and
as fast as the Mooney Acclaim. It is a beast.
Below was the route but not the actual flight. On this one I had a 60kt headwind
so had to refuel in Minneapolis

Mooney Acclaim Ferry Flight Day 3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MygKaqDwaK4)

[abgd]

The LongEZ is billed to do over 2000 miles, though I believe this is at a reduced cruise speed.

[172driver]

Aside from special purpose applications, there is not much incentive for an aircraft designer to enable an aircraft to fly that far in common service.

Not quite. You forget that GA is a vital part of transport in places with limited (sometimes severely so) Avgas availability. Just think of Africa and Australia. Loads of piston GA, but challenging Avgas situation. There's a reason why many a/c in these places have supplemental tanks (e.g. the Flint conversions) installed. A tip-tanked C210 has an endurance of about 10 hours. More than my bladder, I happily admit ;) !

[IO540]

Any of them will have a capacity longer than that of most pilots!

This one keeps coming up :)

Anybody who will force himself to land because he is desperate for a pee is IMHO going about things very badly. Anybody might need a pee unexpectedly; more so when one gets older :)

Everytime you fill the tanks, and land with half tanks, you've wasted fuel.

I do wonder about this, but see little data. I have only the TB20 to go on, but its performance (IAS at a given fuel flow) barely varies with weight. The variation between carrying 20USG and carrying 86USG (13% of MTOW) is at most 3kt (2% of the speed). Why is that?

As 172D says, a long range is very valuable in Europe, where (esp. in the south) few airports have avgas and customs at the same time :)

[wsmempson]

I reckon that regardless of an aircraft's range, and whether one chooses to pee in a bottle, out through a factory installed 'comfort break tube' (I kid you not, there is one installed on the Piper Matrix) or simply cross ones legs, my personal limitation on a single pilot flying leg is 4 hrs.

After that, I really want to get out, switch off and stretch my legs. Although my Saratoga with 102 UGS usable (107 usg total) gives nearly 7hrs flying time, plus VFR reserves, i've never flown more than 4hrs at a stretch. Having said that, 4hrs gets you to Barcelona or Cannes...

[Pilot DAR]

Well having crossed the Atlantic last week, and again, not leaving the seat for 8 hours, I am reminded that's it's just nice to land a GA aircraft every few hours for a stretch and bio break, but that's a personal preference.

As for carrying the weight of the fuel, though it's a small factor for a GA aircraft, it's still weight.

Overcoming weight requires lift. Producing more lift results in more induced drag. More induced drag requires more power, all other things being equal - but we all knew that. Carrying that extra 25 gallons, which you have no need to have along, is like carrying an extra person you don't need to. Not a big cost, but it adds up over time. Certainly any concern about fuel availability for the next leg of the flight is an excellent reason to take the fuel.

I did a study decades ago, on the cost of carrying china dishes, rather than paper/plastic simply in their weight. It was many dollars per flight in fuel consumption.

As I sit and work today, I watch (with envy) the Islander go back and forth to Helgoland. He seems to stop for fuel every few flights, though I'm sure with full tanks, he could fly the route all day before refuelling. Obviously he would rather carry payload than more fuel than needed, for a route very well known to him.

[24Carrot]

I have only the TB20 to go on, but its performance (IAS at a given fuel flow) barely varies with weight. The variation between carrying 20USG and carrying 86USG (13% of MTOW) is at most 3kt (2% of the speed). Why is that?

Maybe some of it is the CG moving backwards with extra fuel, so a fully fuelled aircraft needs less down-force on the tail plane, and the wing+tail combo supports more weight at a given speed. But that's speculation on my part, I know nothing about TB20 W&B.

[IO540]

I kid you not, there is one installed on the Piper MatrixI've seen it :) All the PA46 airframes have that "funnel device". Actually I think it is horrid. It cannot be easily cleaned, so most PA46 pilots avoid using it unless absolutely desperate. And if somebody else flew the plane just before you ................. ;)

Plastic juice bottles are a far better solution, and can be discarded if that is easier.

Obviously he would rather carry payload than more fuel than neededMy guess is that this is very aircraft specific. It is probably W&B-envelope-specific, because the only explanation I can think of for the TB20 lack of variation is a reduction in the elevator AoA at higher weights, but that is a puzzle because the fuel tanks are almost exactly on the CofG. I normally load the plane up as far aft as possible.

I agree re regular stops, but one has to balance that against stopping at places where you actually want to stop at. On long trips, I almost never stop anywhere unless I want to do something there (sightseeing, etc).

A fuel stop on a European IFR flight is a considerable hassle because you cannot usually file the onward flight plan in advance because you don't know how long the bowser man will take to turn up. And even though it is easy to file a FP instantly using mobile internet, you might get a departure slot which could put you past the destination airport's closing time. So there is a considerable "reduction in hassle" value in flying nonstop. VFR is easier in planning terms but there you have increased vulnerability to wx, which is a great reason for flying nonstop too. And being based in the UK, long trips in or out of the UK tend to involve picking a gap between bouts of frontal wx, but since this frontal wx tends to extend some way into continental Europe, being able to do one long leg in or out of the UK has a lot of value. I simply would not bother doing the long trips I do in a plane with a 500nm ZF range, because I would spend all day trying to get somewhere, and would arrive totally knackered.

Edit:

Maybe some of it is the CG moving backwards with extra fuel, so a fully fuelled aircraft needs less down-force on the tail plane, and the wing+tail combo supports more weight at a given speed. But that's speculation on my part, I know nothing about TB20 W&B. That's what I thought - except that the fuel tanks are on the CofG already :)

[mmgreve]

As I sit and work today, I watch (with envy) the Islander go back and forth to Helgoland. He seems to stop for fuel every few flights, though I'm sure with full tanks, he could fly the route all day before refuelling. Obviously he would rather carry payload than more fuel than needed, for a route very well known to him.

EDXH is 480m (or 370, depending on RWY) and although the Islander has excellent STOL performance, it might play a role

[cumulusrider]

How about 3009km in a Nimbus 4DM. Klaus Ohlmann in 2003 in argentina. In case you ae wondering he flew from dawn to dusk , about 16hrs.

Gliders in the uk reguarly fly flights of 8hrs+ and 750+km

[hatzflyer]

My 1963 jodel has a standard duration of 10 hrs. (far more than me).

[Desert185]

No record, but I'm quite happy with the capability of my 185 that will haul 1,000# of 'stuff' out of a 700' strip, fly for 5+30 hours @ 150-160 MPH, and land on a 700' strip with an hour reserve. :ok: for my needs.

A 3/4 ton pickup/BMW GS kind of guy...

[Mark 1]

If you want to know the records have a look here (http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes).

But most of those will be with non-standard fuel tanks added.

Not only does Dick Rutan have the overall record, but he's there in Class C1B (piston) with a Long-Eze flight from Alaska to the West Indies and C1B (Rocket powered) with a flight of 16km.

Ferry pilots regularly take fuel for 2,000 NM plus (or nearly in the case of the C310 pilot in Hawaii last week!).

Maybe you want to be more specific, like unmodified, certified, standard category. You might then get more specific answers.

Last weekend I was managing 152 KTAS at 10,000' and 6.2 USG/hour in my RV by running LOP at 58% power. That would give me over 1000nm on standard (42USG) fuel, so doubling the fuel capacity could give me maybe 2000nm and still under MTOW solo. Go over to Santa Paula and talk to Klaus Xavier and see what he's achieved in his Eze.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Factory stock I would say the Navion Rangemaster would have the longest legs. It has 108 gallons as factory standard and will do about 1500 Nm in still air. However a Bonanza or Comanche with after-market tip tanks will hold up to 130 gallons which would give a still air max range of close to 2000 Nm.

[gpn01]

Current World free distance record is 2256.9km. That's without extra tanks. In fact it's without any fuel at all as it was achieved in a glider by Klaus Olhmann in Argentina on 2010-01-12.

[Dg800]

Current World free distance record is 2256.9km. That's without extra tanks. In fact it's without any fuel at all as it was achieved in a glider by Klaus Olhmann in Argentina on 2010-01-12. Not really. As it is a self-launching sailplane there is some fuel usage at the very beginning of the flight. If you divide that by the total distance flown the mileage he got must be quite staggering though! :ok:

Cheers,

DG800

[AN2 Driver]

I've seen some pretty interesting flights done with Twin Commanches with the standard tip tanks, I'd rate that one as a pretty LH aircraft.

Also the Robin HR100 Series has pretty long legs with up to 10 hrs endurance at 130-140 kts, that is 1300 NM.

Mooneys are of course very efficient but with additional tanks is where it gets interesting. My "C" will do about 650 NM with standard tanks, were I to add Monroy tanks (36 USG additional fuel) I'd think 1200 NM should be possible (including 45 mins reserve). However, this comes at a price. With full standard tanks (52 USG) I can still fit roughly 270 kgs, with the Monroys I'd be flying alone with 170 kgs maximum payload left. That is why I have so far not installed the Monroys.

The newer Mooneys can of course do a lot more, the Ovation as has been advertized with a 1800 NM regular and 2400 NM long range tank range. Guess that would make it top of the class. Rough calcs on payload however sais, this plane will lift around 150-180 kgs out at the full 128 USG long range tanks, with the standard 100 USG tanks it would be 220 kgs. So even with standard tanks, which give 1800 NM according to Mooney but probably rather something in the line of 1500 NM with reserves, you'll be at the limit with 2 grown ups and their bags.

I've been discussing these issues with some of the newer manufacturers on different airshows. Looking at some designs which are currently certified in the LSA class but which could do a lot more were it not for certification issues, might provide pretty interesting figures. Long haul travel in small planes are mostly done with one or two people on board plus baggage. Those engines use a lot less fuel then even an O360 let alone an O550. Quite a few of them have "artificial" MTOW's in order to put them in the LSA/VLA e.t.c. cathegory but could structurally or wifh modifications do a lot better. So I reckon, some pretty interesting designs might be possible if those planes were certified in the normal catheogry.

Say, a 2 seater which currently is certified to 600 kgs MTOW with a 75 hp Rotax and which has been "doctored" to not go over the 120 kts these planes can do. Fit a 125 or 140 hp engine in front, up the MTOW to 999 kgs and see what happens?

These things weigh about 300 kgs empty as LSA's, so allow 150 kgs on top for the larger engine and structural inprovement. 450 kgs empty. Add 2 "normal built" adults with 220 kgs and their bags with 60 kgs gives a ZFW of 730 kgs. With a projected MTOW of 999 kgs, that leaves space for 370 liters of fuel. Now, if we get even bolder and say we bolt a 150 hp O320 in front which will use around 30 liters per hour, that is 11 hours endurance plus reserve, @ speeds of maybe 140/150 kts? 1600 NM still air range with 330 liters of Mogas? Or, as some designers claim, their planes would do 180 kts with this kind of power and the same fuel flow? 2000 NM.

One test pilot of one of those designs told me they did try their prototype with a 125 HP engine out of a C152 and up to 750 kgs of weight for which the kit was originally designed. Sais, pity I can't show it to you,you'll want one. 130 kts @ 24 lph. Even with the standard tanks they use for the Rotax, that is a solid 4 hour endurance or 500 NM, but there is 150 kgs to spare which could translate into more fuel, without breaching any legal limits. Now get a more modern engine which may do the same for 20 lph?

Somehow I hope someone comes up with a design like that....

Best regards
AN2 driver

[easy307]

In 1959 Max Conrad flew Comanche 250 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-24_Comanche) N110LF non-stop from Casablanca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca), Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco) to Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles), a distance of 7,668 mi (12,340 km).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Conrad#cite_note-solo-4) This distance record (for aircraft in the 1750-3000 kilogram weight class) stood until 1987. With interior seats replaced by fuel tanks, the aircraft was loaded 2,000 lb (910 kg) over its production gross weight limit when Conrad took off from Casablanca.
A few months later, on November 24, 1959, Conrad set the record (that still stands) for the 1000-1750 kg weight class, flying from Casablanca to El Paso, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso,_Texas) in the same aircraft fitted with a smaller engine, with a flight time of 56 hours.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Conrad#cite_note-solo-4)

Wow !!

[27/09]

In 1959 Max Conrad flew Comanche 250 N110LF non-stop from Casablanca, Morocco to Los Angeles, a distance of 7,668 mi (12,340 km).[5] This distance record (for aircraft in the 1750-3000 kilogram weight class) stood until 1987. With interior seats replaced by fuel tanks, the aircraft was loaded 2,000 lb (910 kg) over its production gross weight limit when Conrad took off from Casablanca.
A few months later, on November 24, 1959, Conrad set the record (that still stands) for the 1000-1750 kg weight class, flying from Casablanca to El Paso, Texas in the same aircraft fitted with a smaller engine, with a flight time of 56 hours.[

Got beaten to it. The single Comanche is pretty hard aircraft to beat for payload and range. The twin isn't too bad from what I hear as well.

[AN2 Driver]

Funny you should mention this aircraft....

Piper PA-24-250 Comanche ex-Conrad for sale (http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=16222)

[hhobbit]

I know which one I would rather be sat in for 1,000NM. I'd be surprised if the CT could actually make it to 1,000NM - the wings would fall off first, or it would get broken by the wake turbulence from a passing pidgeon. I do not trust the CT at all! this CT owner would like to know why? Any particular reason?
Realistically 570-770 nm in CT, 85-125kts, 1 hr reserve.

[cheemsaf]

You consider a Lancair IV? 110 gals at 20 gph at 250 true will theoretically get you just under 1400 nm. The farthest I've flown it was Denver to Macon, GA (1100nm), with 500 lbs of payload and I had about 15 gals remaining at shutdown - and a very full bladder.

[AdamFrisch]

Sorry to necropost, but Bill Harrelsons 38hr record flight from Guam to Jacksonville non stop deserves to be in this thread. My goodness - that one will be hard to beat!

EAA News - Long-Distance Lancair: EAAer Sets Unofficial Flight Distance Record (http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-03-05_long-distance-lancair.asp)

[piperboy84]

Desert185 No record, but I'm quite happy with the capability of my 185 that will haul 1,000# of 'stuff' out of a 700' strip, fly for 5+30 hours @ 150-160 MPH, and land on a 700' strip with an hour reserve. for my needs.

3/4 ton pickup/BMW GS kind of guy...

Same here, no record but happy with the capability of the Maule, holds 73USG with a burn rate of 9GPH in cruise at 120mph, usefull load of 950lbs in and out of short strips.

Landy Disco/KTM enduro kind of guy.

[jxk]

The Robin Hr100/210 has 4 X 25 USG tanks and with the Continental IO 360 will cruise at 120kts at 22/22 probably using in the region of 10 USG / HR, so should give 1200 NMs to ZF. They don't make them like that anymore!

[Zulu Alpha]

Range and economy:
One hundred miles per gallon - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2008/December/30/One-hundred-miles-per-gallon)

[hollywood285]

Excellent piece of reading, the electronic ignition and fuel injection should of been brought in 20 years ago, but like anything GA, its such a lengthy and expensive process to get certified, so why bother for a rapidly shrinking market.