Which is the longest range GA aircraft?
 

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.

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......;)

DR400
 

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 !

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...

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 :)

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!

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!

Mooney King Of GA
 

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

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

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 ;) !

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 :)
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 :)

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...

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.

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.

I'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.

My 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:
That's what I thought - except that the fuel tanks are on the CofG already :)

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

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

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

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...