Mike Koerner Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I set a personal record yesterday with an 802 nm flight from Torrance, California (TOA) to Fort Stockton, Texas (FST). I am referring here to a single leg, un-refueled, non-stop flight as measured from the airport of departure to the airport of landing. The great circle distance is 802 nautical miles, which is 923 statute miles. The flight was 6.9 hours from engine start to shutdown and burned 28 gallons. That works out to an average of 116 knots at 4.1 gallons per hour and 33 statute miles per gallon. I had a significant tailwind for most of the flight. I suspect that may be the longest distance for an un-refueled leg in a CT without fuel system modifications such as ferry tanks, but I don’t know. We’ve talked about long trips and long days before but not long legs. Mike Koerner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 bravo for the prostate Mike I would have stop twice on the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted February 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Jacques, Years ago I made an un-relieved 11 hour and 45 minute flight. This is not then. I was alone and used a zip-lock bag. It worked reasonably well by the way. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Longest flight I know of is over 9 hrs. and no extra fuel. Not going any place just flying and taking pictures at 0-30 flaps and a very reduced throttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Mike, what model CT were you flying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted February 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Fred, Its a 2004 CT2K. Roger, That 9-hour leg is probably the longest in duration. I was wondering about was the longest straight-line distance. I know the Swiss round-the-world pilots had much longer legs... but with modified aircraft. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 How did the Swiss modify their aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I set a personal record yesterday with an 802 nm flight from Torrance, California (TOA) to Fort Stockton, Texas (FST). I am referring here to a single leg, un-refueled, non-stop flight as measured from the airport of departure to the airport of landing. The great circle distance is 802 nautical miles, which is 923 statute miles. That is remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 How did the Swiss modify their aircraft? not really ''modified'' they had additional fuel tanks http://www.azimut270.ch/en/ctls-ecolight.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted February 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Jim, Jacques, As I recall their wing tanks were modified to hold a lot more fuel. Their take-offs were way over our maximum gross weights... but of course they don't need to worry about our LSA restrictions and they may have made structural modifications as well. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Congrats on your new personal record Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Jim, Jacques, As I recall their wing tanks were modified to hold a lot more fuel. Mike http://flightdesign.com/wordpress/?p=2422 clic on the planes pictures to enlarge it twice..looks like the auxiliary tank was in the back anyway,,yes they had MUCH more fuel than usual but ..they were solo light pilots some guys ARE ABLE to do long flights like that .... not me these guys http://www.airplanefactory.com/expeditions/sling-around-the-world/ made VERY long legs...they had some 20 hrs of fuel flying their Rotax over water for very long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Mike, Could you make a rough guess what your average tailwind component was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Amazing distance! What RPMs did you use to get 4.1 gpm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Was it just you or did you have a passenger? Autopilot? Altitude? How did you fight fatigue for that long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 How did the Swiss modify their aircraft? They had auxillary Toblerone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 http://flightdesign.com/wordpress/?p=2422 clic on the planes pictures to enlarge it twice..looks like the auxiliary tank was in the back One can see from the two vent tubes on each wing that most of the tanks were in the wing. They also had 31 gallons in specially designed tank on the passenger seat attachment points. I was wondering how they plumbed the additional wing tanks. Given the wing dihedral, one wonders if there were shut-offs lest the fuel from the outboard tanks would over-flow out the inboard tank vents. I wonder how they got fuel from the seat aux to the engine - is it enough above the engine fuel pump intake that it would gravity flow or did they need an aux pump, and if the latter, did they pump into the wing tanks or just into the fuel line ot the engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 we can see 3 vents [ SW style ] ...2 for the wings and 1 for the aux tank. As for the plumbing...''maybe'' ...the aux is used first,then the mains goes in the aux tank.[2 valves on the mains ]..... From the aux tank... '' PROBABLY'' straight to the engine fuel pump just like a low wing aircraft but my 'guess' is that hey also had an electric pump. just a guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted February 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Al, I’m not sure I can provide a usefully accurate estimate of average tailwind over the whole flight. One problem being that I was a bit slow to realize that I needed to be high to get into significant winds and the other being that I don’t believe my airspeed indication is accurate except at the low end of the scale (I should calibrate it). During the later portion of the flight, maybe half the time, I was between 11,500’ and 12,500’ with the airspeed indicating about 95 knots and the GPS ground speed varying between 124 and a maximum of 140 knots. That would suggest a true airspeed of about 118 knots and a tailwind component between 6 and 22 knots. However, we can probably add another 5 knots to that based on past experience which suggests my airspeed indicator is a bit optimistic at cruise speeds. So, over the second half of the flight I would estimate an average tailwind component of 19 knots. During the first half, at lower altitudes, it would have varied from zero to 19 knots with no guess at an average. Tip, I started out at about 4700 rpm during the first portion of the flight and around 5100 at altitude. 4.1 gallons per hour doesn’t seem surprising to me. During the last half of the flight I was trying to use the minimum throttle to maintain altitude without falling below the optimum speed band for the negative flaps, which I think is probably around 90 knots. On a trip to Alaska in 2007 I averaged 4.15 gallons per hour. On a trip to the Bahamas I averaged 3.7. A round-about Oshkosh trip also averaged 3.7. I fly a bit slower than most, I think. I only go wide open if I’m trying to get somewhere in a hurry or trying to get high. Also the CT2k has a slightly longer wing than the SW or LS which I suspect provides optimum performance at a lower speed. Andy, I was alone and I don’t have an autopilot. Altitudes varied continuously from 2,500’ under an overcast in the LA basin to 12,500’ later in the flight. I don’t think fatigue was a problem. Not having the autopilot or the rudder and aileron trim that came with later models means I’m actively flying the plane (hence the continuously varying altitudes, airspeeds and engine settings). Also, for the second half of the flight the cockpit was too cold to fall asleep. And by then things were starting to get exciting anyway. ATIS at Deming and Las Cruces, New Mexico were reporting more surface wind than I’d like to land in. When I got a similar report from El Paso I contacted Flight Watch and asked them about Fort Stockton. I was relieved to hear that winds there were calm but by then it was getting dark so I still had plenty of stuff to keep me occupied. And it’s exciting to see the ground speeds as high as 140 knots anyway! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Thanks - I appreciate the informative replies. Sounds like a great trip - and seems like you've enjoyed a few more besides this one! I'd appreciate any comments you might have to make on the low speed handling of the plane in crosswinds, especially with the smaller vertical stab and maybe the longer wings? Also, have you ever flown a SW with the larger fin or a CTLS by which you could make a comparison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Al, I’m not sure I can provide a usefully accurate estimate of average tailwind over the whole flight. One problem being that I was a bit slow to realize that I needed to be high to get into significant winds and the other being that I don’t believe my airspeed indication is accurate except at the low end of the scale (I should calibrate it). During the later portion of the flight, maybe half the time, I was between 11,500’ and 12,500’ with the airspeed indicating about 95 knots and the GPS ground speed varying between 124 and a maximum of 140 knots. That would suggest a true airspeed of about 118 knots and a tailwind component between 6 and 22 knots. However, we can probably add another 5 knots to that based on past experience which suggests my airspeed indicator is a bit optimistic at cruise speeds. So, over the second half of the flight I would estimate an average tailwind component of 19 knots. During the first half, at lower altitudes, it would have varied from zero to 19 knots with no guess at an average. Tip, I started out at about 4700 rpm during the first portion of the flight and around 5100 at altitude. 4.1 gallons per hour doesn’t seem surprising to me. During the last half of the flight I was trying to use the minimum throttle to maintain altitude without falling below the optimum speed band for the negative flaps, which I think is probably around 90 knots. On a trip to Alaska in 2007 I averaged 4.15 gallons per hour. On a trip to the Bahamas I averaged 3.7. A round-about Oshkosh trip also averaged 3.7. I fly a bit slower than most, I think. I only go wide open if I’m trying to get somewhere in a hurry or trying to get high. Also the CT2k has a slightly longer wing than the SW or LS which I suspect provides optimum performance at a lower speed. Andy, I was alone and I don’t have an autopilot. Altitudes varied continuously from 2,500’ under an overcast in the LA basin to 12,500’ later in the flight. I don’t think fatigue was a problem. Not having the autopilot or the rudder and aileron trim that came with later models means I’m actively flying the plane (hence the continuously varying altitudes, airspeeds and engine settings). Also, for the second half of the flight the cockpit was too cold to fall asleep. And by then things were starting to get exciting anyway. ATIS at Deming and Las Cruces, New Mexico were reporting more surface wind than I’d like to land in. When I got a similar report from El Paso I contacted Flight Watch and asked them about Fort Stockton. I was relieved to hear that winds there were calm but by then it was getting dark so I still had plenty of stuff to keep me occupied. And it’s exciting to see the ground speeds as high as 140 knots anyway! Mike Thanks for the info Mike! 4700rpm and 4.1gph seems believable. I sometimes have to cruise at low rpm to stay with my buddy in his Avid Flyer, and usually cruise then around 4400-4700...I think I calculate 3.8-4.2gph in that regime. No cockpit heater in the CT2K? Glad you found a good place to land, strong winds make me nervous in my CT as well, especially if they are not lined up with a runway. I bet that is even more a concern with your longer wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Pre sport upgrade I am getting 4gph at 5300 rpm. 3.8gph at 5000. I expect to get 3.5gph at 5200 after sport upgrade. I only use 91E10 mogas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Thanks Mike. Is your 2K an 80 or 100hp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 we can see 3 vents [ SW style ] ...2 for the wings and 1 for the aux tank. As for the plumbing...''maybe'' ...the aux is used first,then the mains goes in the aux tank.[2 valves on the mains ]..... From the aux tank... '' PROBABLY'' straight to the engine fuel pump just like a low wing aircraft but my 'guess' is that hey also had an electric pump. just a guess Look closer. There are 4 vent tubes, two in each wing, equally spaced. I have the book and they show up much clearer in the pictures in the book. How the seat aux tank is vented I do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 JIm you are right,, two per wing and a 5th one in the middle (for the aux tank I guess) in the book,,,they don't explain about the fuel reserve..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.