So you are definitely not serious. You might be the only person not interested in saving 2.6 gallons of fuel ( which equals about 15 min or more of flight time in cruise) on a trans-pacific flight to an Island. Yes, I get you can put extra fuel in the plane, but at what safety or operational concern for that extra fuel. Lindbergh, in his transatlantic flight was over gross and not sure if otherwise in a normal envelope. If not, he needed to keep his speed up to avoid finding out how out of balance he was. And yes, he made it so no regulatory concern either, not that I was asking.
You are assuming that there would be a fuel advantage with altitude.
Read "ferry pilot" by Kerry McCauley. That's his story; it's in the book with a bunch of others. Excellent book.
I’m sure you know this but
Wind, maybe. I haven’t looked to see what they were. TAS isn’t necessarily an advantage, although with 15 hours to make up what’s lost in climb, it’s more likely.
the engine is also making less power, my real world experience is that anything about 8,500-10,500 in an NA plane you aren't gaining anything with TAS. The other thing, this guy would have had to have been on O2 for nearly 18 hours if he had gone higher than 10K.. what's the point? He had enough gas. That extra 2K would have introduced more weight and another point of failure
I honestly don’t know what airframe you are basing your argument on but it does not sound like a Cessna 172. As Blancolirio indicated in his video above, the flight was planned to use 8 gph, which by my estimate is 55-60% power, and had, I think he said, 20 hours of fuel that would give a reserve of 2hrs, or 16 gal of reserve fuel. That means that a fuel to climb to altitude rounded to 3gals is close to 20% of the reserve, not insignificant. Your example of having a 90 gal reserve has no place in the flight planning for this 172 flight, which was already 300lbs over gross.
What you are gaining at higher altitude is a higher TAS relative to a lower % of power, which saves fuel but increases the range one can attain when a headwind does not counter that. No need for O2 at 10k feet, nor it’s associated weight.
Not a calculus problem but pure arithmetic using the information in the POH of your aircraft. No need to complicate something that is fairly straightforward with the exception of considerations of ferry tanks and their connections, and human factors. Autopilots, gps navigators, fuel flow indicators takes a lot of the sweating out of the unknowns during a real flight. Weather is always the kicker.
I guarantee he landed with fewer empties than he took off with.
They got a special dispensation on the GR Wt from FAA for the Ferry Permit.
With the collapseable bladders that shouldn't really be much of an issue unless you're trying to squeeze the last few pints out of each of them to make the field.
Not much risk to the pilot as long as it is an airworthy plane.
@Katamarino did you have oil consumption worries on your long legs?
Thanks for participating in the conversation. While I actively followed your flight around the world, I apologize for losing track of you after your engine work and the following Covid madness that altered your flight plans. Obviously, you made it safely back to North America.
It is amazing to me that your 182 with its large useful load could actually push you to the (ahem) aft limit. How much extra fuel tank capacity did you carry?
I think you may be overlooking the obvious. Climbing slowly at or near cruising speed increases overall miles per gallon. I do it often, and I'm not trying to make 2000 miles, just squeezing every drop of fuel for all I can get.
If it was handled by an outfit specializing in long ferry flights, the bladders and other required equipment would be shipped back to be used again for the next job.
