What's the maximum reasonable range of an Ovation?

[gsengle]

Hi all - I'm one of those crazy pilots that can sit in the pilot's seat for a very long time non-stop.  I think the longest I've been in the air at one stretch was around 7 hours, in a different aircraft.

I also have a couple of flights coming up which will be in the 1000+ nautical mile range, and I have a '96 Ovation, which means 89 gallons "usable".  I'd love to make these non-stop, or at least have the option.

I know winds at various altitudes will be a major factor, but lets assume calm winds so I can better understand the relationship between power/altitude/speed and fuel flow.

Is the best option going fairly high, throttling back, and if possible going LoP?  What would you do?  What do you think is the max range (reserves and winds aside) you could reasonably get out of the Ovation, RoP and LoP?

(I did search the forums for similar discussions, and probably missed some, but I didn't find one)

 

thanks!

Greg

[piperpainter]

Go high thats how I always get the best range. If you climb up to 15,000 or 17,000 or higher you can get some low fuel flows and if eastbound pick up some great tailwinds. On the other hand if westbound lower is probably better! Big thing is to pull the power back and lean that puppy out! I know I have gone 730NM and still landed with 11 gallons left. I know I am a C model but you also have more gas!  Gotta love the Mooney!

[Lood]

I stand under correction posting this as I didn't really pay attention when the figures were told, but we had a fly in to a lodge in Namibia last weekend and our local South African Mooney agent attented it in his Ovation - also a '96 model IIRC.

I'm sure he said that he flew it at 10 deg LOP which returned 165 kts GS using 11 gal/ hour - probably at FL085. I'll confirm the figures if you'd like me to. To give you an idea though, he flew 860 nm, which included 3 take off's and landings in between, without refuelling.

[jasong]

Welcome to the boards Greg!  I had a feeling you'd find yourself here sooner or later

[danb35]

Best economy will always be LOP, assuming your engine will run there (and if it won't, do what you can to make it so it will).  Other than that, I'll be interested to see the responses.

[KSMooniac]

You'll probably maximize range flying in the 12-14K range at peak EGT or slightly LOP and full throttle of course.  You should be able to go 1000 NM easily IMO so long as you're not fighting headwinds.  I've done 900 NM in my J and it only took me 49 gallons without much help from the wind.

[KSMooniac]

Jim,

I'm not familiar with the link you posted and unfortunately am short of time now so I can't fully digest it.  (Got a 3 week biz trip starting soon!)

I agree that there will be an optimum IAS for aerodynamic efficiency, which is less than typical cruise for any Mooney.  I believe the most efficient configuration for a non-turbo Mooney would be to fly WOT at a relatively high altitude so that you end up at whatever that optimum IAS is...hence my recommendation to fly higher.  TAS will be higher due to less drag, and the engine will be naturally limited, even with WOT, due to the lower density.  Running at lower altitude with a retarded throttle will be less efficient, and the TAS will be lower so those are two negatives when looking for max range.  Jonathon Paul flew at ~13k feet if I recall on his cross-continent M20E flight last year for this very reason.

Running at low altitude, LOP will certainly be more efficient than a typical cruise setting at low altitude, but when going for maximum range it does pay to go higher.  Maybe I'll work out the math soon, but I doubt it.    I believe it is also a function of the wing for any individual airplane, and our Mooney wings are more efficient at higher altitudes when compared to other planes, so that is a factor.

[Piloto]

The Ovation will give you more than 89 gallons if you fill to the top of the skin, typically 103 gallons useable. The 89 gallons is when you fill up to the bottom edge of the filler conduit. The tank internal volume is the same for the M20M, M20R, M20S and M20TN. The amount of fuel you can put in is loosely controlled by the length of the filler conduit which is longer for the M20S (75 gallons). Air trap at the top of the tank will give you the mpression the tank is full but you can override this by inserting the gas nozzle pass the conduit edge. You can add an additional 30 gallons by installing in the wing the Monroy long range tanks for a total fuel of 130+ gallons

Range performance depends on several factors. Added weight can slow you down as much as 10kts. TKS will slow 5kts. Flying LOP wll give you max range but not best speed if you have headwinds. At FL170 the M20R will give you close to 170kts TAS at 11gph after 4 hours of fuel burning and no TKS. An M20R with 130 gallons can easily do the crossing from CYYR to BIRK (1400nm) with no ferry tanks needed as shown in the attached photo with 3 hours reserve.

José    

  

[Hank]

Quote: JimR

Scott,

Isn't aerodynamic efficiency primarily a function of indicated airspeed and practically independent of altitude?  Please comment on the linked ERAU study on cruise efficiency below, which I'm sure that you are very familiar with, and check the performance tables in your POH, which show the longest range achievable in our 201s at the lowest listed cruise altitudes.  I understand the induction efficiencies associated with running WOT, but, tailwinds notwithstanding, are they really great enough to justify flight in oxygen dependent regions?  Is it not possible to run very efficiently LOP, at less than WOT, and at moderate or even low altitudes?  

Greg,

You have to slow way down and fly at what will probably be less than 50% power to really maximize your range.  Flying LOP is more efficient than ROP.  I agree with Scott that 1000 nm should be easily doable in your beautiful new Ovation.

Jim

http://www.db.erau.edu/research/cruise/piston.frame.html

[Piloto]

Jim

The problem on achieving those numbers is that the plane has to be very light in weight which takes away the fuel you need to achieve the range. It is easier to climb and maintain high altitude numbers with 400lb of less fuel. In practice the plane is fully loaded with fuel at the begining of the trip and it is almost impossible to maintain level flight at less than 50% power setting. But don't feel bad airliners crossing the Pacific have the same problem. They begin their flight at a lower altitude and after burning a considerable amount of fuel they climb to their final altitude. On long trips I do the same. You save more fuel this way than trying to climb at 100fpm when gross.

José

  

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Quote: JimR

For what it's worth, unlike our own Jonathan Paul, Max Conrad, the famous Comanche endurance pilot of the 50s, set most if not all of his distance records at low altitude. 

[Piloto]

Quote: jerry-N5911Q

The thread is about "reasonable" range, but....

In the 1960s Max Conrad flew his Twin Comanche between Florida and South Africa, to mention one of his longer trips, and he flew that route by day at about 30' above the sea, climbing to 100' "for safety" at night.  He wanted to fly in ground effect to enhance range further.   I suppose that should be "in sea effect" in his case.

A Mooney should also go far flying at one wing-span or so above a smooth sea at bit above max L/D and leaned all the way to nasty rough.    In an Ovation you might average 120 knots at 7 gph that way, which is 18+ hours with 128 gallon LR tanks, or about 2200 nmi.  YMMV.

[N513ZM]

Quote: gsengle

Hi all - I'm one of those crazy pilots that can sit in the pilot's seat for a very long time non-stop.  I think the longest I've been in the air at one stretch was around 7 hours, in a different aircraft.

I also have a couple of flights coming up which will be in the 1000+ nautical mile range, and I have a '96 Ovation, which means 89 gallons "usable".  I'd love to make these non-stop, or at least have the option.

I know winds at various altitudes will be a major factor, but lets assume calm winds so I can better understand the relationship between power/altitude/speed and fuel flow.

Is the best option going fairly high, throttling back, and if possible going LoP?  What would you do?  What do you think is the max range (reserves and winds aside) you could reasonably get out of the Ovation, RoP and LoP?

(I did search the forums for similar discussions, and probably missed some, but I didn't find one)

 

thanks!

Greg

[BorealOne]

Over the past month or so I've been doing pretty regular 1100-1200 nm legs in my 1996 Ovation, usu between 8-14,000' burning between 14.5-12 GPH (lower, slower and more fuel going west; higher, faster and less fuel going east).

Last week I also did one 1425 nm leg which saw me departing CYTH to CYYR with 112 gallons onboard, setting out in beautiful VFR conditions at 11500, but then climbing up to FL19 as things went IFR on the east side of James Bay (and the load of fuel got lighter, making it possible to get there in the first place). Burn was down to 10 gph at 50ROP, and I had a 35 gallons reserve on landing.

6-7h - that's about as long as I'd reasonably want to spend in the plane in one go - your mileage may vary.

 

[vasco]

i drive an 07 O3 and get similar fuel flows as "borealone".  i typically get 180-184 ktas at altitude.  Borealone, what is your typical ktas?

[BorealOne]

Hey Vasco - 180 at altitude is pretty typical.

[MooneyMitch]

Quote: borealone

Hey Vasco - 180 at altitude is pretty typical.

[gsengle]

I have an update.  Flew down for the launch of Endeavor this weekend.  On the way back I had a flight that made me very happy.  According to flightaware, I averaged 191kts (tailwind helps) at 9500 feet, nonstop from Daytona Beach back to western MA.  4.8 hours.  Landed with 2 hours of fuel left in the tanks.  Was getting 16+ nautical miles a gallon, and was at 20in of manifold pressure burning only 12.5 gph or so lop.  So, with 100 gallons in the tanks, I could have gone 1600 theoretical miles that day...

[fantom]

Quote: gsengle

...I could have gone 1600 theoretical miles that day...

[gsengle]

Quote: fantom

Hopefully not inverted all the way  

[SPEEDMOONEY]

I've just flown 3 days ago from KTEB to LFMD with a Mooney Ovation 2 GX, with just 2 refueling stops at CYYR and BIKF, a 4000 Nm flight in 24 hours.

Regards.

[carusoam]

NJ to Cannes....Further than Linbergh (with a couple stops), more comfortably too.  Lindbergh took 33.5 hrs.  3,610 mi.

Go M20R!

Best regards,

-a-

[DaV8or]

Quote: SPEEDMOONEY

I've just flown 3 days ago from KTEB to LFMD with a Mooney Ovation 2 GX, with just 2 refueling stops at CYYR and BIKF, a 4000 Nm flight in 24 hours.

Regards.

[SPEEDMOONEY]

The flight was just done to set the record.

[Piloto]

Quote: SPEEDMOONEY

I've just flown 3 days ago from KTEB to LFMD with a Mooney Ovation 2 GX, with just 2 refueling stops at CYYR and BIKF, a 4000 Nm flight in 24 hours.

Regards.