you’re right, even though in my case it would mean fitting additional fuel capacity. I would simply not be comfortable doing that route with less than 1000 NM still air range, even though it could be done based on pure math. But I’d really like more reserve than what I have right now. I also believe that some places mandate something like 3 hours reserve fuel for SEP’s over that route.
I agree that you want some range. My still air range is just about 1000nm. As to the Iceland rules, I don’t think anyone complies with them. No aircraft finds that route easy with reserves. Greenland is one place where you need to accept that you have no diversion once past the PONR.
In a piston you go the Northern route and could go
Wick – Vagar – Reykjavik – Kulusuk – Sondrestrom Fjord – Iqualuit with no leg more than 500nm and if the weather works out for you, file and try for the longer legs ie drop Vagar and Kulusuk.
2400 NM range but non pressurized and at about 160 kts
In fact I think what you want on the Atlantic route is maximum range against a 80kt to 120kt headwind. All those maximum range figures flown at rather low TAS do not help much…
Interestingly, even if you were a gazillionaire and money was not an object, there simply is no plane available that can do SP much more than 2000nm.
Very true and the reason so many people but the CJ4, Phenom 300 or soon the PC24. But none of them can cross the Atlantic in one leg against the wind. So probably you will fly the same route as the smaller planes and maybe you can skip the stops in Wick and Greenland. But being able to fly Goose Bay – Iceland direct probably helps a lot in real life as you can skip the Greenland airports with bad weather, limited instrument approaches and rather short opening hours.
Sebastian,
what you need is a 1000 NM ESAD range.
With an 80 kts headwind, in order to achieve 1000 NM Equivalent Still Air Distance Range, an airplane with a given TAS needs the following still air range:
160 kt …… 2000 NM
180 kt …… 1800 NM
200 kt …… 1670 NM
220 kt ……. 1571 NM
240 kt …… 1500 NM
260 kt ……. 1444 NM
280 kt ……. 1400 NM
With 120 headwind most small planes need to stay home anyhow. Some would actually reverse and fly backwards…..
So range does count even with smaller TAS. Actually, looking at some of them, they can achieve 1000 NM EASD with these 80 kts in two ways incidently: Either flying with 160 kts or with 75% and 190 kts when the absolute range decreases from 2400 NM to about 1900 NM. As 1000 NM EASD is about 300 NM more than you actually need over the NATL, any small plane wishing to tackle an 80 kts headwind would need the above calculated still air range.
So given Jason’s figures of 265 kt TAS and 1000 NM ESAD range, his actual ground distance achievable on a given day with 80 kts all the way would be about 700 NM. While a 160 kt plane which has 2400 NM still air range or a 240 kt plane with a 1600 NM range could still achieve 1100 NM ground distance.
Jason covered an ESAD of 3202 NM yesterday, as opposed to a ground distance of 2477 NM. That is an average of a 60 kt headwind. And he managed this in 12.1 hours needing 4 fuel stops.
Theoretically, a 160 kt plane with 2400 NM range and 60 kts headwind would have to fly 3970 NM ESAD and would need 25 hours flight time with theoretically 1 fuel stop. A 220 kt plane with a 1600 NM range would have to fly 3406 NM ESAD and would need 15.4 hours flight time with 2 fuel stops.
Number games I know but somehow thought provoking anyhow. I still think it is much nicer doing a trip like that in a plane like Jason’s. Particularly if you think of the way back. With the same winds, he could fly home from Goose Bay with 1 fuel stop in 7.2 hours flight time :) Whereas the smaller planes it would still mean to fly double digit hours but could be done non stop by the 2400 NM plane in about 12 hours with 1800 NM ESAD.
Realistically speaking and looking at your charts posted earlier, low level winds at or below FL100 would probably be less than 80 kts, rather 40 or so.
I would say that there is no market for owner flown atlantic crossings as a regular undertaking. It is an exhausting adventure no matter how you do it. If you want to spend the money to go private, you hire a crew and a suitable aircraft like a Gulfstream.
So Jason is delivering his Meridian to the buyer in the US? Didn’t last long that plane, did it? 
Yes, the one part of the trip which would be great to skip from a planning perspective is Greenland although landing there is an adventure in itself. However in our case the Iceland leg actually proved to be the most challenging to complete.
I would say that there is no market for owner flown atlantic crossings as a regular undertaking. It is an exhausting adventure no matter how you do it. If you want to spend the money to go private, you hire a crew and a suitable aircraft like a Gulfstream.
Gee Achim, you are in a good mood….
We aren’t discussing whether it is the most economically sensible option – of course that is not a Gulfstream either it is BA/Lufthansa. It is a great thing to do at least once if you like flying. But I agree it is an exhausting crossing. That doesn’t of course make it a bad thing to do.
With the same winds, he could fly home from Goose Bay with 1 fuel stop in 7.2 hours flight time :)
We all know head/tailwinds don’t cooperate like that! Because of the lack of diversion options in my plane you would never realistically be able to skip greenland or iceland. Your worry of course is that you lose the tailwind at the worst possible time. The winds were strong due to the time of year and altitudes I need to fly to get a good fuel burn. A summer crossing at lower altitudes would obviously take longer in a piston single but I suspect you wouldn’t be facing the same wind strengths.
The reverse trip last year in September with italianjon took 10.71 hours covering 2487nm for an average speed of 237knots. We didn’t go to Vagar but covered only about 10nm more distance! Most of that difference was on the leg from/to Oxford. You do essentially get great circle tracks so distance is pretty reliable.
It is a great thing to do at least once if you like flying.
Sorry Jason, but that is rather understated… 
It’s effing brilliant, a great adventure, and only something that a few people ever get to do.
I can see the novelty wear off though if you were in a C172 on your nth crossing stuck in a Survival Suit. Anything lower/slower than your plane and you would be stuck with that wonderful proposition. But I fully agree something that HAS to be done once.
Nothing to do with mood Jason, all I said that there is no market for owner flown atlantic crossings. Nobody does that on a regular basis and therefore there is not much demand for aircraft with that capability. Also I didn’t say it’s a bad thing, I am myself planning to do that one day but just like you — as an adventure!
You should be able to fit a cabin tank into your Meridian, maybe even get to the point where you can do an Azores crossing? That should be the most comfortable way of crossing the atlantic. I’m planning to fit such a tank (trivial in a non pressurized single) giving me 15h endurance at 160KTAS. That will make it comfortable with the exception of the SEP-over-water-high-adrenaline issue…
OK, I agree that there is little market for building such long range into aircraft. In a pressurised hull it is challenging and quite expensive to fit a tank and I don’t plan to do enough of these to make it necessary. Even if I had one I am still not sure I would do the Azores. You are much further out to sea with even fewer options in case of a problem.
BTW, mood was addressed to your last comment Long is an interesting concept. I have covered (as of arrival into Goose Bay) 102,751.1nm in the Meridian so it has been well used over the two years.
Just for fun (you can tell I am turboprop lagged here at 5am), my average ground speed since ownership has been 217 knots!
I wonder why, in a pressurised aircraft, the manufacturer doesn’t just install fuel piping into the cabin and then cap it off. That way the pressure hull isn’t/doesn’t need to be compromised to fit the tank. The costs of installation would be negligible during the initial construction. It would facilitate easier ferrying for the delivery flight, and you could then effectively rent a tank when you need one and it would have quick install/deinstall.
That would increase the flexibility at little cost
What would the manufacturer gain?
Also there is a big difference: the cabin tank is in the pressurized vessel, the wing tanks are not. That is a challenge and so is the fuel venting.
