It could be interesting to understand why precisely flying is more stressful in Europe. Many of us would agree on that and it is a problem for GA.
I saw this video the other day. This guy is a textbook example of the flying entrepreneur “US-style” in Europe.
He has an aircraft many dream of, seems trained, proficient, dedicated and put the money on the table when needed.
In this video, he flies from Portimao Portugal LPPM back home for a board meeting in blackpool EGNH and wants to show GA is quicker/easier than CAT (that’s a good cause 
) .
He plans a fuel/customs stop in Bordeaux LFBD (the big airport). Handling is mandatory there (I checked) and costs about 100€ for a stop like that (I have been told, may have changed, not downwards)
Then go to about 11:05
The usual story : no fuel guy so no fuel, handler does nothing, time wasted, etc…
There are other examples on his channel (LFRD I believe)
It seems like they stopped for personal reasons in Bordeaux to use restrooms etc more than for range reasons (I’ma assuming a Cirrus could do that direct, no?).
As always, the best speed modification is the long range tank! Not only that, they seem to pay for themselves by not having to do useless and costly stops. The more handling and Euro shenanigans there is, the more range becomes important. Downside is of course you might have to pee in a bottle.
What is the max range of Cirrus anyway?
LPPM direct to EGNH is 1024 nm, quite a long trip (with the wife on board )
As you say, problems always occur on the ground, better stay in the air !
Flown LOP between 1100 (G1, 2) and 1200 NM (G3, 5, 6) no reserve (non-turbo model).
To be honest, if you have a regular 1000nm business mission a Cirrus is not the right aircraft for you. You need a TBM as a minimum I would suggest.
I agree; to do 1000nm trips in Europe, with headwinds up to say 50kt, in a “150kt” type of plane, and with the alternate options being mostly dumps, you need way more range. Also you want more speed to reduce the effects of headwinds. Even a Jetprop is not good enough for 1000nm trips done regularly. The TBM has a zero fuel range of about 1800-1900nm which is much better – as well as going 2x faster to start with.
We’ve done this before but IMHO stopping for a pee is a complete non-starter. You must have an in-flight pee provision. You may think you are OK for say 3hrs but wait till you do a winter flight, with the sun low, with a -20C OAT, and maybe having had a drink in the few hours before departure. You might be absolutely desperate after 1hr. I know one pilot (heavy piston twin) who had to pee into his thermos flask. Various previous threads on this topic
JasonC wrote:
You need a TBM as a minimum I would suggest.
Meaning a Citation Mustang would not be enough?
Your points are very true. I will be checking the peeing threads :)
But making a fuel stop between home and holiday is not unreasonable either. Still easier than Astypalaia
It juste shows zone should ALWAYS carefully check pireps before choosing any kind of stops. Choosing a big airport with handler is no guarantee.
I like eddh.de (+Google trad) and euroga for that.
achimha wrote:
Meaning a Citation Mustang would not be enough?
Correct. Although because of the speed you could do a two leg trip far more easily in a Mustang than in a Cirrus of course.
I’m surprised that nobody has developed aux tanks for any of the VLJ’s. They all seem to to about 1000nm and that’s about it. And that works for 90% of travel, but sometimes you just need more. Would there be room to certify and install a 100gal tank in the aft baggage compartment on the Mustang, JasonC? Would it be able to carry that extra fuel if lightly loaded?
