Here are some stats from an e-mail he sent this afternoon. I like the response from the insurance company at the end-great PR for Aerospace Insurance Managers-not!

Here are a couple of facts about the flight:

Engine: Barrett IO-550 non-turbo, 10:1 pistons, oversized oil sump, GAMI injectors, mags.
The Lancair IV falls into class C1d in the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale classification system. (landplane, internal combustion powered, 1500-3000 kg)
My official take off weight was 4,449 lbs (2017.6 kg).
Total fuel on board at engine start: 361 gallons.
Total fuel on board at engine shutdown: 6 gallons
Fuel burned 355 gallons.
Oil quantity on engine start: 14 quarts
Oil added: 0 zero
Oil quantity on landing back home in Virginia: 14 quarts
Total oil consumption: ZERO (Thank you Allen Barrett & crew)
Great circle distance between PGUM and KJAX 13,059 km, 7,051 nm, 8,114 sm.
Time aloft: 38:29
Average fuel consumption: 9.2 gph. Cruise ranged from 11 gph heavy to 8 gph light.
Average ground speed: 183 knots.
Average cruise TAS: 180 knots


As most of you know, I have never sought publicity for this flight. Word got out and it seemed to spread like wildfire. That’s OK, I have no problem with that...EXCEPT... Here’s what happens when your insurance company finds out that you are attempting something a little out of the ordinary:

Mr. Harrelson,

Please be advised that your insurance carrier, Aerospace Insurance Managers, has decided that due to the fact you will be flying outside of their standard territory limits, (United States (excluding Alaska & Hawaii) Canada, Mexico, or while enroute between these territories) they will be sending out a 14 day Notice of Cancellation of your policy.





Bill Harrelson

N5ZQ 320 2,150 hrs

N6ZQ IV 200 hrs.

If I were a betting man, and had a way to prove it, I'd bet all the tanks on that plane were full when he left Guam. Well, anyway, I know they would have been full if I were the pilot. Over max. gross? Just don't admit it.

Wow, passed Max Conrads record from 1959! Although I am sure Max had more flying hours due to being in a slower aircraft.

Interesting facts about the flight from the EAA website.


Engine: Barrett IO-550 non-turbo, 10:1 pistons, oversized oil sump, GAMI injectors, mags
The Lancair IV falls into Class C-1d in the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale classification system (landplane, internal combustion powered, 1,500 to 3,000 kilograms).
Official takeoff weight: 4,449 pounds (2017.6 kilograms)
Total fuel on board at engine start: 361 gallons
Total fuel on board at engine shutdown: 6 gallons
Fuel burned: 355 gallons
Oil quantity on engine start: 14 quarts
Oil added: None
Oil quantity on landing back home in Virginia: 14 quarts
Total oil consumption: None (Thank you, Allen Barrett & crew!)
Great Circle distance between PGUM and KJAX - 13,059 kilometers, 7,051 nm, 8,114 statute miles
Time aloft: 38 hours, 29 minutes
Average fuel consumption: 9.2 gph. Cruise ranged from 11 gph heavy to 8 gph light.
Average ground speed: 183 knots
Average cruise TAS: 180 knots


6 gallons at shutdown!

Over how many tanks do you think those 6 gallons were spread?


I was pretty surprised by the fuel remaining. I wonder what his absolute bottom-line reserve was.

6gal=45 minutes EXACTLY .... wonder why....

That 10:1 compression ratio would produce a higher BSFC?

I know from conversations with my brother, Kurt, who is a friend of Bill's, that Bill anticipated help from the prevailing wind that he never received. That he was able to manage his fuel consumption under somewhat adverse conditions and still make JAX with reserve is a remarkable accomplishment. I would bet there were many hours of concern in that cockpit regarding fuel supply and that his plan "B" was close at hand.

I'll bet every tank but the one he was using was DRY - as they should have been.

Note there is NO MINIMUM requirement for landing fuel. If best planning shows there is enough fuel, you may launch (Part 91.151). Once airborne, that goes out the window.

Had I been making that approach and landing, I would have remained high enough so that I could make an on-some-airport deadstick landing, and would have advised the tower "Minimum Fuel, No Go Around."

If there was anything said, I'd declare the emergency.

Not a big deal. He had the required planning reserve which doesn't apply once airborne as you pointed out. No unusual activity required. Not necessary to stay high or call min. fuel to tower. If he was cruising at 8 gph ("Average fuel consumption: 9.2 gph. Cruise ranged from 11 gph heavy to 8 gph light."), he had a 45 minute reserve. I plan my fuel load to normally not land with more than one hour fuel and I maintain the redundancy of keeping a little fuel in more than one tank as you should do.


I'll bet every tank but the one he was using was DRY - as they should have been.

Note there is NO MINIMUM requirement for landing fuel. If best planning shows there is enough fuel, you may launch (Part 91.151). Once airborne, that goes out the window.

Had I been making that approach and landing, I would have remained high enough so that I could make an on-some-airport deadstick landing, and would have advised the tower "Minimum Fuel, No Go Around."

If there was anything said, I'd declare the emergency.

Actually, I am wondering how he *knew* how much fuel he had remaining. 6 gals of 361 is 1.66%. My fuel totalizers were pretty well dialed in, and were accurate to about 1% over time with slightly more variance for any given fill up.

I'm pretty sure gauges in a tank would not distinguish those last 6 gals with exceptional precision. Wiki lists fuel capacity as either 90 or 110 gals. 6 of 45 gals (assuming it was all in one tank) is a little better than 10%, which should at least show up on a needle though not sure how much precision one could know beyond "not quite empty". If he had the long range tank option (wouldn't you think?), it's that much finer precision.

I'm curious to know, though. It is an interesting problem if he solved it. My engineering mind is interested.

Maybe he reset the totalizer when changing tanks to reset the accumulated error.

Just a wag here, but he knew exactly what was burned from the ferry and aux tanks (what he put in), so the gauges/totalizer would only need to accurately measure the ship's 90 gal tankage. So now he's looking at 6+% of FOB with 9 hours of fuel--well within the capabilities of totalizer or gauges. And I'll bet those systems we're well calibrated! Furthermore, it's really only the last 20 or so gallons where accuracy becomes important, and then +/- 6 gallons becomes a very large error.

I would bet that the remaining fuel was in the header tank, and I wonder if it has a sight gauge. Then you know because you can see it.

Even if they were accurate to around 1%, by running tanks dry, and then having a guage that is somewhat accurate you can know. My guages read in 5L increments which is just over a gallon but not 1.5. I compare the fuel computer to guages many times in flight, and if I had 25L left in one tank I would be VERY comfortable approaching any aerodrome.

A job well done!