Could this be a descendant of Lindbergh?
How does that little plane fly that far without refueling??
By using clouds as fuel along the way.
Edit: Extra gas tanks.
3 hours 37 minutes done
10 hours 43 minutes to go
I guess the pilot has a jar to pee in, but what if he needs to poop!?! 
Depends!
Seriously, you eat a “low ash” diet for several days before you depart.
What?..this is a joke right? 
You mean Low Ass?
I’ve never seen one go quite that route before. Most of the time they bounce from Canada, to Greenland, to Iceland, especially single engine. You can get all the way across without much time over water. That plane probably has extra fuel tanks in every available cabin space. Plus at that altitude, at max economy cruise, you can get the fuel flow down under 7 gph in a 172. As for using the bathroom, the window on a 172 opens quite well, just set the autopilot.
but what if he needs to poop!?!
Cork??? 
I can’t help but wonder if it wouldn’t be cheaper/easier to dismantle a 172 and ship it across the ocean. I remember seeing a story a few years ago that Yingling had a contract with Cessna to dismantle new Cessna pistons for shipping to the Asian market. They are also the US assembly point for the Skycatcher.
I was just going to say that the 162 is being built in china and shipped to the US in pieces. I sure as hell know i wouldnt want to fly that long in a 172. We go to London once a year and I dread that trip. Its an ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL day trip. Only to wake up a week later and do again in reverse!
You bring a pizza box. What, who said that, I would never. You make it work.
Well, you really don’t want to shake his hand when he lands. If you know what I mean?
Frank Holbert
160knots.com
What, the trip or the “low ash” comment?
The USAF did a great deal of study on diets that would reduce solid waste. Primarily for alert birds, but also for the -135 crews that literally lived aboard their birds awaiting a go signal to pass gas.
Never really understood the need for it on the -135s as they were equipped with palatial facilities compared to the -52s.
Never heard of anyone living on board the aircraft. I’ve always seen them living in bunkers.
The gas-passers were often staged at bases that weren’t equipped with alert bunkers and lived aboard for days at a time.
“8. For live-aboard accommodations, refer to OPLAN Alert. Water and Rations will be
uploaded IAW OPLAN Alert. Units will establish aircraft live-aboard capability consisting
of 3 cases of cold weather rations (CW) and 1,800 ounces of water as a minimum IAW
AMCI 10-450, Volume 3, Support of Nuclear Planning and Operations (classified). This
will allow aircrew to reside on the aircraft for a minimum of three days at forward operating
locations in support of OPLAN Alert. During live-aboard conditions, carbon monoxide
detectors are required for all models of KC-135 aircraft.”
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-2KC-135, VOLUME 3, ADDENDA A
and I thought living on a ship with 5k plus knuckleheads was bad…HA! No thanks.
I’ve know a lot of boomers and tanker pilots. I think you need to replace often with rarely. Unlike the other branches the AF places a high priority on food and housing.
[quote=“fholbert”]
Sure Frank, that’s why there’s a specific, written directive addressing living aboard.
During the Cold War -135s would often spend up to a week at a time parked at remote Arctic Circle air fields awaiting the word to takeoff and fuel the -52s. Yes, stateside crews spent their 5 day alert rotations living in the “mole hole” bunkers at US AFBs. Such luxuries weren’t available on the remote airfields and the crews lived aboard their birds.