Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10
User avatar
By KevinH
#378802
mikej wrote:The Seneca is at 1,999lbs to avoid Eurocontrol charges. I'd be curious to know what the Seneca "weighs in" at in the US


The new ones on the US web site are 2165KG.
User avatar
By scuderia
#378811
KevinH wrote:
mikej wrote:The Seneca is at 1,999lbs to avoid Eurocontrol charges. I'd be curious to know what the Seneca "weighs in" at in the US


The new ones on the US web site are 2165KG.


Yes well done.

Scud
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#378813
mikej wrote:The Seneca is at 1,999lbs to avoid Eurocontrol charges. I'd be curious to know what the Seneca "weighs in" at in the US

My little blue oracle puts the Seneca at 4,000 to 4,750lbs, depending upon model and year.

The 1999kgs thing is purely a bit of paper.
User avatar
By Captn P
#378828
mikej wrote:Don't most Warrior II in the UK have a MOTW of 2325lbs, but the same have a MTOW of 2440lbs in the US.. the difference being the cost the CAA want to amend the POH in the UK? purely a paperwork exercise I belileve.

Ergo... is it unsafe in the UK to fly a warrior II at 2400lbs in the UK?


172's are similar as some are rated for more weight due to a reduction in the service ceiling.
User avatar
By Moli
#378832
KevinH wrote:
Moli wrote:Kevin

Ah.... okay it was a genuine question to which I knew there would be a legitimate answer or you wouldnt have posted what you did, although I didnt want to assume you and FF were refering to the same thing .

My original point though is not referring to legally approved ferry pilot ops but to run of the mill GA & how / why do some people appear to operate aircraft significantly overwieight.

Moli


I don't know that many people do operate significantly overweight, I certainly don't, but I do think people regularly may be a bit over. If an aircraft can be legally flown 25% overweight then this isn't because the ferry pilot has magical powers, it is that the aircraft will stand it. Flying 25% over must be really horrible and not something you want to make a habit of, but 3% makes virtually no difference although that doesn't mean I would do it unthinkingly.


Okay lets all start bending flying regs to suit. Whilst you wouldnt fly overweight unthinkingly, would that apply to everyone who slowly slips down the line of flying more & more overweight? I accept that a slight increase in MTOW is unlikely to have any effect but the weights I posted at the beginning are hardly insignificant. Is it a drip by drip dilution of adhering to W&B regulations that end up with people flying ac that are overweight enough to jeopordise the safe handling on an ac?

I dont mean to sound confrontational at all but as a low houred recently qualified PPL I am genuinely suprised at how acceptable to fly a bit overweight seems to be.

Incidentally Kevin have you read Nov AAIB reports?

Moli
User avatar
By KevinH
#378834
Moli wrote:
KevinH wrote:Incidentally Kevin have you read Nov AAIB reports?

Moli


Can you tell me which ones it is, otherwise you have to read the full report for ech one.
By PeteM
#378835
Great argument as always!

Yes the speed of the stall (all other things being equal!) will increase with weight. My old Terrier had an elaborate set of graphs to show the fairly small effect. Strangely it had no elaborate set of graphs to show stall speed at differing angle of bank - although that is fairly easy to work out.

It also had a more enlightening set of graphs for performance at differing density altitudes - I say more enlightening because the effects were very much greater than those of weight. Hence the tinkering with Cessna POH etc. when the weights vary

As with all forum arguements it is pretty sterile. The aircraft did not crash because it was overweight, it crashed because of a combination of circumstances - the most important of which was that the pilot failed to keep it flying. Less weight, less bank angle, more power, maybe more wind or a deeper valley - all would have contributed to making the 'accident' less likely to happen. Equally the converse of all the above would make it more likely.

But the pilot did not keep the aircraft flying. Try operating at a really high density altitude and you immediately find yourself in similar situation. At the end of the day the weight and balance are simply a set of criteria which met the rules the aircraft is certified to. Those rules change and have different criteria depending on who, where and when they were compiled. Nothing in those criteria is an absolute value at which bad things happen. Even under the same rules there is a high level of subjectivity so different design and testing teams arrive at different criteria.

So there will be no lightning bolt striking you dead if you're flying 1lb or 25% overweight or equally out of balance. A pilot should still be able to keep the aircraft flying - it might have to fly faster, it might be much less stable, it will sink quicker but it will still fly - so long as you don't stop it. And that unfortunately is what happened here.
User avatar
By Moli
#378838
KevinH wrote:
Moli wrote:
KevinH wrote:Incidentally Kevin have you read Nov AAIB reports?

Moli


Can you tell me which ones it is, otherwise you have to read the full report for ech one.


Nov bulletin
GBYLE
GBDLS
Regards
Moli
By mikej
#378840
Curry????


Just occassionally you have a good idea Scud! yes please!

In answer to your question.. I assume the figure was derived, by some geezer saying "What's the max weight we can have without incurring Eurocontrol charges" and then writing it on a bit of paper!!

what I'd like to know.. is has there been an impact in people decision to use/buy and Aztec because of this.
User avatar
By Moli
#378843
Sorry to drag this on :oops: , I know some will be tiring of it, but do commercial operators have the same attitude to overweight ac?

I wonder if a lax attitude towards weight & balance could be a contributary factor in two of the accidents in this months bulletin.
In one a FI was aboard & evidently happy with or unaware of his overweight ac, In the other the pilot had almost identical hours to myself (80 ish and therefore a recent graduate in hours at least of the training system) & was unaware or happy with his overweight ac. From the way I read it , no the ac did not crash in either case because it was overweight, however being overweight was probably a contributary factor.

Is there a deep rooted attitude of being a bit overweight is okay in GA that can lead to pilots becoming too blase about the whole thing and eventually find themselves in a situation where being overweight hurts.

Moli
User avatar
By scuderia
#378844
mikej wrote:
Curry????


Just occassionally you have a good idea Scud! yes please!
quote]

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=27048&start=15

mikej wrote:what I'd like to know.. is has there been an impact in people decision to use/buy and Aztec because of this.


I doubt it the price differential between an Aztec and a Snickers is substantial and what you save on an Aztec you spend on Eurocontrol chargers. Ask Timothy he is the expert.

scud
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#378853
mikej wrote:In answer to your question.. I assume the figure was derived, by some geezer saying "What's the max weight we can have without incurring Eurocontrol charges" and then writing it on a bit of paper!!

what I'd like to know.. is has there been an impact in people decision to use/buy and Aztec because of this.


The answer to both of these is, "of course".

You only have to look at the twin fleet here - lots of Senecas, TwinComs, Duchesses etc. Marginal performance twins with barely enough useful load to be a decent tourer. That's why they are mostly flown by training establishments who do a lot of IFR but load them lightly and need low operating costs. If you need to carry a few people then a heavier single gives a better mix of performance/cost if you don't mind single engine over water etc.

The Eurocontrol burden is around
By critic99
#378857
Anyone care to post what overweight they have operated to safely in a 172 or PA28? 30kgs? 60? Now I've seen the view that it is only the performance that will suffer assuming it is within limits it seems safe to do so. They (manufacturers/CAA/FAA) have to draw the line somewhere so whereas a PA28 might have a MTOW of 2150 lbs they obviously had to stop somewhere and fix it, why not 2130 or 2200? And as was mentioned earlier how do you know (cos its gone off the graph) that its still in limits? By judging the lines going upwards still from the graph are within the new weight?

I don't subscribe to all this 'insurance' panickers. Providing you bust the tanks open and survive the crash they can't determine exactly how many litres over has absorbed into the grass!!!

But it is interesting to see how many schools must knowingly have to operate over MTOW but knowing there is absolutely no risk in doing so.
User avatar
By Adrian
#378859
Flyingfemme wrote:Others, like our Timothy, will buy a much cheaper machine with more robust performance and take the operating hit.


Or fly it VFR a lot!
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10