Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
User avatar
By Pete L
#378687
Dave Phillips wrote:
Pete L wrote:But a PA28-161 with two adults will be well below weight and beyond the forward C of G. No dog, so all the **** goes in the baggage compartment.


I could lend/hire you the Dog. :lol:


Viv would love it - I'll pop into Sherlowe next time I've got an a/c for the day. In exchange, you can take next door's peafowl.
User avatar
By LIONHEART
#378689
4 seat trainer in for 50hr check

Tomohawk sitting with it's cover on.

Student "Come on, we can take the two seater for an hour's lesson".

Me" I'm a fat b@st@rd that will make us overweight, so no".

Student "But they're going from next door in their Tomohawk, and they don't look any bigger than us"

Me "The first rule in flying is 'Don't trust Anybody'. Go in the classroom and read the P.O.H. then tell me if it's safe for us to fly. If you think it is then join the club next door, but don't expect me to attend the funeral"

The point of this make believe mini story is that YOU make the decisions on your own safety. Unfortunately there are some outfits that, possibly due to commercial pressure, teach by example bad habits.

You are only as bad as your instructor - until you have enough knowledge to look after yourself.

Of course that's only my opinion; so now I'm off up the motorway to get the four seater back ............. I hope I survive the M25 !
User avatar
By Vince C
#378690
And of course if you are outside CG, it's better to out in the forward direction. Forward CG means you might run out of 'up' elevator in the flare, and it will also make the aeroplane less efficient (more downthrust on the tail in the cruise to keep level).

Rearward CG, however, can be a killer at an earlier stage than forward CG would be. Rearward CG reduces the aeroplane's pitch stability, eventually to the point of instability. It will stall/spin more readily, and be reluctant or impossible to recover. One of this month's AAIB reports has this as a factor.

Obvious stuff, I know. But perhaps worth repeating.
User avatar
By SteveC
#378693
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
I would say it is pretty rare for most GA aircraft to be flown Weight.


Speak for yourself.

My 152 was always over weight with 2 adults and full fuel, it was the only way to ever get a trip done. My 172XP actually has a massive payload, full fuel and 4 adults and it is still inside the weight but add a few bags and it goes over weight but not balance.

The Senneca is the same, if I want 6 people I have to leave most of the fuel and bags behind and spinning 2 engines needs a lot of fuel!


How clever.


Silly me, perfect Frank......
By mpk
#378699
I suppose the way people ensure the slightly overweight aircraft is within CoG is to draw imaginery lines upwards from the limits on the chart and then estimate where they would have been under the new overweight figure? Provided it's not stupidly over of course. I've never gone more than 10kgs over but that sounds like I'm being very cautious compared to some!!!
User avatar
By KevinH
#378702
Is there any suggestion that the excess weight contributed towards these two crashes? Clearly they need to consider such things, but it doesn't mean they contributed towards an accident.

I can't see anything wrong (aside from the legal implications) with being a bit overweight provided you know what to expect and the conditions are fit for it. The dangerous thing to do is to not know you are overweight nd not to do anything about it. If you want to fly 4 people to the south of France then you might have to choose between taking off 7% overwieight or landing twice on route. If you are taking off on a cool day with 2000M of tarmac and will burn off the fuel on the way then there really isn't much of a problem for many aircraft. If you are using a short grass strip, it is 33 degrees, and you don't know you are overweight then you are an accident waiting to happen.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#378710
Silly me, perfect Frank......


I ain't perfik and very well know that too.

To routinely operate an aeroplane overweight though is not clever. If you do that yourself and keep the aeroplane indefinitely then so be it. The idea that you load them up though, probably with innocent - non pilot, bystanders is unclever to say the least.

If you find that a particular aeroplane does not do the job you want it to do you'll need to get a bigger one, aeroplane that is.

:D
By MattD
#378714
KevinH wrote:Is there any suggestion that the excess weight contributed towards these two crashes? Clearly they need to consider such things, but it doesn't mean they contributed towards an accident.

The way I read the Biggin report, they are suggesting that the insipient spin/stall could have been caused by the aircraft weight making the stalling speed equal to the best climb speed - in other words the fact that the aircraft was overweight drastically increased the likelyhood of a stall/spin when the engine stopped and reduced the possibility to safely execute a forced landing.
User avatar
By LIONHEART
#378718
safely execute a forced landing.


Put it down in the valley - do not try and turn back !
User avatar
By scuderia
#378722
Would someone be so kind to post the links to these incidents
TIA

Scud
User avatar
By KevinH
#378725
MattD wrote:The way I read the Biggin report, they are suggesting that the insipient spin/stall could have been caused by the aircraft weight making the stalling speed equal to the best climb speed - in other words the fact that the aircraft was overweight drastically increased the likelyhood of a stall/spin when the engine stopped and reduced the possibility to safely execute a forced landing.


My point would be that one effect of knowing you are overweight would be that you don't climb at what you think is the best climb speed. Whilst it is clearly more dangerous to be overweight, the most dangerous spect is to carry on as if everything is normal.
By The Wombat
#378729
Here is the link. I am determined to learn from the GA entries every month.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

As regards w & b; prepping for my skills test in a pa38 (NOT with the club CFI, but an approved examiner from outside the club), I do my calc's assuming full tanks and predictably enough, we are well over (by 71lbs).

He comes in, looks at the figures, agrees acccuracy and then tells me to go and fill the tanks. It was common practice to fly the 38's at my old club over weight.

I would hazzard a guess and suggest more than 50% of all flights in this country in PA38's and 152's are overweight.

The Wombat
User avatar
By Pete L
#378732
Maybe so, but why add to the percentage, particularly with an aging fleet of airframes.

Our club now have the pilot weight / fuel endurance combinations permitted clearly printed on the wall, and use the PA-28 for the more substantial student.

No student yet has been overweight for the PA-28, but the C182 is available as a backup :wink:
By The Wombat
#378735
Pete L wrote:Maybe so, but why add to the percentage, particularly with an aging fleet of airframes.

Our club now have the pilot weight / fuel endurance combinations permitted clearly printed on the wall, and use the PA-28 for the more substantial student.

No student yet has been overweight for the PA-28, but the C182 is available as a backup :wink:


Pete, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. I have never flown o/w post GST.

With us all getting fatter, it is only a matter of time before many two-seaters are designated single seat by the CAA and we all have to learn in four seaters.

The Wombat
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10