C182 Over Gross
John Lowry
Wcrrun <wcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000719210018...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> My partners and I have just traded up from a '75 Archer to a '76 C182.
With
> its long range tanks, it seems we have lost useable load!
>
> We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close
the
> doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
>
> Is this a safe bet for overloads of 100, 200 or 300 pounds?
>
> What is the truth.
>
> Clayton Rodgers wcr...@aol.com
>
>
>
John Lowry
Run a bootstrap analysis on the airplane and find out.
John.
--
John T. Lowry, PhD
724 Alderson Ave.; Billings MT 59101
Voice: (406) 248-2606
Web: http://www.mcn.net/~jlowry
jlo...@mcn.net
Mike Rapoport
your quote is the 300HP C185 not the C182
Mike
MU-2
Wcrrun wrote in message <20000719210018...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
Craig Prouse
actually I was about 50 lbs or so under gross for takeoff, but I had to
extend the sightseeing before landing. (My gross for takeoff is 3100, but
only 2950 for landing, so I had to burn a bunch of gas.) We were two men,
two women, five hours of gas, and minimal baggage. Since all four of us
golf, eventually I'll have to figure our "range with clubs."
This was, for me, "sketchy." Takeoffs are optional. Landings are
mandatory. Taking off in an airplane that you shouldn't land is a
calculated risk. Taking off in an airplane that probably shouldn't take off
is a little beyond that.
I've read some articles about planes that have flown over gross on ferry
permits for ocean crossings and in several cases, I've been impressed that
the pilots went to the trouble to extrapolate from their performance data to
come up with new values for all of their V speeds at the overgross
condition. Your stall speed and max glide will be higher, etc. Don't
overload it and assume the book values are still "safe" as you say.
On the flip side, Sunday I did a max performance short field takeoff while
700 lbs UNDER gross and boy that was wicked! Even at 4000' density
altitude, it was plain fun. The cool thing about 182 is that full tanks
give you a ridiculously long endurance, so you can always trade fuel for
baggage (or performance) and haul quite a bit if you aren't trying to fly
half way across the country.
Craig
In article <20000719210018...@ng-da1.aol.com> , wcr...@aol.com
DB TECH
would be 1.414 times higher than at legal gross, but the
aircraft would take off, and probably fly the Atlantic to Paris,
like Lindbergh. I would seek out the longest runway in New
York.
Dave Brownell
180/182 Jump pilot/skydiver
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Wcrrun
Ron Rapp
>We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close the
>doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
>
>Is this a safe bet for overloads of 100, 200 or 300 pounds?
>
>What is the truth.
Clayton,
I've flown my Skylane at max gross a few times, and I would not want
to fly it with any more weight on board. The plane is not going to
produce zero lift the second you go one pound over gross or anything
like that. In fact, some places (Alaska comes to mind) people may fly
over gross weight regularly.
But there's a certain buffer built into the aircraft's performance,
and if you overload it then you're dipping into that safety margin.
If conditions are benign and you fly the plane optimally, you might
get away with it just fine. But if the DA is a little high and, say,
you get a downdraft on departure, will you be able to keep it out of
the trees? If you have a problem after takeoff and decide to return
to the airport and land, will the landing gear and tires withstand the
extra weight? What if you make a poor landing and drop it in?
The LR tanks on the Skylane are good for 6 hours or more, why not
leave some fuel behind? I know is a PITA, especially if you have
bladder tanks that you don't like to leave sitting on the ramp without
refilling, but I'd not recommend overgrossing the aircraft.
---
Ron Rapp PP-ASEL/ASES/IA
Skylane N6594M, Cherokee N7366W
Dan Larsen
> A couple weeks ago, I took my 182 out near gross for the first time. Well,
> actually I was about 50 lbs or so under gross for takeoff, but I had to
> extend the sightseeing before landing. (My gross for takeoff is 3100, but
> only 2950 for landing, so I had to burn a bunch of gas.) We were two men,
> two women, five hours of gas, and minimal baggage. Since all four of us
> golf, eventually I'll have to figure our "range with clubs."
>
> This was, for me, "sketchy." Takeoffs are optional. Landings are
> mandatory. Taking off in an airplane that you shouldn't land is a
> calculated risk. Taking off in an airplane that probably shouldn't take off
> is a little beyond that.
Why is that such a big deal? Everything we do in aviation (and in life)
is a calculated risk. You can set a 182 under max landing weight down
very hard and do more damage to it than you will by greasing it when it's
over max landing weight. Simple newtonian laws of physics here -- the
force imparted on the airplane is directly proportional to the weight of
the airplane and the speed at which you slam it into the ground.
> I've read some articles about planes that have flown over gross on ferry
> permits for ocean crossings and in several cases, I've been impressed that
> the pilots went to the trouble to extrapolate from their performance data to
> come up with new values for all of their V speeds at the overgross
> condition. Your stall speed and max glide will be higher, etc. Don't
> overload it and assume the book values are still "safe" as you say.
>
> On the flip side, Sunday I did a max performance short field takeoff while
> 700 lbs UNDER gross and boy that was wicked! Even at 4000' density
> altitude, it was plain fun. The cool thing about 182 is that full tanks
> give you a ridiculously long endurance, so you can always trade fuel for
> baggage (or performance) and haul quite a bit if you aren't trying to fly
> half way across the country.
>
> Craig
>
>
> In article <20000719210018...@ng-da1.aol.com> , wcr...@aol.com
> (Wcrrun) wrote:
>
> > My partners and I have just traded up from a '75 Archer to a '76 C182. With
> > its long range tanks, it seems we have lost useable load!
> >
> > We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close the
> > doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
> >
> > Is this a safe bet for overloads of 100, 200 or 300 pounds?
> >
> > What is the truth.
> >
> > Clayton Rodgers wcr...@aol.com
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
FWIW my copy of the T.O.P. COMP TAKEOFF COMPUTER has a scale
for GROSS WEIGHT % OF MAXIMUM with calibrations from 60 to 120.
On a hot day at Kalamath Falls the takeoff run on my 182 would
change from a normal 1450 feet to 2100 feet.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.COM www.omen.com
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
Author of YMODEM & ZMODEM ZMODEM Consulting: $200/hr
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-617-1698 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem
POB 4681 Portland OR 97208 503-614-0430 FAX:503-629-0665
Craig Prouse
couple weeks ago. It's a damn good thing we were flying light. :-)
Actually, the energy transfer is proportional to the weight and the square
of the speed at which you slam it to the ground. As a new 182 owner (about
30 hours so far) and in a comment directed to another new 182 owner, I'm not
willing to gamble on the quality of the landing quite yet, especially since
an overgross landing would likely be in an emergency situation and on an
unfavorable surface.
Craig
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.100072...@hobbes.seas.gwu.edu> ,
Dan Larsen <bad...@seas.gwu.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Craig Prouse wrote:
>
>> A couple weeks ago, I took my 182 out near gross for the first time. Well,
>> actually I was about 50 lbs or so under gross for takeoff, but I had to
>> extend the sightseeing before landing. (My gross for takeoff is 3100, but
>> only 2950 for landing, so I had to burn a bunch of gas.)
>>
>> This was, for me, "sketchy."
>
Dylan Smith
: My partners and I have just traded up from a '75 Archer to a '76 C182. With
: its long range tanks, it seems we have lost useable load!
:
: We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close the
: doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
Don't fill the tanks to the limit! With long range tanks, it's probably
quite seldom you'll ever need over half tanks.
On a plane where "if you can close the doors on it..." etc is true, the
engineers made the fuel tanks too small. You should be able to trade off
range for useful load!
--
Dylan Smith, Houston TX.
Flying: http://www.alioth.net/flying
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Michael
> We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close
the
> doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
> What is the truth.
Lots of C-182's operate as jumpships. They routinely take off 200 lbs
overgross
in the summer, and still manage to make 10,000 ft. FWIW.
Michael
Mike Rapoport
to be a root cause of "I need a new more powerful airplane that will fly
like this all the time" itus.
Mike
MU-2
Craig Prouse wrote in message <22wd5.167$Ki3.1...@news.pacbell.net>...
>A couple weeks ago, I took my 182 out near gross for the first time. Well,
>actually I was about 50 lbs or so under gross for takeoff, but I had to
>extend the sightseeing before landing. (My gross for takeoff is 3100, but
>only 2950 for landing, so I had to burn a bunch of gas.) We were two men,
>two women, five hours of gas, and minimal baggage. Since all four of us
>golf, eventually I'll have to figure our "range with clubs."
>
>This was, for me, "sketchy." Takeoffs are optional. Landings are
>mandatory. Taking off in an airplane that you shouldn't land is a
>calculated risk. Taking off in an airplane that probably shouldn't take
off
>is a little beyond that.
>
>I've read some articles about planes that have flown over gross on ferry
>permits for ocean crossings and in several cases, I've been impressed that
>the pilots went to the trouble to extrapolate from their performance data
to
>come up with new values for all of their V speeds at the overgross
>condition. Your stall speed and max glide will be higher, etc. Don't
>overload it and assume the book values are still "safe" as you say.
>
>On the flip side, Sunday I did a max performance short field takeoff while
>700 lbs UNDER gross and boy that was wicked! Even at 4000' density
>altitude, it was plain fun. The cool thing about 182 is that full tanks
>give you a ridiculously long endurance, so you can always trade fuel for
>baggage (or performance) and haul quite a bit if you aren't trying to fly
>half way across the country.
>
>Craig
>
>
>In article <20000719210018...@ng-da1.aol.com> , wcr...@aol.com
>(Wcrrun) wrote:
>
>> My partners and I have just traded up from a '75 Archer to a '76 C182.
With
>> its long range tanks, it seems we have lost useable load!
>>
>> We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close
the
>> doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
>>
>> Is this a safe bet for overloads of 100, 200 or 300 pounds?
>>
>> What is the truth.
>>
>> Clayton Rodgers wcr...@aol.com
MACKLIN
is the 300 King Air,you can have all maximum payload and full fuel and be
within CG & Wt.. BUT most normal airplanes can not carry long range fuel
tanks , or even standard tanks, full with a full cabin. The long range
tanks are a convenience for those trip with 2 or 3 people and some baggage
to go a longer distance between fuel stops. It is nice on an IFR flight to
have the extra range to get to an alternate.
NO, it is not legal to fly over gross certified weight. You will lose your
insurance coverage and the FAA will suspend your license. Can it be done
safely? It is allowed under the FAR for airplanes to fly over gross by 10%
in remote regions where no intermediate fuel stops are possible, can you say
Alaska? In the deep wilderness, but Clinton and Gore won't let you fly
there anymore. (Poetry)
Balance is more important than weight because directly effect
controllability, but weight will reduce you climb and ceiling and increase
the take-off and landing distances. Stall speeds will increase as will
approach and landing speeds.
Are you a test pilot and do you get paid to be a test pilot?
Leave fuel or people/bags to fit the mission, just like the airlines do
[ever see blocked seats?].
--
Jim Macklin
ATP, CFI-ASMEI, A&P
"Wcrrun" <wcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000719210018...@ng-da1.aol.com...
MACKLIN
the value for GW.
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39772...@news.greatbasin.net...
MACKLIN
legal. Most 200 KA have only and 850 pound payload with full [2,000
nm+reserve] fuel. People did fly them over gross w/o problems except legal
and insurance. The 300 does have an extra 400 rated hp (actually a lot
more) than the 200.
The military C12 has two versions, one is a 200 KA the other is a 1900. The
military can go over the 12,500 pound limit in "war conditions."
The KA 350 is the current turboprop to beat. IMHO
--
Jim Macklin
ATP, CFI-ASMEI, A&P
"Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:J6Fd5.11928$zW2.2...@news.flash.net...
> Wcrrun <wcr...@aol.com> wrote
> > We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close
> the
> > doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
> > Is this a safe bet for overloads of 100, 200 or 300 pounds?
> > What is the truth.
>
Dylan Smith
: Be careful flying way under gross. The great performance obtained is known
: to be a root cause of "I need a new more powerful airplane that will fly
: like this all the time" itus.
Yeah. When I fly the C140 solo with a light fuel load, I start dreaming
of putting an O-200 up front ;-)
Randall Becker
YOU want? :-)
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39772...@news.greatbasin.net...
> Be careful flying way under gross. The great performance obtained is
known
> to be a root cause of "I need a new more powerful airplane that will fly
> like this all the time" itus.
>
> >> We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can
close
> the
> >> doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
> >>
> >> Is this a safe bet for overloads of 100, 200 or 300 pounds?
> >>
> >> What is the truth.
> >>
> >> Clayton Rodgers wcr...@aol.com
>
>
Mike Rapoport
Mike
MU-2
Randall Becker wrote in message ...
Dean Siracusa
Dean Siracusa
David Abrams
PT6 up front. <g>
David Abrams
http://ercoupe.com
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@alioth.net> wrote in message
news:8l7lrd$12ie$3...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com...
> Mike Rapoport (rapo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Be careful flying way under gross. The great performance obtained is
known
> : to be a root cause of "I need a new more powerful airplane that will fly
> : like this all the time" itus.
>
Randall Becker
get it off the ground? Turned out, between the rediculously forward CofG and
insufficient lift from the wings, the thing became a taxi cab with a prop,
'cuz it wouldn't take off under any weather conditions on the planet?
;-)
"David Abrams" <dma...@galactic.com> wrote in message
news:K9Yd5.3065$DH3....@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Wyatt Emmerich
risk factor. If the weather is cool and the runway long and you plan to be
at gross weight before landing, then it is probably not a big risk.
Basically, they don't guarantee the stall speeds and other speeds at over
gross. That doesn't mean the airplane won't fly just fine. It means these
speeds were not tested during the certification process. My guess on a good
day you could fly that C172 200 pounds over gross and do fine. Would I do
it? No. Do other people do it? I suspect a lot. One thing to remember: Most
people have not properly weighed a lot of the peripheral stuff in their
plane like sunglasses, pliers, maps, portable radio, GPS, charts, fuel
drainer, etc. In my plane, this stuff weighs 50 pounds. I suspect many
pilots who don't factor this in are flying 50 pounds overweight when they
think they are at gross.
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39767256.96913249@news...
> On 20 Jul 2000 01:00:18 GMT, wcr...@aol.com (Wcrrun) wrote:
>
> >We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close
the
> >doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
> >
> >Is this a safe bet for overloads of 100, 200 or 300 pounds?
> >
> >What is the truth.
>
Randy Cooper
you become much of a test pilot. I believe it was in '81 that Cessna bumped
the max gross take off weight on the 182 to 3100lbs with no changes to the
airframe, wings, or increase in power. However, if you look at the type
certificate for the model with the higher gross there is a slight change in
the elevator travel limits. I have wondered why no one has come up with an
STC to bump the 182P and Q to 3100 MTOW....it might could come down to a
paper work project with the right FSDO involved.
-Randy Cooper
N1417S
Wcrrun wrote in message <20000719210018...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
>My partners and I have just traded up from a '75 Archer to a '76 C182.
With
>its long range tanks, it seems we have lost useable load!
>
>We have heard that the 230hp Skylane has a legend that 'if you can close
the
>doors on it, the 182 will fly safe'!
>
>Is this a safe bet for overloads of 100, 200 or 300 pounds?
>
>What is the truth.
>
>Clayton Rodgers wcr...@aol.com
>
>
>
MACKLIN
forward and aft limits stay constant up to some weight and then the forward
moves aft and the aft moves forward. At some point they will cross meaning
there is no safe CG for that airplane at some higher weight. Whether the
rate it which this convergence happens is constant or increases cannot be
said.
Gross weight limits are set because of structural strength, climb
performance or controllability.
Exceeding the certified GW is not something that should be done without
knowledge and legal authority.
An over gross take-off or en-route emergency will have no margin for error.
The static and dynamic stability will be compromised.
"Randy Cooper" <RCoo...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:11B2F236874912F2.DC7F4247...@lp.airnews.net...
Ron
>performance or controllability.
>
>Exceeding the certified GW is not something that should be done without
>knowledge and legal authority.
>An over gross take-off or en-route emergency will have no margin for error.
>The static and dynamic stability will be compromised.
>
>
But the earlier guy was right in the fact that sometimes the Gross weight can
change by the year, without any changes on the aircraft.
The senecas that the company I fly for use have been able to get the zero fuel
weights adjusted with the FSDOs blessing, depending on how they are equipped.
Seems the more weight added outward from the fuselage, heavy duty breaks,
3 blade props, flare racks, can be legally justify an increase in zero fuel
weight. The gross weight remains the same though.
Ron Chambless
Pilot PA-34 Seneca II
"Strange Situations, Wild Occupations. Living my life like a song"
MACKLIN
weight on the wing does not strain the attachments. As far as increased GW
because of new control surface settings, that is a change in the airplane.
BTW, what if you mechanic just did an early model and remembers the elevator
rigging and uses the wrong numbers?
Not supposed to happen, but stuff happens.
"Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000726193811...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >Gross weight limits are set because of structural strength, climb
> >performance or controllability.
> >
> >Exceeding the certified GW is not something that should be done without
> >knowledge and legal authority.
> >An over gross take-off or en-route emergency will have no margin for
error.
> >The static and dynamic stability will be compromised.
> >
> >
> Ron " <ms...@aol.com