View Single Post
  #10  
Old July 17th 11, 07:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
GC[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default FAA Accident Report discrepancy.

On 17/07/2011 19:09, Bruce Hoult wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172

Empty: 1691 lb
Gross: 2450 lb
Rate of climb: 721 fpm (at gross as these things are)

Useful load: 759 lb.
Fuel: 56 USgal, 212 litres ~= 170 kg, 374 lb

Four adults and golf clubs? Maybe 800 lb?


Come on! Each man AND his golf clubs (up to 14 clubs, bag, balls, etc)
weighs only 200lbs total??

And nobody took a change of underpants? Deodorant? Shaving cream?
The aeroplane didn't have a fuel drain test set? A litre of oil? A
tiedown kit? Control locks? Chocks? Maps, Jeppesen, GPS? No
instruments installed? No u/c spats full of mud?

Here's what's realistic:
The 4 men and their overnight bags weighed about 400kg (880lbs)
The four bags of golf clubs (and balls, shoes, etc) weighed 40kg (88lbs)
minimum.
The fuel SG was .75 max so the fuel weighed only 160kg (say 350lbs)
The 172 was one of the vast majority with max wts of 22-2300lbs.

So It'll be overloaded by about 415 lb, weighing a total of about 2865
instead of 2450, or about 17% overload.


I do the maths differently. It was probably overloaded by between 25 -
40% and the density altitude was probably significantly above the MSL
from which it will climb at 721fpm (I love that "1").

I find it very hard to believe that an aircraft that can climb at 721
fpm at gross weight can not fly at all with a 17% overload!

Use more runway, sure. Climb slower, sure. But not fly? Inconceivable.


You're quite right, Bruce. Of course it will fly - eventually. But I
have a reasonable amount of tired 172 time behind me and I'm with the
guy from the FAA. For all practical purposes - it won't fly.

GC