third seatbelt in 172

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

You don't want a 205. Only got 260 hp and has the 182 wing.

It's a tri-gear version of the 185.

They only used the 185 for one year in developing the 205. Then they used
the 210 to make the 205. The 205 is more properly a derivative of a 210, it
is on the 210 type certificate and was built using the same jigs.


Has the 185 wing and engine.

Like I said, 260 hp.



Wingspan is 8"
greater than the 182.

It's the same wing.



Weighs more than a 182.

True.


Gets outperformed by a 182.

It's faster,

It's the same speed or slower. Although we're only talking a few knots.


climbs better,

Climbs worse when at gross. Has to, weighs too damn much. Has worse
takeoff performance, has to, too damn heavy for the power. Same wing as a
182 and only 30 more hp to lift 500-700 more pounds.

"bubba" wrote in message
news:iMfpc.4135$qA.469368@attbi_s51...


The seats have been removed to provide space and reduce weight.
Since the aircraft has been approved for 5 skydivers, you might be able
to get it approved for 5 people as long as you don't go out of the CG
envelope and have seat belts for each passenger.

Never happen. Been tried, thousands of times. CG isn't really a factor in
the 182.

Performance kinda close....182 a little better.
Depends if you want the extra 350-450 pounds useable, fuel injection, and
two extra seats in the 205.
Charles

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Charles Felton" wrote in message
news:kyepc.51476$iF6.4672953@attbi_s02...
Hard to find, but Cessna 205 is cheaper than 210 or 206.

You don't want a 205. Only got 260 hp and has the 182 wing. Weighs more
than a 182. Gets outperformed by a 182. There's a reason they only made
'em for a couple of years.

Someplace I saw a letter of approval stating that one seatbelt could be used
for two people. It was intended for use where there is a single seat belt
across a bench seat, but I've heard of people also justifying putting three
in the back with it.

I don't know where I saw it.

Plan B: a C182 can have a child's seat installed. A friend of mine has one.
He can fit five in his Skylane with it.

Plan C: Get checked out in a Cherokee Six.

"The Weiss Family" wrote in message
...
I'm a new pilot (passed my checkride last Saturday). I have a wife and
three small children (all 6yrs and under).

Weight and balance would be OK to fit three kids in back of a 172, and it
looks like plenty of space (at least while they're young). Is it possible
to get a STC to install a third seatbelt?

If not, is there any other fixed-gear single in a similar price range that
could accomodate 5?

Thanks,

Adam

So what this is saying is that the number of seats in a airplane does in
no way limit the number of passengers the airplane can carry.



Ken Ibold wrote:

Here it is...




"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...

Someplace I saw a letter of approval stating that one seatbelt could be

used

for two people. It was intended for use where there is a single seat belt
across a bench seat, but I've heard of people also justifying putting

three

in the back with it.

I don't know where I saw it.

From a legal point of view, yes. Doesn't mean it's smart, however. There are
lots of older planes with one seatbelt that extends across a bench seat.
While this FAA opinion clearly is meant to apply to those, it does not ONLY
apply to those. IMO, given the FAA's history, it'll take a crash in which a
shared seatbelt causes significant injury for the regs to get more specific
on it.

"bubba" wrote in message
news:vYzqc.23641$qA.2684163@attbi_s51...
So what this is saying is that the number of seats in a airplane does in
no way limit the number of passengers the airplane can carry.

I think the letter you refer to dates back to November 1990, in
response to query from AOPA. It may be available from them.

As I recall, the letter confirmed a previous interpretation of the
FARs for using one belt for two "individuals" provided the strength of
the belt is adequate for that use, but also adds that the practice may
not afford the same level of protection as separate belts would,
especially for children.

Hope this helps.

J


"Steve Foley" wrote in message ...
Someplace I saw a letter of approval stating that one seatbelt could be used
for two people. It was intended for use where there is a single seat belt
across a bench seat, but I've heard of people also justifying putting three
in the back with it.

I don't know where I saw it.

Does the certificate for an aircraft specify the maximum number
of people that can be carried? I think it does in the UK.

Paul

"Ken Ibold" wrote in message
om...
From a legal point of view, yes. Doesn't mean it's smart, however. There
are
lots of older planes with one seatbelt that extends across a bench seat.
While this FAA opinion clearly is meant to apply to those, it does not
ONLY
apply to those. IMO, given the FAA's history, it'll take a crash in which
a
shared seatbelt causes significant injury for the regs to get more
specific
on it.

"bubba" wrote in message
news:vYzqc.23641$qA.2684163@attbi_s51...
So what this is saying is that the number of seats in a airplane does in
no way limit the number of passengers the airplane can carry.

(Javier Gorordo) wrote in message om...
I think the letter you refer to dates back to November 1990, in
response to query from AOPA. It may be available from them.

Here is what I found

"The FAA letter is dated 11/5/1990 and is included in an AOPA packet
called
"Traveling with Children

FAA response to an AOPA request for clarification of an FAR wording
change.


[address omitted]

We are responding to your request for clarification of a wording
change in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Section 91.205(b)(12) and
whether that change affects the carriage of two children in one seat
belt.

The July 15, 1986, letter you attached is an interpretation of then
FAR Section 91.14, now FAR Section 91.107. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) policy is that FAA does not require separate
seats or separate safety belts for FAR Part 91 operations. One safety
belt may be fastened around two individuals provided that the strength
of the safety belt is not compromised and that the aircraft's weight
and balance remain within limits. This policy is based on the Preamble
to Amendment 91-89, effective in August 1971, and has not been
superseded by succeeding amendments.

The change in wording of FAR Section 91.205(b)(12) reflects the
current airworthiness requirements for newly manufactured, normal,
utility, or aerobatic category aircraft. The change in wording does
not affect the FAA's along-standing policy concerning bench seats and
safety belts enclosing two individuals, as stated above. However, to
quote from our 1986 letter, ". . .Experience has shown that the use
of one seat belt by one occupant affords less of a chance of injury,
in case of an accident, as opposed to multiple occupants using one
seatbelt..."

[further clarification on another issued omitted]

Sincerely,


Gabriel D. Bruno
Manager, Operations Brance

Take daves advice buy an airplane after you have rented for a while i found
out that when i took my wife and my son up togather it caused the devil to
come out in the wife so i purchassed a 150


"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...
The Weiss Family wrote:
I'm a new pilot (passed my checkride last Saturday). I have a wife and
three small children (all 6yrs and under).

Weight and balance would be OK to fit three kids in back of a 172, and
it
looks like plenty of space (at least while they're young). Is it
possible
to get a STC to install a third seatbelt?

If not, is there any other fixed-gear single in a similar price range
that
could accomodate 5?

I'm thinking you're probably buying a plane that will last you a few
years.
Those kids aren't going to be 6 forever.

OTOH, if you're newly licensed, I'd suggest waiting a little while to see
what
your usage is. It'd be a shame to spend a lot on a huge weight-lifter and
then
find out the wife and kids don't enjoy flying.

Get a checkout in a rental 210 or Saratoga, see how it works out, buy what
you
need after you've better established your pattern of use.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.