![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com... "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test pilot". That's putting it a bit strongly. No, it's putting it quite accurately. As long as the CG issues are OK, the effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. The effects of flight at any weight are quite predictable in terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. And yet, during certification, the airplane is required to be *tested* at in a variety of configurations by a *test pilot* to demonstrate the actual performance. Just because one can predict the performance, that doesn't change the fact that a person flying an airplane in an untested (as far as they know) configuration is a "test pilot". The structural issues won't come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by other things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to go-around at max gross with full flaps) Very few single-engined airplanes have a stall speed at the maximum allowed value (noting, of course, that the "maximum allowed value" isn't really so much a hard limit, but rather one that a manufacturer is required to meet in order to avoid other things). It's true that max gross weight may be affected by things other than structural issues, but there is no way to know whether this is true without consulting the manufacturer (which I doubt the theoretical over-gross pilot is going to do), and I can think of at least one common airplane for which structural issues DO limit the maximum landing weight (which is lower than the maximum takeoff weight for that airplane). and in any case, there's a large safety margin in there. The reason for that safety margin is for normal, legal weight operations. It's not so you can operate over the legal limits. Operate over the legal weight, and you've just abandoned your "large safety margin". The fact is that assuming you're not on the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe. It isn't legal, but it will be safe. It *might* be safe. You are still a test pilot when flying over the legal weight, which is the comment to which you replied. As to the arguement that breaking one rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense. That's like saying speeding leads to murder... That's a matter of opinion, I guess. I personally believe that if we had better enforcement of the little laws, we wouldn't have so many people disregarding the more important ones. Looking the other way when it comes to speeding (and similar) simply teaches people disregard for rules. Each person winds up setting their own limits, rather than respecting the limits society claims to have made. And yes, in some cases, those limits go way beyond just speeding. Obviously each individual who speeds doesn't wind up a murderer, but general disregard for the rules does certainly lead to other negative behavior. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Max gross weight | Chris | Piloting | 21 | October 5th 04 08:22 PM |
Apache Alternate Gross Weight | Jim Burns | Owning | 1 | July 6th 04 05:15 PM |
Buying an L-2 | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 13 | May 25th 04 04:03 AM |
F35 cost goes up. | Pat Carpenter | Military Aviation | 116 | April 11th 04 07:32 PM |
Empty/Gross weight Vs. Max. Pilot weight | Flyhighdave | Soaring | 13 | January 14th 04 04:20 AM |