Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

"gatt" wrote in message
news:U9OdnTKE2-HpTZrVnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@integraonline...
WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:39 am, gatt wrote:

I think pretty much anybody who's ever flown a C-172 on a warm summer
day, with more than one passenger, has pushed it near or over gross.

You people need to go on diets! The 172 should be a 3 seater with full
fuel (144l)...

Unfortunately, too true. Under the pilot's storm window on a B-17 is a
placard with the maximum crew weight: 1200 lbs. Let's see: 10 men in
uniform, bunny suits, flight suits, boots, gloves, mae west, parachute and
harness, body armor, flak helmet...

I went to a park on Sunday with my wife and noted that previous
generations would be absolutely stunned by the average American's physical
condition nowadays.

An old 96th BG waistgunner/armorer told me one time that they would sneak
in extra ammunition for the long raids, but if the pilots found out they'd
make 'em offload it. So they ditched the fire extinguishers, waist and
radio room windows and just about everything else nonessential and
replaced it with a steel plate on the floor of the waist, and whatever
extra ammo could be slipped onboard in the tail without the pilots finding
out. "Aft of CG limit" apparently meant nothing to gunners.

(Also mentioned using their oxygen masks to keep cigarettes lit on the way
to Schweinfurt.)

-c

I must admit that I failed to read the placards in the Aluminum Overcast,
but I doubt that anyone other than the ball gunner would have been under 120
pounds even back then--and I have my doubts about him as well.

Peter

Michael wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:54*pm, WingFlaps wrote:
Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?

That is exactly what he is saying. It's also pretty normal these days
to get a license in a 4-seater (Skyhawk or Warrior) without ever
having anyone in the back seat or coming anywhere near gross weight.

Midway thru the PPL my CFI took me out on a hot afternoon with full
tanks and someone in the back (C172). All we did was pattern work to
"illustrate" weight, density altitude and me being miserable in a
greenhouse aircraft.

One of the best lessons of my life!

gliderguynj wrote:
At this point in the thread I'd be very curious to find out the actual
Real World weight of everything....as opposed to the original posters
assumption's.

Have the buddies get on a scale, with clothes and shoes on, watches,
wallets keys, a full stomach a few cups of coffee each.... Do the same
for the luggage. Don't forget to add all the extra headsets,
camera's, water bottles.....

It might be a useful example for all reading. I'd almost guarantee
it's far heavier than the numbers being used. I can't tell you how
many times people show up at the field for a ride and they say they
weigh 200 and they easily have 30 or 40 lbs on me and I'm 200!!!

I know when I do the W&B I automatically put in an extra 10# in the
baggage area and an extra 15# for the pax before I ask weights. I
don't trust anyone.

"gliderguynj" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 12:32 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
Then there's ethical...


Well said Sir. The passenger is entrusting their life in your hands.
When I take a passenger up in a glider, I understand what a huge
responsibility that is. Reminds me of the Cokehead pilot that killed
that singer Brandy? flying to the Bahamas over gross and impaired on
drugs. He might have had the same reasoning...ah just a bit over
gross, so the climb out will be sluggish....

I think this is a good thread.

Doug

If you're thinking of the same crash that I am, the aircraft was way, way,
way out of aft cg limits and would have killed them without regard to the
rest. And yes, there were more than enough other problems...

(The original question has been beaten to death as it is.)

Peter

On Apr 18, 9:20*am, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance done
properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or whatever
the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested and
found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that flew
like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the true
power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.


Well if the renter is slappin' on any old prop then you should not go
there. How does a 120 HP 172 reach cruise airspeed at cruise RPM?

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in news:d33d5865-938c-4cae-acb3-
:

On Apr 18, 9:20*am, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance done
properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or
whatever
the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested and
found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that flew
like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the true
power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.


Well if the renter is slappin' on any old prop then you should not go
there. How does a 120 HP 172 reach cruise airspeed at cruise RPM?

Coasely pitched props don't allow good static HP because the RPM doesn't
get up to where it needs to be to produce HP. That's what variable pitch
props are all about.

Bertie

Peter Dohm wrote:
Well said Sir. The passenger is entrusting their life in your hands.
When I take a passenger up in a glider, I understand what a huge
responsibility that is. Reminds me of the Cokehead pilot that killed
that singer Brandy? flying to the Bahamas over gross and impaired on
drugs. He might have had the same reasoning...ah just a bit over
gross, so the climb out will be sluggish....

If you're thinking of the same crash that I am, the aircraft was way, way,
way out of aft cg limits and would have killed them without regard to the
rest. And yes, there were more than enough other problems...


I used to fly in and out of that airport (Marsh Harbour, Abaco Island) several
times a year and remember the crash fairly well. The pilot's coke use wasn't a
factor although it surely didn't help. The basic problem was too much beef on
board (9 SOB on a C-402), along with a ton of other crap. The pilot tried to
talk them out of it but they pitched such a bitch he gave in. A few minutes
later they were all dead. And it was Aaliyah, not Brandy.

Ordinarily there was nothing wrong with that airport although density altitude
could always raise its ugly head. The runway was a good 5000 feet long by
either 100 or 150 feet wide and paved.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

tman wrote:
Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back.
Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage.

When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and
consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe
100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some
inaccuracy with filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about
just how risky this is. I know (others) have pushed over gross in these
planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten
away with it. I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will
perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that
you would when solo.

Risky? Or just roundoff error on the weight? Here are some other factors:

This is the 160HP C172, standard.
Departure runway is 5000'.
No steep terrain to climb out of.
Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways.
Not particularly hot, humid, or high. 50 degrees at 1000 MSL for
departure or any point of landing.

I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase
1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66
knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways.

I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over
gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. What else should I be
aware of? Am I dangerous?

T


I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago.
I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time
operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and
bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. The aircraft in
question was a float equipped Helio Courier. The right wing departed
the airframe during an approach to landing. A fisherman witnessed the
whole thing. It crashed into the trees. Four people (including the 19
year old pilot) were killed. We were able to determine that the
aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the
crash. We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took
off. The company went out of business shortly thereafter. Their
insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at
inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck
trying to find another provider. Don't fly *any* aircraft over its
gross weight limit. The pilot was held personally responsible for the
accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims.

On Apr 18, 12:22 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
One of my students (years ago) spent a summer in Antarctic
Part of his job (research) was counting livestock under the ice.
In a 3/8 inch full wetsuit !!!!

Is there a lot of livestock beneath the ice?

Are you volunteering?
But then you're an odd fish

dont let those fatties stop at a donut shopnb haha :|
After serious thinking tman wrote :
Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back.
Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage.

When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and
consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe 100
over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some inaccuracy with
filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about just how risky this is.
I know (others) have pushed over gross in these planes way more under worse
conditions, and have almost always gotten away with it. I'm inclined to just
do it, and be cognizant that it will perform differently, i.e. don't expect
the same picture on climbout that you would when solo.

Risky? Or just roundoff error on the weight? Here are some other factors:

This is the 160HP C172, standard.
Departure runway is 5000'.
No steep terrain to climb out of.
Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways.
Not particularly hot, humid, or high. 50 degrees at 1000 MSL for departure
or any point of landing.

I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase 1.5%,
so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66 knots...
OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways.

I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over
gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. What else should I be aware
of? Am I dangerous?

T