Aircraft Owners: Max Gross Weight Increase Survey

H

hook_dupin

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
305
Location
Florida Gulf Coast
Display Name
Display name:
Hook_dupin
Aircraft Owners-

Can you help me out a bit:

How many of you would like more useful load in your aircraft?

Help me to answer that question by filling out a very quick survey

Thanks!
 
Useful load? Yes, but that's not easy to do - I've picked up a couple pounds but more would take some significant work and expense. Higher gross weight? No - that's a non starter. Not interested at all.
 
You can increase you're useful load by losing a few pounds off most pilots and cleaning out your planes...
 
The pilot weighing less has no effect on the aircraft's useful load. It just means that you can carry more of other stuff besides the pilot. The useful load itself remains the same.
 
When I need more usefull load ,I clean out the aircraft,as my aircraft has had an increase in gross weight at the factory.
 
Increasing aircraft gross weight doesn't increase performance... it just means you can add more weight. Which cuts into the safety factor engineers input into the airframe limitation. Not interested.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Increasing aircraft gross weight doesn't increase performance... it just means you can add more weight. Which cuts into the safety factor engineers input into the airframe limitation. Not interested.
Click to expand...
In some cases those safety engineers increased the weight without any changes, example, Mooney M20J went from 2740->2900lbs. Rocket engineering increase the load when they added bigger engines. So it seems a little arbitrary.
 
No need. I can haul three with bags but yet 99% of my flights are just with me or one other person anyway.

Everyone thinks they'll buy a plane for utility and the fam will go with them, only to find a lot aren't very comfortable flying GA.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, increasing gross weight without increasing thrust (power) means higher fuel use and lower speed. Hence increase in weight is losing proposition. Welcome to trade offs and laws of the universe.
 
teejayevans said:
In some cases those safety engineers increased the weight without any changes, example, Mooney M20J went from 2740->2900lbs. Rocket engineering increase the load when they added bigger engines. So it seems a little arbitrary.
Click to expand...

It may seem arbitrary, but there is always a set of factors, which are part of the certification. Can the airplane climb acceptably, what is the stall speed at max gross, can it handle those +- G forces at max gross structurally, is the gear strong enough. Sometimes you can fix a "weak link" in the chain and improve things. Sometimes you've finally maxed out a design, because you're up against all sorts of limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'd be interested. My 182A doesn't have much more useful load than a modern 172.

It's okay, overall, since I bought it to be a tow plane for gliders.
 
As a multi-engine pilot, my thought is this: if you need more useful load, then you might need a bigger plane.

I'm not a big fan of increasing GW without changing the power plant. There are mods out there that will let me load my Beech 18 up to 10,100 lbs (current max gross is 9,700). As it is, I try hard to avoid loading it to near gross to begin with. OEI performance of my aircraft at GW is marginal at best and the GW increase doesn't do anything to increase the power.

I like to have reserve power to keep in the air if one quits.
 
Because your weakest link is climb. What if it were landing gear strength?

My Mooney climbs 1000fpm at max gross.

Weak links? Gear and single engine certification stall speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
there is no substitute for more power.....just expanding the useful load or GW doesn't really get the job done.

So....who wants to climb out at 400-500 fpm and be 200-400 lbs heavier? Not I.... :no:
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Increasing aircraft gross weight doesn't increase performance... it just means you can add more weight. Which cuts into the safety factor engineers input into the airframe limitation. Not interested.
Click to expand...

I would consider weight carrying ability to be one measure of performance.
 
Again, it's not necessarily. Max gross can be limited by the weakest link which may not be "performance". In the case of my Mooney I can climb 1000fpm at max gross, but the gear can't handle more weight, and more weight would cause the stall speed to exceed single engine certification requirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Again, it's not necessarily. Max gross can be limited by the weakest link which may not be "performance". In the case of my Mooney I can climb 1000fpm at max gross, but the gear can't handle more weight, and more weight would cause the stall speed to exceed single engine certification requirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Ok, we got it: Mooney landing gear sucks.
 
No the point is that increasing max gross doesn't mean you have to have marginal performance, depending on the situation....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
No the point is that increasing max gross doesn't mean you have to have marginal performance, depending on the situation....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
unless you're re-engining....your operating performance will be less....it's just that simple.
 
Yes but if you're starting with an airplane that has good performance even at max gross, then is slipping from 1000fpm to 800 at max gross is no big deal, and worth it to be allowed to carry more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seems like this is just a poorly-disguised solicitation of business, which is against the ROC...

  • Solicitations and Advertisements are prohibited, except when posted in The Classifieds section. For the purposes of this rule, requests for charitable donations, raffles, etc., are also considered t
Click to expand...
 
gsengle said:
Yes but if you're starting with an airplane that has good performance even at max gross, then is slipping from 1000fpm to 800 at max gross is no big deal, and worth it to be allowed to carry more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Meh....maybe.

My 285Hp machine has that....but, I'm not sure I want any less outta her.:D

I could get an extra 200 lbs with wing tips....but like you said I'd loose climb and takeoff performance....I'm not interested in that.
 
How do you lose anything by being allowed to carry more? :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
How do you lose anything by being allowed to carry more? :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
physics.....you can't get something without losing another....and you'll lose takeoff performance and climb rate.
 
Huh? If my bird doesn't change at all but they allow me to carry two hundred pounds more because say they strengthen the gear... how did I lose anything??? Assuming the gear weight change was negligible??

Again, it's up to me how much I carry, up to a legal limit. I can still load to the old limit if I want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Huh? If my bird doesn't change at all but they allow me to carry two hundred pounds more because say they strengthen the gear... how did I lose anything??? Assuming the gear weight change was negligible??

Again, it's up to me how much I carry, up to a legal limit. I can still load to the old limit if I want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
put two hundred more in it above what you had at gross.....and it will give you more takeoff roll and less climb rate.

Pure laws of physics....there is no free lunch.
 
So again don't do it. How do you lose anything by gaining 200lbs capability in the paperwork?

It's like having bigger fuel tanks, you don't have to fill them, all you've gained is flexibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
So again don't do it. How do you lose anything by gaining 200lbs capability in the paperwork?

It's like having bigger fuel tanks, you don't have to fill them, all you've gained is flexibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Ok....is this a semantics argument? If so, I'm not interested in paper gains.
 
You're not listening. I have an airplane that climbs over 1000fpm at max gross. This would be extremely useful to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
You're not listening. I have an airplane that climbs over 1000fpm at max gross. This would be extremely useful to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
so....you're willing to accept reduced performance for more payload? Ok, I'm out.

I have that too with mine.....+1,200 fpm climb turbo'd 285 HP....I wouldn't settle for less to add more pax. Ain't no way am I going back to C-172 performance.
 
No. You're dense. The airplane hasn't changed. Now I have the OPTION of doing so. At the old max gross nothing has changed. You're dense on every thread I see you on.

Having the ability to carry an extra person in trade for 500 feet of runway and 200fpm would be awesome and it's basically what Cirrus has been doing with ever generation of SR22.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
As a multi-engine pilot, my thought is this: if you need more useful load, then you might need a bigger plane.

I'm not a big fan of increasing GW without changing the power plant. There are mods out there that will let me load my Beech 18 up to 10,100 lbs (current max gross is 9,700). As it is, I try hard to avoid loading it to near gross to begin with. OEI performance of my aircraft at GW is marginal at best and the GW increase doesn't do anything to increase the power.

I like to have reserve power to keep in the air if one quits.
Click to expand...

I had a friend who had a Beech 18, beautiful bird. He was delivering a load of cedar shingles to a lodge south of town. On TO the load shifted aft. Aircraft stalled and Tom was killed. Very sad day in Juneau. I agree if you need more useful load look for a larger plane, or install a larger engine. My little Beech has a low useful load, the cost of a larger power plane exceeds the cost to step up into a larger plane....
 
gsengle said:
No. You're dense. The airplane hasn't changed. Now I have the OPTION of doing so. At the old max gross nothing has changed. You're dense on every thread I see you on.

Having the ability to carry an extra person in trade for 500 feet of runway and 200fpm would be awesome and it's basically what Cirrus has been doing with ever generation of SR22.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wait now I'm confused. You are saying that at your plane's current power and GW you get X & Y performance. If you increase the GW without increasing power you acknowledge X & Y go down but you're ok with that because your useful load increased, right? IOW you'll accept a performance reduction to gain useful load via an icrease in GW--do I have that right?
 
Airplane performance is unchanged. You're just allowed legally to use more of its performance envelope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Airplane performance is unchanged. You're just allowed legally to use more of its performance envelope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sigh, ok at your current GW you climb at 1000fpm. If you increase and fly at the higher GW and the power remains the same does your climb performance remain the same?
 
Of course not. But if the only reason for instance they certified the airplane with the higher than average climb at gross was because of say weak gear design, then it's a pretty good deal to have that constraint removed.

It's like saying you want an airplane with smaller fuel tanks so you can have a larger full fuel payload. You see why that's dumb right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Of course not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good because that's the point Sixie was trying to make. You increase the weight and fly at the higher weight without increasing power you are going to have a performance reduction which he won't accept. It's not a question if you could or should, rather are the results worth it. You you yes, for Sixie no.

BTW folks fly with reduced fuel load all the tine to make a given flight work. Increasing the GW is not a panacea. We see this all the time in the E-AB world we're we are free to set our own GW at the time of certification. Most follow the designer/ kit makers recommendations but not always.
 
And my point is it is entirely dependent on the reason for where the max gross was set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top