Flying Over Gross

docmirror said:
I recalled one of the few times my brother talked about his flying in Vietnam. He was a LOcH pilot(Hughes 500 with only a 50cal mounted) most of the time. There was a mission to get some machine gun barrels and a few rounds of 7.62 up to a fwd base. They had two Hueys and kept stuffing barrels and bullets into it until it wouldn't take off. I guess, they finally got enough translational lift by skidding it down the runway until it would lift off and barely climb. The had to do a running landing at the other end in a paddy and dump the stuff out pretty quick. After that he didn't do much W&B on the Hueys.
Click to expand...
A lot of that stuff went on there, which may explain why we lost more helos to accidents than to the enemy.
 
We also got guns and bullets where they were needed when they were needed.
 
docmirror said:
I guess, they finally got enough translational lift by skidding it down the runway until it would lift off and barely climb.
Click to expand...
That actually sounds pretty normal for a fully loaded UH-1. If the Huey is fully loaded and it is hot, we have to give them a deck run to launch 'em from the LHD.
 
I requested for my PPL training and have since given to all primary flight students, a flight lesson at Max GrWt and including both CG limits. It's easy to do a few circuits in the pattern at each CG, and can be a good opportunity to give rides to ballast providers.

Those anticipating high DA ops at full gross will want to do stalls and turns at altitude as well to see what the heavy weight really does. High DA takeoffs, go-arounds and flight maneuvers are easily simulated on long runways at full gross too, by using reduced RPM.

As little as 30 minutes of the above flight training rates right up there with a little hood time, for VFR pilot's accident prevention.
 
In the Cobras, we simply couldn't carry full fuel and full ammo; so, it was always a trade off. I flew aircav, so, not directly supporting ground troops, but we would have to either pull off station early or expend ammo before we could have if fully loaded. Our normal operation when hot was to pull max allowed N1 which would get us light on the skids on a hot day and slowly get the bird moving forward on what was usually a PSP runway. At translational lift, off we'd go and hoped we didn't lose an engine. It was hard on the aircraft; would never do it with my own plane.

In the Hueys, they developed what we called a go/no go card. I don't remember all the details, maybe someone on here does, but there was a card with temp and N1 settings. One compared them, pulled that N1 and if the skids got off the ground, you could go; otherwise, it was a no go. Of course, this was developed because some folks tried to take off too heavy and didn't make it or over torqued.

Best,

Dave
 
docmirror said:
We also got guns and bullets where they were needed when they were needed.
Click to expand...
In my 2000 hours of military flying, the one thing I remember being emphasized more than anything else was "Beware of a misplaced sense of urgency." Save an airplane today, and it's still available for the rest of the war. Crash a plane today, and it's gone forever. The military grew up a lot in that regard as a result of Viet Nam.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I requested for my PPL training and have since given to all primary flight students, a flight lesson at Max GrWt and including both CG limits. It's easy to do a few circuits in the pattern at each CG, and can be a good opportunity to give rides to ballast providers.

Those anticipating high DA ops at full gross will want to do stalls and turns at altitude as well to see what the heavy weight really does. High DA takeoffs, go-arounds and flight maneuvers are easily simulated on long runways at full gross too, by using reduced RPM.

As little as 30 minutes of the above flight training rates right up there with a little hood time, for VFR pilot's accident prevention.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a great learning experience. I think it would be nice if someone started a thread on what additional training above and beyond the basic requirements that different CFI's utilize in their training of PPL students. Fot that matter other student types as well.

Doug
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Our normal operation when hot was to pull max allowed N1 which would get us light on the skids on a hot day and slowly get the bird moving forward on what was usually a PSP runway. At translational lift, off we'd go and hoped we didn't lose an engine.
Click to expand...
I believe it....the deck runs definitely help. When operating the old H-46s, we'd occasionally see them take off vertically with a heavy load and as they'd transition over the deck edge to port, they'd lose the ground effect and drop out of sight....I know a few guys that dang near went swimming before they were able to climb out.
 
If I weigh 170# (FAA Standard human adult male weight) and load my 2 seater with fuel and bags, leaving exactly 170# under gross and my buddy shows up, who earlier said he weighs 170#, but I overheard his doctor say he weighs 190#, am I legal to put him on board?
 
Ron Levy said:
In my 2000 hours of military flying, the one thing I remember being emphasized more than anything else was "Beware of a misplaced sense of urgency." Save an airplane today, and it's still available for the rest of the war. Crash a plane today, and it's gone forever. The military grew up a lot in that regard as a result of Viet Nam.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a difference there, the helos are doing CAS and combat resupply. They save the copter by not trying and a bunch of guys die. This is one of the reasons that the USMC doesn't like USAF doing their CAS, that and the AF guys keep shooting the wrong guys.
 
I have been thinking about this gross weight stuff alot. I have a Pitts S-2c. Empty is real close to 1300 and gross is 1700. That leaves 400 useful. You get a 200 pound pilot and 24 gallons that leaves you just over 50 pounds for the front passenger and 2 parachutes. It burns close to 20 Gph so you don't go with a half tank. Now how do you stay under gross? No possible way. There are numerous guys that do aerobatic and spin training in these airplanes everyday. How?
 
pigpenracing said:
I have been thinking about this gross weight stuff alot. I have a Pitts S-2c. Empty is real close to 1300 and gross is 1700. That leaves 400 useful. You get a 200 pound pilot and 24 gallons that leaves you just over 50 pounds for the front passenger and 2 parachutes. It burns close to 20 Gph so you don't go with a half tank. Now how do you stay under gross? No possible way. There are numerous guys that do aerobatic and spin training in these airplanes everyday. How?
Click to expand...

They don't weigh 200lbs? I had three aerobatics instructors, the heaviest was 160 and I was the same, the lightest weighed 90, she was a little thing but she wore the plane like a big dog, and the other was 140.
 
Jaybird180 said:
If I weigh 170# (FAA Standard human adult male weight) and load my 2 seater with fuel and bags, leaving exactly 170# under gross and my buddy shows up, who earlier said he weighs 170#, but I overheard his doctor say he weighs 190#, am I legal to put him on board?
Click to expand...
Insufficient data. The only question is what he actually weighs, not what anyone says he weighs. That's why when I flew charter in piston twins, we carried a scale in the back of the plane.
 
Henning said:
Well, there is a difference there, the helos are doing CAS and combat resupply. They save the copter by not trying and a bunch of guys die.
Click to expand...
What you ignore is the many more people who'll die later on for lack of that aircraft. There are missions where you go regardless, but the commanders will tell you when that is -- you don't make that decision on your own. Two examples are when that one mission may win the war (yes, there are such), and when the SS-20's are inbound.
This is one of the reasons that the USMC doesn't like USAF doing their CAS, that and the AF guys keep shooting the wrong guys.
Click to expand...
BS. The Marines do it that way because they train together and so will be more effective together. To suggest that the Marines are more accurate at weapons delivery than the USAF shows your lack of knowledge and experience in the business.
 
Last edited:
douglas393 said:
Sounds like a great learning experience. I think it would be nice if someone started a thread on what additional training above and beyond the basic requirements that different CFI's utilize in their training of PPL students. Fot that matter other student types as well.

Doug
Click to expand...

Thank you, and I see your point but, I don't consider those basics above and beyond what is required. The hood time is specifically required and spelled out.

CFIs are supposed to train to proficiency and it would be hard to claim such without some flight experience at full GrWt.
 
pigpenracing said:
There are numerous guys that do aerobatic and spin training in these airplanes everyday. How?
Click to expand...

I hope the answer is the same as the porcupine question: very carefully.
 
Henning said:
They don't weigh 200lbs? I had three aerobatics instructors, the heaviest was 160 and I was the same, the lightest weighed 90, she was a little thing but she wore the plane like a big dog, and the other was 140.
Click to expand...

I know several at 200 or more. Ok say they are 160... If I go for training at 200 it's still over gross. You think they will ask my weight when I schedule and turn me down?
 
They might watch to see if you rock from side to side to break the suction before you deplane.

pigpenracing said:
I know several at 200 or more. Ok say they are 160... If I go for training at 200 it's still over gross. You think they will ask my weight when I schedule and turn me down?
Click to expand...
 
pigpenracing said:
I know several at 200 or more. Ok say they are 160... If I go for training at 200 it's still over gross. You think they will ask my weight when I schedule and turn me down?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I'm sure some would, I would imagine that CG will have more of a bearing than GW on the decission, it would mine. A bit of extra weight (remember that that weight has a load factor attached, don't pull max G and the terminal rated load won't get violated). If we get out of Aft CG though, we can run into problems that will end poorly under a canopy or worse when we can't recover a flat spin.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Insufficient data. The only question is what he actually weighs, not what anyone says he weighs. That's why when I flew charter in piston twins, we carried a scale in the back of the plane.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question then is why does the FAA have such thing as standard weights and why is it covered in PPL ground?
 
Weights can vary depending on circumstances. Our Opspec for the G-V said I weighed 170, so that was close enough for w&b. The scales at the AME's office said it was a touch more, so like a gentleman I acquiesced.

Jaybird180 said:
I suppose the question then is why does the FAA have such thing as standard weights and why is it covered in PPL ground?
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
There are missions where you go regardless, but the commanders will tell you when that is -- you don't make that decision on your own. Two examples are when that one mission may win the war (yes, there are such), and when the SS-20's are inbound.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. The Army had a lot of problems with what Ron said, but we certainly were having to do a lot of that my second tour before the war in RVN ended. American units were being pulled out and there were fewer air resources to support those still there. The guys at Blue Max were flying back to back missions at An Loc for awhile from what they said and getting waivers for time flown. Of course, we were pretty well leaving or trying to and weren't as concerned about aircraft life (maybe).

Anyway, as I said, I don't advocate flying over gross: my point was there are times it can be done safely: however, I don't think I'd advocate the average pilot do that on a lark. It's something that must be fully
understood; the plane needs to be operated correctly for that condition.

As Ronnie and Wayne have said, there are planes with a lot of margin in design as far as gross weight and some that wouldn't be very forgiving.

Best,

Dave
 
JHW said:
OTOH our AN24's were restricted by operating certificate to 472kg less than the russian performance charts said. That being such a precise number I always wondered who came up with it and why.
Click to expand...
If I do the math right, that works out to almost exactly 1040 lbs or 155 gallons of Jet-A...both sort-of round numbers, for whatever that's worth.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Thank you, and I see your point but, I don't consider those basics above and beyond what is required. The hood time is specifically required and spelled out.

CFIs are supposed to train to proficiency and it would be hard to claim such without some flight experience at full GrWt.
Click to expand...
True the hood time is required, but I for one did all my training in a 172 with me and a CFI, or solo. In fact the only times I did weight and balance for a true flight was my checkride and once early in training, and was never close to full gross.
 
douglas393 said:
True the hood time is required, but I for one did all my training in a 172 with me and a CFI, or solo. In fact the only times I did weight and balance for a true flight was my checkride and once early in training, and was never close to full gross.
Click to expand...

The W&B is typical, plus you get your written exam testing.

The full gross work should have been sought out by you as PIC, and you got gypped by your CFI.

How about high DA simulation or real flight in high DA?
 
Ask anyone who's ever flown with a passenger in a Cessna 150...

There's a paperwork only STC for my Bonanza that raises the MGW 100lbs.

I'm going to have to say it depends on the plane, my Cherokee had 850 useful, high and hot at my short strip in the mountains, I don't what to know how it performed AT gross. I think the Bo would be a little more forgiving if I just went straight through the top of the envelope (given there's a paperwork only STC to do just that) but I don't want to be under gross with 2 300lb men in the back seats in their aft position.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I don't want to advocate flying over gross, but it's like many things, understand it and handle it properly and it can be fine. I've owned two airplanes that were certified at one weight, but approved to carry more weight if certain mods were made, but not legal unless an STC was complied with which was paper work and placards. So, if I fully understand what's going on, I'm technically illegal but within reasonable bounds.

On my current C90, I can get a 700 pound gross weight upgrade by putting on 10 ply tires and purchasing an STC from Beech for $16,000 which is paperwork and placards.
Click to expand...

Time to upgrade the tires and spend the $16k on fuel :dunno:
 
wabower said:
There is no annual.
Click to expand...

Progressive, whatever, it requires some form of conformance and condition inspection(s) that does the same thing. Wouldn't be the first time someone had to put lighter tires back due to paperwork.
 
Nor the first time somebody assessed the situation, figured out the scam and quietly moved on as they saw fit with the tires they already own.


Henning said:
Progressive, whatever, it requires some form of conformance and condition inspection(s) that does the same thing. Wouldn't be the first time someone had to put lighter tires back due to paperwork.
Click to expand...
 
Jaybird180 said:
I suppose the question then is why does the FAA have such thing as standard weights and why is it covered in PPL ground?
Click to expand...
The "standard" weights (actually, average weights derived from statistical studies) are used by air carriers when there are enough passengers to make the Law of Large Numbers even things out so they don't have to get and figure the weight of every passenger on a 500-passenger airplane. Personally, I don't cover this in PP ground, and to my knowledge, it's not a question on either the written or practical tests for PP.
 
wabower said:
Nor the first time somebody assessed the situation, figured out the scam and quietly moved on as they saw fit with the tires they already own.
Click to expand...

No argument there, but it's still a snafu potential if your plane has the wrong tires for the paperwork was my point.
 
Ron Levy said:
The "standard" weights (actually, average weights derived from statistical studies) are used by air carriers when there are enough passengers to make the Law of Large Numbers even things out so they don't have to get and figure the weight of every passenger on a 500-passenger airplane. Personally, I don't cover this in PP ground, and to my knowledge, it's not a question on either the written or practical tests for PP.
Click to expand...

It was covered in my course


And I think it's in the Jepp course too....
 
Henning said:
Test pilot is not about drama. Test pilot is about finding numbers. Over gross performance can be calculated on the ground derived from performance at gross.

That said, there is no reason for you to fly over gross and the less weight you carry, the safer and more efficient you are.
Click to expand...

If in high winds, I think it can be safer if flying somewhat heavier rather than lighter but not over gross of course.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
If in high winds, I think it can be safer if flying somewhat heavier rather than lighter but not over gross of course.
Click to expand...

Not the way I see it, kinetic energy in an emergency landing in a single parlayed with single engine performance in a twin trumps the few knots difference in Va in safety priority.
 
Henning said:
Not the way I see it, kinetic energy in an emergency landing in a single parlayed with single engine performance in a twin trumps the few knots difference in Va in safety priority.
Click to expand...

Nah, emergency landings and single engine in twins is rare, somewhat more stable and safer handling in gusty crosswinds is common. It's not a huge difference in any event.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Nah, emergency landings and single engine in twins is rare, somewhat more stable and safer handling in gusty crosswinds is common. It's not a huge difference in any event.
Click to expand...

Not really. I really want to come out there and fly. Can I bring my dad out and take him on a couple day to couple week trip in the Highlander?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top