"Hefty" individuals in a 4 seater

cowman

cowman

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
5,283
Location
Danger Zone
Display Name
Display name:
Cowman
If you had a "hefty" friend weighing about 320lbs or more who wanted to go along on a one off flight in a 4-seat airplane such as a Cessna 182 could that be done safely?

How could you do the weight and balance? Is there anyway to have this person sort of sit in the middle of a bench type seat with some kind of apparatus to allow them to be belted in and just split the weight between 2 seats(160 in each L and R seat).

Or would you just put them on one side and compensate by putting a little less fuel in the wing on that side or putting any baggage on the opposite side or something?

Or can you just do W&B normally and as long as everything is within safe limits not worry about it?


Today this is a hypothetical for me, but some day it might not be.
 
Been there, done that in M20C. We were below max gross. I burned off the right tank a bit longer than normal, but really didn't notice any issue.
 
It's all about W&B. you can do anything you want. The bigger problem is how they are going to fit. One 300 pounder is tough enough to accommodate fitment wise but two, think that one out.
 
Not to hijack the thread, but where can you find individual seat weight limits of aircraft? Is that usually in the POH?
 
There are no specific individual seat limits. You just have to go through the math, and yes, that is in the POH.
 
In my -10 I would leave their seat all the way back for stick clearance and cg reasons. I would leave out 15 gallons or so on the right tank.

Unfortunately many Americans are becoming heavier all the time. I hope airplane manufacturers are taking this into consideration. Van's came up with the RV-14 for this very reason.
 
LandSickness said:
Not to hijack the thread, but where can you find individual seat weight limits of aircraft? Is that usually in the POH?
Click to expand...

No. I tried to track that down once upon a time. Cessna engineers said that the seats had to meet National Bureau of Standards specs. NBS wanted a couple of hundred bucks and I didn't need the information that badly.

Personally, I want a cushion between actual loaded weight and max gross. If that means that someone has to stay on the ground, so be it. I would not fly with four hefty pax in a 182...hefty meaning over 200 pounds.

Bob Gardner
 
Last edited:
Possible realistic loading for me..
Me @ 190, a 160, and the 320.

Another realistic for me is 190, 240, 160, 160.... But I don't need to start listing the weight of all my friends and family I can do my own math :D
 
Just do the W&B, it shouldn't be a problem.:D
 
bobmrg said:
Personally, I want a cushion between actual loaded weight and max gross. If that means that someone has to stay on the ground, so be it. I would not fly with four hefty pax in a 182...hefty meaning over 200 pounds.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this. How much cushion in a 182, and why?

If there were four 200 lb people, there's still room by the book for 55 gallons of fuel in my specific 182. (No baggage.)

Four 250 pounders still allows 22 gallons of fuel. Which is 1.6 hours of gas, plenty for a one hour joyride and VFR fuel minimums.

I won't go quite that low on fuel, I want an hour in the tanks at landing, but a 182 will carry a crap-ton aloft.

This same 182 can be upped another 150 lbs on MGTOW with nothing but paperwork. We haven't done it, but it shows there's not much need for a "margin" at max gross.

Newer 182s have this MGTOW limitation listed directly in the POH because all their fancy interior leather and G1000 weigh a ton. :)

If you've flown a restart 182 at max gross, you've flown it 150 lbs heavier than I can in mine legally. If you flew it with less than 150 lb margin, you've still flown it heavier than mine legally. And mine will easily carry four 250 lb'ers for a short flight. It's fuel limited. But it'll fly fine. No bad behavior at the top end of the weight chart in the 182. And even if you disregarded the loading limits for the baggage area, it's hard ... really hard... to get it out of aft CG.

Some airplanes, yeah... Leave a margin. They fly poorly up there. 182... Just get some experience at max gross and it flies fine. More stable than the usual "Mack truck" stable. Haha. If there is such a thing as more stable.
 
I flew my 182rg at gross. It was fine. We were full fuel for our 5 hour leg and to the tabs the 2 hour leg out of kabq. It was under gross st abq but didn't get sluggish until 10k
 
If if you have two people in the front seat of a C182 you'll have to watch your forward CG limit. You'll be fine, you have plenty of useful load, but may need to put a medium sized human in a back seat, or a heavy toolbox in the baggage compartment.

The C-182 is comfortable even for XXL copilots.

I fly a C-177RG, which is the C-182's slimmer prettier cousin. It has about the same sized cabin as a C-182 (it will seem bigger, because the wing is not sticking out in front of you).

Just for fun I ran a weight and balance for this question. Sure enough, staying inside of forward CG limits was the problem.

I came up with this as a possible solution for the Cardinal RG:

c177_320.jpg
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
I'm curious about this. How much cushion in a 182, and why?
Click to expand...

In SE planes I'm not so fussy about being under gross because it doesn't make a big difference except in energy on impact. In a multi though it can make the difference in flying and dying when you lose one. I try to stay as light as possible.
 
cowman said:
Possible realistic loading for me..
Me @ 190, a 160, and the 320.

Another realistic for me is 190, 240, 160, 160.... But I don't need to start listing the weight of all my friends and family I can do my own math :D
Click to expand...

I must be missing something. I just ran the numbers quickly through my W&B app and with 160/190/320 weights, it seems like you are good to go in any seating configuration. If the big guy is up front, fuel is limited to 70 gallons. I used the app for the C182T.
 
Sac Arrow said:
There are no specific individual seat limits. You just have to go through the math, and yes, that is in the POH.
Click to expand...
There are such limits in some planes, and they'll be in the Limitations section of the POH or in the TCDS. Other than that, it's a straightforward W&B problem.
 
Geico266 said:
Just say no. :dunno:
Click to expand...


Agreed......
And pick friends who are responsible about their health... Obese people are going to sink the health care system in this country.... Carrying 10 lbs more is not an issue... Doubling their weight is disgusting.:eek:
 
JimNtexas said:
If if you have two people in the front seat of a C182 you'll have to watch your forward CG limit. You'll be fine, you have plenty of useful load, but may need to put a medium sized human in a back seat, or a heavy toolbox in the baggage compartment.

The C-182 is comfortable even for XXL copilots.

I fly a C-177RG, which is the C-182's slimmer prettier cousin. It has about the same sized cabin as a C-182 (it will seem bigger, because the wing is not sticking out in front of you).

Just for fun I ran a weight and balance for this question. Sure enough, staying inside of forward CG limits was the problem.

I came up with this as a possible solution for the Cardinal RG:

c177_320.jpg
Click to expand...



Thanks for that. A 177RG is still at the top of my short list of aircraft I might actually buy. :D
 
Pa28-140 said:
I must be missing something. I just ran the numbers quickly through my W&B app and with 160/190/320 weights, it seems like you are good to go in any seating configuration. If the big guy is up front, fuel is limited to 70 gallons. I used the app for the C182T.
Click to expand...

If the big guy is up front you might run out of control yoke travel. If he runs his seat way back, the moment changes.

If he's really big around the middle, the seat belt won't be long enough. You can buy belt extenders, a length of belt with mating buckles to fit your belts.
Can't remember where we got ours, but I remember buying it for the school and then never using it.


Dan
 
N801BH said:
Agreed......
And pick friends who are responsible about their health... Obese people are going to sink the health care system in this country.... Carrying 10 lbs more is not an issue... Doubling their weight is disgusting.:eek:
Click to expand...

Better yet, pick friends who aren't massively judgmental.

Dude, I hope for your sake middle age is kind to you. When you're a kid, you get away with anything. It ain't so forever.

Obesity is a public health problem, but to say that, by itself, it is going to "sink" the health care system and that its victims are "disgusting" shows a wildly limited and immature perspective. The problems involve quite a lot more than the excessively simple model you're using, including things like greed, shortsightedness, marketing strategies, workplace culture, and quite a lot of other things.
 
As a disgusting individual, I can say the 182 won't be a problem other than getting W&B right (and even then it may not be a problem depending on how strict your adherence to W&B is... 182s are great planes)

You'll have other issues you will want to address though.

The position of the wing, door, and gear leg all make boarding a bit of a challenge for large people. You'll want to school them on how to:

1. Don't grab the top of the door with any weight. It's not a handle. Similarly, the seatback is not capable of taking their full weight in force, it may break. If there is an A-pillar strap, they should use that. Clever use of the glareshield may work. Otherwise, they should strategize to always have their weight self-supported. Most large people are aware of their weight and its effects on environment, and should not behave like rhinos if properly briefed.

2. Don't throw their ass into the seat. It's not a ford truck. Their leg strength is an advantage here.

3. They may need to scoot to the left if they are in the right seat, in order to close the right door. They may need to do this after buckling their seat belt, which as pointed out, may be at its limits of adjustment.

I board Cessnas with this order: Leg, butt, belt, door. I throw my inboard leg in, push myself into the seat (not the seatback) with my outside leg, then pull it in. I may need to restart by putting a foot on the gearleg footrest first if the seat is overstuffed. Then I slide over and belt up. Then I close the door. Then I slide back against the door.

Have him/her check the seat position adjustments before boarding. The seat-height one in Cessnas can make a lot of difference in one's ability to self-support with leg strength. I take mine all the way down and all the way aft before boarding.

Experiment, no need to be in a rush on the first go. I do think if you point out the weak parts of the plane, that your friend can sort it out on his own with minimum risk to aircraft parts. Disgusting people like me deal with this often, when faced with flimsy plastic chairs, snug restaurant booths, elevators, narrow hallways, and anything to do with aviation, either general or commercial.

Sorry to be a part of your vocation, forum, and healthcare system. I also breathe more of your air, take an unfair slice of the jacuzzi, and usually nab the last donut in the conference room. :D
 
I can't really judge. I'm only a few lbs over ideal but I eat terribly and with my desk job I don't really exercise.

If it wasn't for good genes I could easily be pretty hefty myself.

Either way I'd feel bad leaving a lifelong buddy who wanted to go along for a ride. If its not safe, that would be one thing but inconvenient? We'll deal.
 
MAKG1 said:
Better yet, pick friends who aren't massively judgmental.

Dude, I hope for your sake middle age is kind to you. When you're a kid, you get away with anything. It ain't so forever.

Obesity is a public health problem, but to say that, by itself, it is going to "sink" the health care system and that its victims are "disgusting" shows a wildly limited and immature perspective. The problems involve quite a lot more than the excessively simple model you're using, including things like greed, shortsightedness, marketing strategies, workplace culture, and quite a lot of other things.
Click to expand...

I am older then you. I have been able to maintain my weight for the last 45 years within 8 lbs using SELF CONTROL.... It ain't that hard to do.:no:

I respect your opinion.... Please respect mine..
 
N801BH said:
I am older then you. I have been able to maintain my weight for the last 45 years within 8 lbs using SELF CONTROL.... It ain't that hard to do.:no:

I respect your opinion.... Please respect mine..
Click to expand...

There are variances between people that allow some (approx 35%) to fare much better on the standard American diet over the long term. My guess is that you're one of them (especially since your version of self control "ain't that hard to do").

Self control is only a very small part of it.
A diet that encourages the storage of fat and halts the release of it is a big, big part.
That same diet also blunts appetite regulating hormones, leading people to never feel satisfied (IOW, always feel hungry).
Even those folks who are able to deny their bodies and continue to live at a caloric deficit while stringently following the current conventional wisdom re a "healthy diet" are pretty much doomed - as insulin resistance continues to build and the fat storage cycle becomes more intense.

As to why some folks let things get totally out of hand before (or without ever) seeking help and/or alternate solutions, I have no idea.
But, there are many such people - in increasing numbers - and I strongly suspect that a good many of them ARE following "doctor's orders" (food pyramid / my plate) such as they are. Maybe, just maybe, it's "the doctors" who are wrong? Or, perhaps there's something up with the food "industry"?
 
Something at the weight limit for the "hat shelf" is usually enough to stay within forward W&B on the 182. We usually keep a small toolbox there and our cowl plugs anyway.

A little more weight back there if you're that far forward, will make the flare easier and less prone to pop the nosegear down. But one should practice at forward CG and see how much effort it takes to keep the nosewheel off.

Other people's bodies are not my business. Making sure they can ride safely, however... is. I have enough trouble keeping my own body the way I want it.
 
denverpilot said:
.... Making sure they can ride safely, however... is.
Click to expand...
..

Agreed 100%

That is probably my main concern.....

If, for some reason we crash, and I cannot pull the 320 lb passenger out of the wreckage before they burn to death, then letting them get in is a poor decision on my part.... I am PIC and it's my call on who gets in MY plane.... PERIOD.....
 
N801BH said:
I am older then you. I have been able to maintain my weight for the last 45 years within 8 lbs using SELF CONTROL.... It ain't that hard to do.:no:

I respect your opinion.... Please respect mine..
Click to expand...

No you don't if you think you are in control of other people's medical problems. You seem to think you understand the variables, but have picked only one.

For some people, it's not only hard to do, it's impossible.

Be happy you don't have the problem you condemn others for.

A Cessna 172 can carry a 320 lb passenger safely as long as the seat belt can be fastened and W&B is otherwise OK. Apparently, your prejudices haven't allowed you to TRY IT. The seat belt is not a problem, nor is the yoke. The shoulder harness is near maximum unless the seat is far back, and that's the limiting factor.

You have a very odd definition of respect if you think calling people disgusting is even slightly consistent.

As for your 91.3 assertion, can you pull a 50 lb child from the back seat in an upside down ditched 172 full of water? If not, well, you can't carry kids in the back seat according to your logic, can you?

Not all fat people are totally helpless. That you assume they are is not at all a sign of respect.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
No you don't if you think you are in control of other people's medical problems. You seem to think you understand the variables, but have picked only one.

For some people, it's not only hard to do, it's impossible.

Be happy you don't have the problem you condemn others for.

A Cessna 172 can carry a 320 lb passenger safely as long as the seat belt can be fastened and W&B is otherwise OK. Apparently, your prejudices haven't allowed you to TRY IT. The seat belt is not a problem, nor is the yoke. The shoulder harness is near maximum unless the seat is far back, and that's the limiting factor.

You have a very odd definition of respect if you think calling people disgusting is even slightly consistent.

As for your 91.3 assertion, can you pull a 50 lb child from the back seat in an upside down ditched 172 full of water? If not, well, you can't carry kids in the back seat according to your logic, can you?

Not all fat people are totally helpless. That you assume they are is not at all a sign of respect.
Click to expand...
..

I am PIC.. It is MY decision who gets in my plane...


Get over it...:yes:
 
I am 6'3 285lbs (does this mean I'm disgusting? :( )and I've had a CFI who was 265 in the right seat. Along with a 145lb passenger in the back, full fuel and 120lbs of baggage. We were perfect. Zero issues.

However, I am in a PA-28 235 with a 1,417lb usable load.

The only way I wouldnt fly with a heavy passenger is if the CG was not within limits or they physically could not right in the plane. Personally I don't think pulling people out of the plane is a qualification that required, but each to their own. If that was a standard I'd be willing to bet 75% of all GA pilots would fly solo. I'd venture out to say that I'm the most able body member on the forum but if we crash and I get hurt, hopefully I can pull myself out... let alone the passengers.

I don't judge though, so just enjoy your 4 seater and roll within the limits. Good luck!
 
N801BH said:
..

I am PIC.. It is MY decision who gets in my plane...


Get over it...:yes:
Click to expand...

Yup, you're PIC. If you want to abuse that privilege to be a jerk, it is completely consistent with 14 CFR 91.3(a). Let me put it bluntly -- that does not make it OK.

It's consistent with 14 CFR 91.3(a) for me to refuse to fly with minorities. Is that acceptable?
 
MAKG1 said:
Yup, you're PIC. If you want to abuse that privilege to be a jerk, it is completely consistent with 14 CFR 91.3(a). Let me put it bluntly -- that does not make it OK.

It's consistent with 14 CFR 91.3(a) for me to refuse to fly with minorities. Is that acceptable?
Click to expand...

I am beginning to think I need to add Californians to my " do not fly " list..;)
 
As a disgusting man myself, I I have flown in a 172 with a second disgusting guy with nothing more than some sandbags in the baggage area.
 
:popcorn:
You guys are more entertaining than the Phila v Cowboys game on:yes:
 
Jaybird180 said:
:popcorn:
You guys are more entertaining than the Phila v Cowboys game on:yes:
Click to expand...

Pretty funny!

As a former disgusting individual (lost 75 pounds since January), let me comment. Getting in the plane isn't the issue. Getting them back out is, especially if they can't crawl or even roll over to begin the crawl.

I had another disgusting friend ask to fly with me once. I knew he was heavier than me and I asked that if he was over 320 I would need to burn off some fuel to get within limits. I think the reality of the situation came to bear for me when I realized I would not be able to get out of my Mooney in an emegency unless he was able to roll and crawl...

As for the healthcare system... There are a lot of problems with it. One of them is data management. It seems that no one is on the same patient history tracking software and if you need to see someone like a specialist, you better hope that you get a copy of what you need from them before you leave the office.
 
Marauder said:
I think the reality of the situation came to bear for me when I realized I would not be able to get out of my Mooney in an emegency unless he was able to roll and crawl...
Click to expand...

Two doors has benefits.

Marauder said:
As for the healthcare system... There are a lot of problems with it. One of them is data management. It seems that no one is on the same patient history tracking software and if you need to see someone like a specialist, you better hope that you get a copy of what you need from them before you leave the office.
Click to expand...

Which one would you recommend? Should every Doc be mandated to use one specific one? Who runs it?

What's wrong with asking for a piece of paper and filing it correctly yourself?
 
Just saw this thread and has me interested. For the Tiger owners, have you had any heavy passengers in the 320 range? I've flown with four at MTOW before, but never with so much weight in one area.

One of my best friends is large and I haven't offered/taken him. Would like to see him enter/exit before even flying, and he's pear shaped (large hips area not up top) so there's a concern getting access to the trim/flaps. Guess I can have him board, check fit and exit then make a decision.
 
danhagan said:
Just saw this thread and has me interested. For the Tiger owners, have you had any heavy passengers in the 320 range? I've flown with four at MTOW before, but never with so much weight in one area.

One of my best friends is large and I haven't offered/taken him. Would like to see him enter/exit before even flying, and he's pear shaped (large hips area not up top) so there's a concern getting access to the trim/flaps. Guess I can have him board, check fit and exit then make a decision.
Click to expand...
Good guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top