How do you determine what a "safe" overweight condition is?

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Hocky, May 30, 2014.

  1. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky
    So....

    Basically weilke is confirming what I said already. What a turn around.

    PAFlyer I'm not going to dignify your attack with a response. There has been much juvenile behavior in this thread and not from me.
     
  2. paflyer

    paflyer Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    7,148
    Location:
    PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PAFlyer
    What did he confirm? That to be legal you need to jump through some hoops and probably operate within some limitations?

    No, in your mind his comment about "if anyone cares" gives you affirmation and license.

    Like I said earlier, you are dangerous. To have this arrogance at this stage of your training is beyond all reality. It's not just THIS thread, as you attempted to deflect, it's the totality all of your other rule bending "questions".

    I really hope you see the light before you hurt yourself, or worse, some unsuspecting and trusting passenger.
     
  3. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,063
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    Ah, no I didn't.

    Are you an experienced ferry pilot ?
    Have you gone through the process of applying for a special flight permit, provided the ASI with an educated estimate where your CG is going to be, provided your qualifications, provided a route that avoids congested areas ?

    Didn't think so. It's not the piece of paper from the FSDO that makes the flight safe, it is the thought process and skill of the pilot performing the flight. The process of getting the permit forces the pilot to come up with a plan.




    To go along with your little troll-story, you are a student pilot, right ?

    This young man had 50something hours, a fresh PPL and was 1.5lbs short of MTOW when he took 3 family members on a little scenic trip in a rented 172:

    CEN13FA364

    I'll have you read it up yourself, just to give away the ending, he made 1 piloting error and was found with soot in his trachea and a broken ankle.



    But not to worry in your case, upon impact, the dry ice that keeps your steaks and expensive wine cool will immediately sublimate, the CO2 will displace the oxygen and the propane cylinders will harmlessly blow off without a major conflagration. If you break your ankle, the other student pilot who is heading to OSH with you will drag you away from the spectacle before anything really bad could happen.


    Little plane aviation is not like high school. It gives the test first and the lesson afterwards. Try to be around for the lesson.

    Oh, in case there are some actual student pilots reading this, here is another accident that may help to bring across the point:

    ATL07LA111

    This pilot was about 50lbs short of MTOW in a low powered plane. Again, one mistake later and he had to bury his mom who was one of the passengers.

    Btw., in case you have never been to the scene of a plane crash. This is how your plane looks like after someone died:

    [​IMG]




    But yes, go ahead, suit yourself, fly overweight.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2014
  4. Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    4,841
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dan Thomas
    Some of the older guys here, like me, have been flight instructors. Most of us have had friends die in airplane accidents. A huge percentage of those friends had issues with attitudes of anti-authority and invulnerability. As well, we encountered students whose arrogance made them essentially unteachable, since they had it all figured out anyway, and most of those either ended up being kicked out of the flight school, or violated by the feds, or killed by their own stupidity. It seems that many of those young guys (and it was mostly guys, not girls) had been spoiled by their parents, taught that they were special, taught that they were far smarter than the average kid.

    So when Hocky says the instantly recognizable things we've seen here, alarms go off all over the place. Here's another unteachable kid. One that's destined to learn everything the hard way, if he lives that long at all. You see, the laws of physics weren't written by the FAA and they are unbreakable, and too many pilots die just because they really didn't understand as much as they thought they did.

    Dan
     
  5. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky
    Ah, yes you did. I said that it is possible to safely fly the plane 10% above gross not based on experience but based on thinking about it and deducing that this remains within the limits of the design. I also said, which many of you conveniently ignored or forgot about, that I would only do it with acceptable density altitudes, long runways and no hard bumps.

    You finally came around to agreeing. Now suddenly after I TAUGHT you that you can get the gross weight increase by filing the appropriate paperwork at the FSDO, you now learned how to use the internet apparently and looked at the paperwork.

    Stop being so obstinate and patronizing and just admit that I was right.

    So this is something that you just can't get to grips with can you? That a STUDENT is not as clueless as you were when you were a student. Well, whale key, sometimes you can actually use your intelligence and gather your own information and come to an informed decision. You should try it sometime instead of trolling around trying to find unpopular personalities on this website to bully.

    I am getting really tired of all this. You know I am right that is why you are reacting so negatively. Just apologize and we can all just move on. I'm sure everyone is sick to death of this thread.
     
  6. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky
    You're really bitter aren't you? That feces you wrote in bold above? That says everything I need to know about you.
     
  7. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,063
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    It doesn't remain within the limits of the design. The limits in the book are based on specified performance criteria, by going beyond the published limits, the plane will not be able to perform to those criteria. If done by a qualified pilot and for the purpose of ferrying a plane, exceeding those limits can be done safely. The margins get rather thin, the pilot can't make any additional mistakes and needs to have the skill to deal with unforseen circumstances. As a student pilot you dont have the experience to do this safely.

    Did you read the accident reports I gave you as an assignment ?
     
  8. paflyer

    paflyer Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    7,148
    Location:
    PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PAFlyer
    I'll apologize; I'm sorry you're such a know it all jerk.
     
  9. FastEddieB

    FastEddieB Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    8,724
    Location:
    Mineral Bluff, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fast Eddie B
    There's no longer any doubt as to the real nature of what's going on here, is there?
     
  10. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Quite the contrary. If you really did know it all, why can't you hit the center line? You know it all, so you should be able to figure it out. You shouldn't need to ask how much you can go over safely if you really did know it all. The reality is you can't go over ANY safely. Those that do are taking additional risks that you don't understand.

    Safety doesn't mean you're going to die if you pass that line. It means the additional risk is not acceptable. You MIGHT die. Without adequate analysis, the probability is not controlled and can be very high. But, you know it all, so that shouldn't be news to you.

    Time to give it up, pflemming. You seriously need a life. Bad.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2014
  11. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,736
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    I'm going to try to give you a straight answer, 'cuz I'm kind of sick of PoAers tearing each others' throats up over every issue that gets posted and I want us to get back to being the "front porch of aviation." It's kind of a fun thought experiment too.

    The answer to your question: It depends on the airplane. Every aircraft type's gross weight is where it is for different reasons. Even variants of the same type can have their gross at different places for different reasons, and any STC's a particular airframe has may change it as well.

    What the published maximum gross weight figure gives you is a known quantity: You'll be able to determine takeoff (and other) performance by the charts in the POH to a reasonable level of accuracy. Your wings will stay attached. You'll be able to go around with full flaps. If you want to know the entirety of the requirements and parameters, read Part 23 of the FARs. If you're like me, that's pretty interesting stuff.

    Is it safe to fly over MGTOW? In practice, no. The particular limitation that sets the MGTOW depends what the limitation of the particular plane you're flying is. There's a reason for that MGTOW, and chances are you won't be privy to it, trade secrets of the manufacturer y'know.

    Can you do it, and get away with it? Maybe... But how many times is a complete unknown. If you're flying an old, tired airframe that's routinely been flown overweight before (which you won't know), and you load it to 5% over max gross, you may hit a sudden bit of turbulence and find you no longer have a wing attached the very first time you try it. There's a reason the FAA requires a special flight permit to fly over gross, and it won't just be granted automatically. They'll certainly not allow any passengers on the overweight flight, and generally they're going to require a commercial pilot as well.

    An example of how unknown these things can be: In the 1960's, a Piper test pilot named Max Conrad flew a Piper Comanche 250 from Casablanca, Morocco to Los Angeles, a distance record for that class of plane which I'm pretty sure still stands. When he took off, the Comanche was loaded over DOUBLE its normal gross weight, and required something like 8,000 feet to get airborne. Tough airplane, right? Shouldn't be a problem to fly one over gross, right? Well, there have also been two structural failures of Comanches in the last 5 years. And Max Conrad's record-setting plane is in a museum now, not flying.

    Now, we've all probably unwittingly flown up to 1% over gross - After all, there's probably a lot of dirt and extra wiring and "stuff" unaccounted for in the empty weight of the plane since it may not have been weighed since it was new. And we've probably had pax that lied about their weight, and you're never going to accurately fuel a plane to a less than 1-gallon tolerance so maybe there's an extra six pounds there... Add it all up, and you might be 25 pounds over gross without knowing it.

    So does that make it OK to do it on purpose? Well, let's first look at the problem structurally. If you purposely overload 1% over, you still haven't eliminated any of those factors that could cause you to inadvertently be 1% over, and now you're 2% over, and where is the line? Like others have said, the 50% number is the design ultimate load limit. That's the point at which the airplane WILL break if you go past it. At some point significantly less than that - I'd guess it's probably in the range of 20-30% - There will be a *permanent* deformation and weakening of components on the aircraft. If you go 20% over on a regular basis, it won't be long before the plane breaks... Maybe only a couple of flights.

    Also, things like Vno and Va are based on a specific upward gust speed. It's quite possible to get into turbulence worse than that, where even flying just barely in the green arc will cause an over-design load. That's probably OK when you're flying at or below gross, because the transient overload gets you only into the range of elastic deformation. But if you've already used up that margin, you may cause damage. "But I'll only do it on smooth days," you say. Well, it's not uncommon to have a day that's smooth as glass and suddenly get a big WHOMP of a bump out of nowhere. It could be the remnants of the wake turbulence from some airliner that flew above that spot 20 minutes ago, who knows... But I've experienced it more than once. I'd hate to lose my wing over it.

    Now, more importantly, let's also look at the aerodynamics and performance of each specific flight. As your weight goes up, most of the low-end V-speeds will go up... But the top-end ones (Vno and Vne) will come down. Takeoff performance will suffer the most - In theory, a 10% difference in weight will equal a 21% loss of performance, but in practice it will be even worse since you'll also need to accelerate to a higher Vy and things like prop efficiency, drag, etc. are not going to remain constant throughout the takeoff roll. Climb performance will also suffer greatly - Your Vy will be higher and you'll have increased drag to compensate for (both parasite and induced) and with the increased weight, your excess horsepower will be lower, so your climb rate will be much lower. Some rough calculations for a late-model 172 indicate that being 10% over gross will reduce climb performance by 40%, and that's at sea level... Your service ceiling would be around 5,500 feet.

    These are the types of things that a ferry pilot experienced in overweight operations would have to consider prior to embarking on their journey. I hope that this satisfies your curiosity and shows you why it's a bad idea. Fly safe, please!
     
  12. Jim Logajan

    Jim Logajan En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,014
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    .
    Given complete (or near complete) knowledge of the future forces and environment that the airplane would be exposed to, then of course one can reduce the safety factors while not increasing the risk. So long as the future plays out as expected, you're good. In general the FAA doesn't think you have enough knowledge of the future to change those safety factors - unless you can show otherwise in some official manner.

    But setting up a scenario where the foresight is near perfect doesn't establish anything you or anyone else didn't already realize prior to you posing the question in post 1.

    Not me. I see threads like this as great vehicles for everyone to learn something - whether related to safety or how to handle themselves on online forums. The lessons may not sink in today, or tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.

    Lucy van Pelt: Adversity builds character. Without adversity a person could never mature and face up to all of the things in life!
    Charlie Brown: What things?
    Lucy: More adversity!
     
  13. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,736
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    It wasn't the landing gear that allowed for the MGTOW increase on the DA40 - Originally the DA40 had an MGTOW of 2535 and a max LANDING weight of 2407. The MLG mod moved the landing weight up to 2535, matching the MGTOW. There's a separate STC that adds a tiny plastic collar to the elevator linkage and increases MGTOW to 2646, but leaves the max landing weight at 2535. The MLG mod is a prerequisite for the MGTOW mod but isn't part of the MGTOW mod. You can't have a DA40 with MGTOW of 2646 and MLW of 2407.

    It'd be kind of pointless anyway, since that's about equivalent to the weight of ALL the fuel on a normal DA40 and all but an hour's worth on one with extended tanks, so you wouldn't get much use out of the extra MGW without the extra MLW!
     
  14. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,736
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    The difference in aviation is that the marketing people want to get as close to the engineering numbers as they can, because if they can't, they have to try to market a plane with inferior capabilities. So in the case of airplanes, the FAA stipulates the bare minimum standards, and the engineers' job is to get as close to those minimums as they can without breaking them. If they don't, they've overengineered the plane and that will result in poor performance, though it would allow you to depart overgross safely. ;)

    So, in aviation you find that the engineers work to *just barely* meet FAA standards so that the marketing people have something they can sell. There are videos of aircraft structural tests all over the Internet - You generally see the wings stressed to 150% of design load and hold together, but they break at 151% and everyone cheers because they did the job right.
     
  15. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,736
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Yes - Weight limits are lower in the utility category, so the load is the same. For example, a C172S in the normal category has an MGW of 2550 and in the utility category has an MGW of 2200.

    2550*3.8 = 9690
    2200*4.4 = 9680

    So, the max load on the wing is the same in either case.
     
  16. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky
    :rofl:

    Apology accepted PAFlyer.

    Have a great weekend everyone.
     
  17. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,736
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Hopefully there's now enough info in this thread that it's not just "because someone said so." I also always want to know the "why" behind everything, and I really like aviation because there are endless excellent opportunities to learn "why".

    However, just because you don't know "why" doesn't mean there isn't a reason. Try to learn the reason rather than assuming there isn't one (or many). I guarantee you, there is. The FARs are written in blood.

    That isn't even close to a valid reason for going 10% over gross. There are plenty of places in the US to stop and fuel up. Fly *at* gross, and just land for fuel more often. Piece of cake.
     
  18. paflyer

    paflyer Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    7,148
    Location:
    PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    PAFlyer
    A fatal assumption is that there is a linear relationship between "a little more won't hurt" and "you just went over the limit."
     
  19. MAKG1

    MAKG1 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,409
    Location:
    California central coast
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MAKG
    Nope. pflemming couldn't help himself.

    That guy makes this board a substantially worse place.
     
  20. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,736
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Not true...

    That much is true... But the vast majority of Part 91 applies in ALL airspace classes.

    Until you get T-boned by an IFR aircraft that comes out of that cloud and you're too close to avoid a collision. I fly a single-engine airplane too, but if you're flying the minimum required distance away from the cloud, I'll hit you in 6 seconds. If you're only 1000 feet away from the cloud, 3 seconds. And there are MUCH faster planes in the sky.

    A common misconception among new pilots is that air traffic control will take care of keeping the IFR aircraft away from you. Not true - ATC's job is to separate IFR from IFR, and even then pilots that are in VMC are responsible for see and avoid. If an IFR aircraft is barreling towards you from inside a cloud, neither one of you may get a warning. So there's "why" you want to stay the full required distance away from a cloud or more.
     
  21. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,736
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Yup. There is a limit, and nobody knows where it actually is. The only way to find out is to break it, but at that point the knowledge is pretty useless!
     
  22. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky
    Aw.... You're just breaking my heart!

    :sad:
     
  23. Jaybird180

    Jaybird180 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,856
    Location:
    Near DC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jaybird180
    I thought the thread was entertaining and borderline informative which is why I read this far.
     
  24. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,063
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    Not necessarily so, if you are at 6000ft of a 9000ft runway and your 172 doesn't get out of ground effect you land and offload some fuel :)
     
  25. Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    4,841
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dan Thomas
    By the time one reaches my age he has observed a whole lot more than you have at your age. And yes, there are spoiled young guys out there that simply will not be told what they cannot do, and they go ahead and do those things and too often pay the price. Or the flight school does, through wrecked airplanes and reputations and soaring insurance costs.

    I'm not bitter. One doesn't need to be bitter to see alarms going off everywhere. Speaking the truth offends some people, that's all, and they often come up with spurious reasons for dismissing it.

    Dan
     
  26. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    48,653
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    Huh. Look at that. I'm busy working all week, check back in and see this thread made it to over 300 posts, and it's still a bad idea to fly over gross. Who'd'a thunk it? ;)
     
  27. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky
    Well then you didn't read the thread because the general consensus among the reasonable participants is that in some circumstances it is safe.
     
  28. Henning

    Henning Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    39,482
    Location:
    Ft Lauderdale FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iHenning
    There is a difference between 'safe in some circumstances' and 'a good idea'; in fact they are different corners to a side of the Risk Analysis Matrix. Both are 'proceed' condition scores, but you want to do as many things to climb to 'good idea' as you can. Unless you are flying long range over water or barren regions where fueling is not available, you would always leave fuel behind and plan shorter legs and find intermediate fuel for them if required in order to stay under gross and climb the ladder towards 'good idea'.

    That's how risk management works.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2014
  29. frcabot

    frcabot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    frcabot
    To play devil's (aka Hocky's) advocate, takeoff approach and landing are the most dangerous phases of flight. Arguably it is much safer to fly a little over gross than make a separate fuel stop. Likewise it's much safer not to cut corners with fuel. So if given the choice between going 50 lbs over gross to carry a bit more fuel versus making a separate fuel stop or doing without the safety blanket, I'd probably just take the extra 50 lbs.
     
  30. N747JB

    N747JB Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    5,928
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John
    I won't say most people have flown 50 lbs over gross, but a lot of people have, whether they did it intentionally or not. :rolleyes2: Not every weight and balance is accurate, fuel gauges are notoriously inaccurate and almost every woman over the age of 12 will lie about her age and weight, most guys will just lie about their weight. :D
    Pretty easy in a 182 to have 5 more gallons than you think, and the two extra quarts of oil and the step stool in the baggage area, add the 125 lb lady that is actually 135-140 a 10 lb flight bag that no one ever seems to account for in W&B and suddenly you are 100 lbs heavier than you thought. May put you over gross, it may not, but it has happened thousands of times with no negative consequences. BUT, it's still not a good practice and I personally verify that I am under gross on every flight!:D
    I know you can weigh everyone and everything that goes into the airplane and that's a noble idea, just not a practice I see very often. :dunno:

     
  31. Henning

    Henning Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    39,482
    Location:
    Ft Lauderdale FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iHenning
    You are assuming linear increase in risk which is false. The risk of each take off increases geometrically with weight, a.k.a. Drag and the kinetic energy required to over come it, and that has a multiplier with how much explosive you are a carrying into the crash on take off when you can't out climb the trees or power lines because after you used all the runway to get off the ground, you find you don't have the power available to get out of ground effect. There's several good You Tube videos of that happening. The logic you are using is based on flawed premis and will not serve you particularly well. If you think every landing you make is high risk, you should give up flying. Then there is also the cumulative effect in stress and fatigue on the airframe. Once the rivets start smoking, the period of time you have left before you basically have a scrap airframe is limited to very likely your next annual cycle or two.

    While many things are done reasonably safely on a "ferry permit", it should be noted that they are called 'special flight permits' for a reason, they aren't meant to operate in that condition day to day. It's like anything else, it's an odds thing. You minimize your exposure to the odds whenever possible and accept (or reject) them only when necessary.
     
  32. Henning

    Henning Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    39,482
    Location:
    Ft Lauderdale FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iHenning
    It has also happened many times with fatal consequences resulting; it's all a game of odds. You get six links in an accident chain, then you die. Be a shame to have too much energy via fuel coming into a crash so you have that much more impact force, bonus if the tanks rupture and spray all that fuel all over in a fine explosive mist. With the extra fuel, you need and exponentially greater amount of kinetic energy to keep flying when the fan shuts off. Your kinetic energy into the crash is the key component to reduce to increase survivability.
     
  33. bluerooster

    bluerooster Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,481
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    shorty
    Another thing to consider in this W&B is the B. Suppose you take off 50-100# over gross, within the CG envelope. Then as you burn fuel, you find yourself right at or mabe even under gross, with way aft CG. :yikes:
    I would think that if you actually plan to fly over gross, best to take into account migrating CG as fuel is burned.
     
  34. RoscoeT

    RoscoeT Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,320
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    RoscoeT
    You've obviously missed the parts where Hocky educated the hell out of us. ;)
     
  35. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky
    Glad to have been of help!

    :D
     
  36. bullwinkle

    bullwinkle Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,897
    Location:
    The South
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bullwinkle
    Apparently the measure of a participant's reasonableness is the degree to which they agree with your position? :confused:
     
  37. FastEddieB

    FastEddieB Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    8,724
    Location:
    Mineral Bluff, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fast Eddie B
    If you are over gross, there is no CG envelope published for that weight.

    I suppose one could ASSUME that the envelope continues upwards with more or less the same shape.

    And probably be right.

    But once we enter the grey area of assumptions and probabilities, we are beyond what the designers of the plane have tested.

    Again, good luck with that.
     
  38. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky


    Exactly. Because this time I happen to be right. I am gifted with the ability to know when I am right. When I'm not right this is quickly rectified so that I am right in that situation the next time it presents itself.
     
  39. Hocky

    Hocky Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    213
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Hocky
    So I've been looking at these CG envelopes. They always seem to be bounded by straight lines. Always. Are there any examples that are not? Any with curved lines (non linear)? So... then it would appear that assuming that the envelope continues linearly beyond the level of gross weight would be an excellent assumption.
     
  40. JimNtexas

    JimNtexas Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,200
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim - In Texas!
    don't feed the troll!