Not any more. That was changed a few years ago as a result of an air carrier accident and studies that followed. For the details on current values, see Table 2-1 on page 17 of AC 120-27E. But for comparison, the old standard 170 lb for an adult passenger is now 190 summer and 195 winter.
That may be true in the short term, but as I described above, it can lead to disaster in the long term. If you need to carry more than your plane can carry legally, get a bigger plane.
Over the years I've owned a couple of aerobatic Citabria 7ECAs. When shopping for a used one, I gave a lot of consideration to the previous owner's habits and body weight. Did the owner use the plane for aerobatics? Was the owner overweight? Did the owner do aerobatics with full fuel and a passenger? I also only sought the 115 HP versions because the empty weight was less but the gross weight was the same as the 150 HP version. A plane's maximum wing bending weight isn't advertised unless it's less than the maximum gross weight, so I just assume they're the same--the limit established by the wing-bending strength. I don't want to do loops in a plane with wood spars that's been habitually over-stressed by a fat pilot and passenger without regard for maximum weight limits.
I have to admit I didn't understand what Murphy was trying to say either, but I think I've got it now.
I don't, but apparently the manufacturer did, since newer Citabrias have metal. FWIW I threw in the "wood" comment for the OP, who's a newbie, for more drama.
I don't know what the author of that post is implying. Is he saying the mother somehow was able to pull the right rudder pedal aft with her right foot?
That plane lifted off in a right-hand forward slip which takes left rudder pressure and sets the scene for a cross-control stall where the left wing stalls first--exactly what appears to have happened. Adding weight at the tips reduces wing structure bending stress with wheels on the ground. Adding weight in the cabin increases it. So it matters a lot where you add the extra weight, and that's why airplanes have zero fuel weights.
Doesn't change the situation -- you're still adding bending stresses to the wing structure.
The military takes chances the FAA does not permit us to take.
There is no way you can possibly make that statement without destructive testing. You cannot possibly know all the internal grain structure changes which may have occurred in your load-bearing structures, even with X-ray, ultrasound, and dye-penetrant inspections.
The fact that some failures occurred during high-G maneuvers doesn't mean failures will not eventually occur without high-G maneuvers if the structure is loaded beyond book limits. This is basic mechanical and materials engineering stuff I learned as a sophomore in college (BSEng, University of Michigan, 1972).
Think fatigue due to repeated stresses beyond intended use, not immediate stress/strain failure, and I believe you may change your engineering opinion.
IOW, you're saying it's OK for you to do it but not anyone else?
Thanks for your invaluable input.
