What determines an aircraft's useful load?

[ktup-flyer]

Random w&b for a 182R. Mine even still has the ADF in it.

 

[GRG55]

My Bonanza (V35) has a useful load right around 1200lbs...
...Oh and cue the ruddervator doom and gloom in 3...2...1...hahaha

...

I don't think he's worthy of a Bo.....lol

For those of you wondering how those crazy Bo-drivers lighten up their planes to get more useful load and speed.
No STC required, apparently.

 

[simtech]

For those of you wondering how those crazy Bo-drivers lighten up their planes to get more useful load and speed.
No STC required, apparently.


View attachment 86413

A little bondo and paint and good as new

 

[ktup-flyer]

For those of you wondering how those crazy Bo-drivers lighten up their planes to get more useful load and speed.
No STC required, apparently.


View attachment 86413

Much more effective than Piper’s jettisonable wings

 

[hindsight2020]

If I had access to an SR-22 at a discount like the OP, I'd just do that. If the volumetrics of the -22 are still not workable, then just go slow and buy a PA-32. The family trip memories are not gonna get crushed because you got to your destination at 120 knots block, especially if they have car elbow room (SR-22, Commander, PA-32). I wouldn't bother with these orphaned legacy retracts, especially as a sole owner, in 2020+.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

............ I wouldn't bother with these orphaned legacy retracts, especially as a sole owner, in 2020+.

nice....lol

 

[eman1200]

...For a growing family, a PA32 (Six, Saratoga, Lance) might be a sound option. 4-up, in a Bo, you’ll be crowded; even at 3, we often were.

I agree with this.

 

[FlySince9]

What determines a "Useless load?"

 

[Tantalum]

Useless load?

-the 35 lbs of survival gear some people bring in their flight bags with flashlights, etc., for a 0.7 Hobbes flight practicing touch and goes in the pattern

 

[Salty]

The real answer to the OP's question is the FAA's sign off of the engineering data presented by the manufacturer in order to obtain the type certification.

 

[k9medic]

Im looking for a Cherokee 6, they built a 260 & a 300. They share the same max gross, but the 300hp engine is about 75 lb heavier, so the 260 winds up with a higher useful. The earliest planes had the highest ULs, as they got into the 70s, fancier interiors, club seats, and air conditioning further porked them up. A 60s 260 usually will haul 1500-1600 lbs, but a late 70s model is often in the 1200-1300 range.

3 blade props, avionics, wheel pants, carpets, leather; it all adds up.

The curious part, is that while the 300 obviously has higher cruise speed and ceiling, people on the pa32 group claim the 260 climbs just as well or better. Not sure if I buy that.

But to answer your question max gross seems to have more to do with structure and wing loading, and hp just provides the performance.

Yep. My 1967 PA32/260 can carry 996lbs AND full fuel. Zero fuel "Useful load" for me is 1500 lbs.

I climb at 500 fpm at max gross weight and cruise at 130kts TAS sipping 12.5 gph. For those doing the math, that's over 6 hours of flight time.

 

[GRG55]

Much more effective than Piper’s jettisonable wings

Well let's not forget there have been more than a couple of Bo-drivers that jettisoned their ruddervators in a vain attempt to set new all time near-vertical speed records.

 

[ateamer]

Much more effective than Piper’s jettisonable wings

The jettisonable wings are only available on the model supplied to a certain puppy mill.

 

[ktup-flyer]

The jettisonable wings are only available on the model supplied to a certain puppy mill.

The wing fell off a PA-31 yesterday

 

[Half Fast]

When talking about useful load, the usefulness depends on what the load is. I have several co-workers who are pretty useless loads, for example.

 

[denverpilot]

The wing fell off a PA-31 yesterday

I believe the word you were looking for was “ripped “ off. LOL

 

[ktup-flyer]

I believe the word you were looking for was “ripped “ off. LOL

I flew around the 2 systems behind the one behind they flew into. I don't know who in their right mind would fly into something like that.... RIP

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Mine is 1305. Damn near impossible to get out of CG

This. x2.

Biased? Mebe...a lil.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Thats the Cessna 182 STC to increase MGTOW to 3100 lbs.

Basically my understanding of that one is that Cessna themselves did whatever paperwork magic was needed to go from 2950 to 3100 because the restart 182s were fat butts. Too much crap on board.

Some smart folks came along later and said, “Hey FAA... these older models all the way back to serial number X have the exact same airframe, gear, and everything else, and are identical to the new fat butt restarts. Can we have an STC to raise their MGTOW to 3100 also? Here’s Cessna’s drawings slowing they’re identical.”

Landing weight is still 2950 on all of them, which says something about how hard Cessna thinks folks are going to slam one on. Ha. Only takeoff weight was increased.

I’ve flown one of the restarts at close to 3100 for takeoff on a warm day here. Talk about an absolute pig in the climb... we’ll get up there someday...

This actually changed prior to the restarts, with the 1981 182R model (last one built in 1986). A $750 paper STC will “allow” legally the older models to increase their take off weight by 150-160 lbs, or the equivalent of 25-26 gallons more fuel or about 2 hrs flight time.

 

[denverpilot]

This actually changed prior to the restarts, with the 1981 182R model (last one built in 1986). A $750 paper STC will “allow” legally the older models to increase their take off weight by 150-160 lbs, or the equivalent of 25-26 gallons more fuel or about 2 hrs flight time.

Ahh right. The pre-restarts aren’t as fat though. LOL