What happens if I land a 182 over max GW?

Pi1otguy

Pi1otguy

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,463
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Fox McCloud
During the written checkout test for my FBO's 182 I noticed that this is the first ASEL I've flown that has a max higher takeoff weight then landing weight. IIRC its about a 60 lbs difference. I always fly withing the limits, but have a hard time imagining myself circling the airport for an hour or so if an inflight emergency was to present itself near max GW.

For example, lets say I experienced complete loss of oil pressure with the accompanying prop overspeed and higher temps. I'd expect the engine to die soon. Therefore I'd like to land ASAP with some power instead of waiting until I become a glider. But would the overweight landing cause the gear to bend or shear off and turn an engine inspection into major body work?

Is this T-O weight vs landing weight diffence common among 4-6 seat asel over 3000lbs?
 
Last edited:
If you land gently, probably nothing. However, an overweight landing inspection should be made to ensure that there is no damage. And yes, it is common once you leave the simple 2/4-seat light plane category (more than an Archer or Skyhawk/Cardinal).
 
IIRC, they address it in the expanded procedures section, so go by what they say there. As Ron said, land gently and it shouldn't be a problem.
 
...as in leave 1400 rpm on the prop and do a soft field touchdown....This is a common limitation in the 4000 pound class of aircraft.
 
So basically I a soft field should avoid addition problems during an event. Sounds alot like my cfi talking me through a gear malfunction in a Sierra.

Is max TO GW determined more by lift availible (climb ability, wing spar, etc) or the landing gear? IOW, if a higher HP engine were used would the GW go up (a la C172)?

BTW, I had no idea R. Levy was still on the 'net. I thought the "other site" made him give it up for good.
 
Pi1otguy said:
During the written checkout test for my FBO's 182 I noticed that this is the first ASEL I've flown that has a max higher takeoff weight then landing weight. IIRC its about a 300 lbs difference. I always fly withing the limits, but have a hard time imagining myself circling the airport for an hour or so if an inflight emergency was to present itself near max GW.

Is this T-O weight vs landing weight diffence common among 4-6 seat asel over 3000lbs?
Click to expand...
FWIW, Not all 182's have this restriction. It is just for certain models.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Is max TO GW determined more by lift availible (climb ability, wing spar, etc) or the landing gear? IOW, if a higher HP engine were used would the GW go up (a la C172)?
Click to expand...
There are several factors that play into gross weight. Wing strength, landing gear strength, attach point strength, rate of climb, propeller clearance in a drop test (ie gear flex), stall speed, among others. So raising gross weight depends on all of these things meeting certain standards. Different models have different limiting factors, which is why sometimes you get gross weight increases that can be retrofit to earlier models and sometimes you don't. Depends on the airplane.
 
Pi1otguy said:
During the written checkout test for my FBO's 182 I noticed that this is the first ASEL I've flown that has a max higher takeoff weight then landing weight. IIRC its about a 300 lbs difference. I always fly withing the limits, but have a hard time imagining myself circling the airport for an hour or so if an inflight emergency was to present itself near max GW.

For example, lets say I experienced complete loss of oil pressure with the accompanying prop overspeed and higher temps. I'd expect the engine to die soon. Therefore I'd like to land ASAP with some power instead of waiting until I become a glider. But would the overweight landing cause the gear to bend or shear off and turn an engine inspection into major body work?

Is this T-O weight vs landing weight diffence common among 4-6 seat asel over 3000lbs?
Click to expand...

I too fly 182s and have "accidentally" flown them over gross. It really is a non-event if you are gentle with them. That limitation is most likely for the gear strength. If the gear gets over loaded with a hard landing you may either bend the gear and/or bend the prop.

I'd be landing on a paved runway and not grass.

I'd not worry unless you had a hard landing......& were over gross
 
For more information on what goes into max gross weight determinations, see Part 23 of the FAR's (which ain't in your FAR/AIM book).
 
Pi1otguy said:
What is this grass runway you speak of? If I land on grass then I better have a darn good reason per the FBO rules.
Click to expand...


...another excellent reason to own your own airplane!
 
I was astounded at your figure of a 300# difference between the ramp wt and the max landing wt... It's only 90# difference in a King Air 200.

So I thought I'd look at my POH for the C182RG that I taught in for several years. The difference there is only 12 pounds. (3112/3100) Obviously the difference is expected to be burned during taxi and runup, and generally was probably pretty close to the actual burn.

So I was kind of wondering whether the 300# figure was accurate? You would have to burn 50 gals off (or throw someone out ;) ) before you could land, if you had taken off at MGW.

And that in an aircraft which only held between 60-80 gals in the older models, 92 gals of fuel in the newer models with wet wings.

According to Cessna's website, the difference in the MRW vs MLW is 60# in the C182T. 3110/2950, (with a 3100 MTW)

I absolutely agree with all the sentiments that landing any aircraft near, at, or above MLW should be done as gently as possible! (But then I have never encouraged anyone to slam a plane onto the ground... ;) )
 
colomtnflyer said:
I was astounded at your figure of a 300# difference between the ramp wt and the max landing wt... It's only 90# difference in a King Air 200.
Click to expand...
For the Piper Aztec, it's 260 lb difference (5200/4940), which is about 43 gallons of fuel, or about an hour and a half at normal cruise. In addition, the Aztec has a 4400 lb zero fuel weight, so you can only put about 1200 lb in the cabin no matter what. But since the Aztec carries about 6 hours of fuel with full tanks, short-loading fuel to take 6 people a short distance doesn't put you in a bind -- now you only have 4.5 hours fuel to fly for an hour, and I can live with that.

According to Cessna's website, the difference in the MRW vs MLW is 60# in the C182T. 3110/2950, (with a 3100 MTW)
Click to expand...
Remind me to double-check your flight planning when I fly with you -- I think the difference is 160#, not 60#. And yes, that will take a C-182 about 1+45 to burn off.
 
Last edited:
colomtnflyer said:
I was astounded at your figure of a 300# difference between the ramp wt and the max landing wt... It's only 90# difference in a King Air 200.

According to Cessna's website, the difference in the MRW vs MLW is 60# in the C182T. 3110/2950, (with a 3100 MTW)
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Its a C182R so its probably about 3110/2950 (I don't have the W&B with me). I think that I mixed up its MLW with some other a/c. Since thats the case then I won't feel bad if I *have* to come down.
 
Cap'n Ron...mea culpa... I did not get that correct as I typed it... I did mean to type 160# not 60... :( my math skills aren't THAT bad... lol (just my typing skills are!)

You know, as I think about it, I wonder if the reason for the lower MLW in the newer 182's vs the older ones is the wet wing itself. Holding more fuel, and further out on the wing, would change the moment of the wing considerably.... and create an adverse flexing of the wing during touchdown. (just speculation, of course...)

Anybody have any ideas why the 182 has a lower MLW now than it did in its earlier versions?
 
Last edited:
colomtnflyer said:
You know, as I think about it, I wonder if the reason for the lower MLW in the newer 182's vs the older ones is the wet wing itself. Holding more fuel, and further out on the wing, would change the moment of the wing considerably.... and create an adverse flexing of the wing during touchdown. (just speculation, of course...)
Click to expand...
Also, a wet wing may lose the integrity of the fuel seal with less flexing than a wing with an integral tank.
 
Because the max weights went up when the thrust available increased with the Lycoming engine and new prop, I suspect that it's more likely an issue of meeting the 3.3% balked landing flaps-down climb gradient than a wing strength issue, but it still might be a landing gear strength issue, so it would not be wise to assume otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top