What is the most weight you have ever hauled in a 172?

Hey, something I can actually comment on with first hand knowledge about.... The 206 that was bought brand new in 2009 had 2 max gross weights listed. One was for aircraft registered in alaska the other was for all other U.S. registered aircraft. The gross weight for Alaska was 1,000lbs more than everywhere else. This required no changes to the aircraft, simply the aircraft had to be registered and operated in Alaska. Same engine, same fuel (96 Total 88 useable IIRC), no changes whatsoever.

The only thing that may change an answer for different aircraft is that this plane was delivered new and the POH included those specifications in Ch.2. So to get a higher max gross weight increase for a plane not delivered from the factory that way it may take a simple STC that requires something similar for the operating limitations. Unless the plane is operated for hire I think it would probably cost more to get the STC then what you could recoup for the privelidge of adding more gross weight to any plane.... But, I don't know about that side only that Cessna had the 206 certified for a 1,000lbs increase to max for Alaska ONLY.

Bob
 
There is a paper Stc to up the take off weight of certain 182 models to 3100lbs, no changes, just an extra 150lbs.

Guess cessna didn't test to the higher weight untill the R model even though its only air vents and door latches different from a Q:dunno:
 
Skylane81E said:
There is a paper Stc to up the take off weight of certain 182 models to 3100lbs, no changes, just an extra 150lbs.

Guess cessna didn't test to the higher weight untill the R model even though its only air vents and door latches different from a Q:dunno:
Click to expand...

I thought it was that they recertified under FAR's in the late 70's, and the math on the 182 came out 150 lbs higher under the FAR vs CAR certification.

The FAA's new math set the stage for the STC.

The STC was the brainchild of some folks who said, "Should be easy to convince the FAA that if the *exact same airframe* in the R-model can carry 3100 lbs, then any identical airframe that was certified under the old rules could have a paper-only STC to say the same thing.

That's how I heard it, anyway.

Thus, there are two available paper STCs for the middle year Skylanes, both offering the 3100 lb max.

For the record it's an MGTOW weight not a landing weight. Takeoff 3100 lbs, landing 2950.

If you launch and need to do an immediate return, best to say it was an emergency and land lightly, I guess. ;)

(Don't think there's any wording for a mandatory inspection of anything if you have a coughing engine and land at 3050. But I haven't read the STC.)

It'll mean your first planned stop has to be almost two hours away, though. Longer if you lean and go high.

2950 is a *lot* of crap in a Skylane, anyway... especially if it has standard-range tanks, but every year 'round Oshkosh time we always have at least a round of e-mails saying, "We really should just get that STC!"

We probably will one of these days. It's cheap as all get-out, as far as value-adding STCs go.

After yanking our ADF, antennas, and some assorted leftover wiring at the avionics shop this year, we got a few pounds back and have a pretty nice useful load of over 1100 lbs on our 1975 P-model, without the STC:

1/28/2011
Empty weight: 1815.9
Empty CG: 36.00"
New useful load: 1134.1
New moment: 65468.47
Max weight: 2950

Later Skylanes got heavier in the empty-weight department, and can't carry as much. The G1000 T182T is way heavier.

We also have the long-range bladder tanks, 80 gal total, 75 useful. So with full tanks, 480 lbs of fuel, we can still haul 654 lbs of humans or stuff. And then it'll fly longer than most human bladders enjoy. ;)

Bumping that to 804 lbs with the STC would be nifty, but she'd be oh-so-heavy on a hot day up here! "I loves me some useful load!" ;)

It's not quite "anything you can stuff through the door" but it's darn close to it. Especially if you leave some fuel off.

The CG envelope of Skylanes is relatively huge and doesn't really "travel" with fuel burn, either.

It's a truck. A big fat SUV.

CAP just put a glider tow-hook on an R-model (or maybe an S? But I think it's an older bird) here.

I'd never seen anything but Pawnees and Super Cubs pulling gliders around up here, definitely never seen a Skylane doing it. I hear it pulls 'em pretty well!

The dang Skylane airframe will do just about anything. Other than go fast, that is. (Well Texas Skyways makes 'em go fast with bigger engines, but that's just horsepower.)
 
Cessna restricted the cg range down a lot on the R, the Stc applies it to the other planes but only when operating over 2950.

That said I would have to try and load out of cg in my R, the envelope is still plenty wide.
 
denverpilot said:
CAP just put a glider tow-hook on an R-model (or maybe an S? But I think it's an older bird) here.

I'd never seen anything but Pawnees and Super Cubs pulling gliders around up here, definitely never seen a Skylane doing it. I hear it pulls 'em pretty well!
Click to expand...

We've been towing with the Prototype 182 since ~1964. Older straight tail 182s are the most preferred towplanes since they are lighter and climb better
 
You really notice DA at altitude. This summer I flew from KWYS to KBZN. .Temp at 6600ft was 28 C.. I think DA was 9500 ft.. I used as much of 8400ft runway as I could in the empty other than myself and fuel. At 75kts IAS I was at 150 FPM for altitude gain
 
Not sure what the story is but our club warriors have a paper stc that allows a 100lb gross increase. No changes to the plane.
 
Elderly C-172. Nice warm summer mid-day in Aspen, CO. Two middle-sized adults. Two middle-sized children. Full tanks. Fairly conservative luggage, but not spartan--if we'd bought a souvenir coffee mug we would have been over-gross. Did the arithmetic. Told non-pilot spouse that, "So solly, Cholly, we not fly today. Not enough runway." Spouse looked doubtfully down 7000 feet of asphalt, and winced at one more hotel night in a pricey place, but dealt well with reality. Daybreak the next morning, the temperature was only 60*, so we eased into the sky and began to circle. Around and around in that gorgeous valley, gaining fewer feet with each circuit. Finally clawed our way to 10600' or so and headed over Independence Pass... with maybe 100 feet to spare over the 18-wheelers under us. It was pretty much downhill eastbound with a tailwind from there.
When a friend offered me a partnership in a turbo-Mooney, it was not a hard decision or a hard sell... Just think, I pointed out, how much sooner we could have left Aspen that day, and how effortlessly we will zoom over the Rocky Mountains next time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top