Four people in a Warrior II?

[monkeyscribbler]

Greetings all.

Has anybody flown a PA28 161 with three passengers? It has four places but i've only ever taken up two pax.

That was with a full fuel load and I wondered if anyone had done any trips with four passengers & less fuel, and if so what's the t/o and landing performance like?

W&B for the a/c i'm hiring shows that technically it should be doable, but i'm a relavtively new PPL and would welcome advice from older hands.

cheers

[A and C]

If the numbers in the book are good then it can be done but expect the performance to be down on what you normaly expect.

I have flown four people in the PA28-161 but it did not have much fuel. I have also sat in the back of a PA28-161 that had been mistakenly overfilled with fuel and am lucky to still be alive after that inccident!

[BackPacker]

As a rough guide for the PA28-161: With four "average" adults you can fill to the bottom of the tabs. With three "average" adults you can fly with full fuel.

If your adults are heavier than average, well, you know how to do a proper W&B, not?

As far as flying is concerned, not a lot of difference. Make sure you fly the POH numbers to get best performance. Don't approach too steep as you will need a more pronounced flare to cushion your descent.

You might also want to discuss the evacuation plan beforehand.

[Whopity]

3 large people in a Warrior and full fuel is not far off max AUW so 4 people and a bit less fuel will not be noticeably different, just make sure you do the W&B. Performance on grass and in high temperatures will be noticeably longer, and you may find the trim on approach slightly different.

[IO540]

With 4 POB there is a very high chance of a PA28-161 being well over MTOW. People tend to weigh more than they say (especially women), and an old plane with an old engine may not make book figures for the takeoff roll.

You might also want to discuss the evacuation plan beforehand.

You mean, not sit the 200kg person next to the only door :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Why is it that I suspect IO540 and I are the only people who have actually done PA28 W&CG with real occupant weights.

I'd label 4 adults in -161 nearly impossible.

A PA28-161 at MTOW is a perfectly safe and flyable aeroplane, just keep it in limits.

G

[wsmempson]

I reckon that it would be an exaggeration to say that with 4 adults in a Warrior, you would have to fly on fumes, with no luggage and stark naked - but it would be uncomfortably close to the truth.

The useful load of most PA28-161's is somewhere between 830lbs and 875lbs.

Some had a MAUW of 2325lbs, others were 2440lbs. As ever, read the POH for the individual aircraft and work the W&B calculation carefully, as there is no 'one size fits all' approach to this, I'm afraid.

[Tarq57]

If you don't sit the "200kg person" next to the only door, you will have a seriously aft c of g!

[Pace]

C of G is more critical! If you know about ferry work with the aircraft tanked the weight would make most PPLs gasp.

If the runway and temps are good it is surprising what weight the aircraft will carry.

I am not for one second recommending O/W takeoffs for a start you would be flying out of the manual performance graphs and your insurance would be void.

One thing I find quite amusing is how flight schools will pack an overweight instructor and student into a C152 with full fuel and regulary ignore the weight limitations on the aircraft.

Pace

[JOE-FBS]

Hello Monkey Scribbler,

PA28-161 is my regular mount. I don't have my kneeboard with the performance and WB charts with me but I can say that at the grass airfield where I fly (UK so not high altitude and usually cold), we have a 1000m and an 800m runway. Three-up I only ever use the 1000m runway for departure and never fill above tabs. I think the book says I could squeeze-in more fuel and be just about OK for field length but I don't like the idea of just about (and neither does the club that owns the aeroplane!). I did calculate recently that we would be OK for WB three-up with full fuel but only with more grass TODA or a hard surfaced runway. The difference between tabs and full is (IIRC) about 40 litres or (off the top of my head) about 70lb so four-up with fuel at tabs sounds illegal to me.

On your own it is different, I was very pleased with myself solo recently at getting it into 600m of grass and stopping with less than 400m used (I'm low hours as well, I'm sure the sky gods can do better!). Mind you, there was a lot of cross-wind and it took me two go-arounds to achieve!

[BackPacker]

Just did the sample calculation for one of our PA28s. It's a PA28-161 Cadet.

Empty weight 1465 lbs
Four FAA standard adults 4x170 = 680 lbs
30 USG fuel = 180 lbs
Total weight = 2325 lbs

Max weight = 2332 lbs. 7 lbs left over, and this situation is well within the CofG envelope. 30 USG is about 3.5 hours till empty tanks.

Filling to the tabs is actually 34 USG, formally, but I doubt whether anyone can fill to those tabs with +/- 1 USG accuracy. But anyway, with 34 USG fuel you will be 13 lbs overweight.

For a PA28-161 Warrior III (IFR equipped, empty weight 1567 lbs, max weight 2440) the numbers work out the same.

Of course, this all requires that your occupants are FAA average weights (170 lbs = 77 kg). ;)

[bingofuel]

What you will find is, with more weight in the back seats the c of g is further back and you may find the stabilator response in the flare different to what you are used to and you may find yourself overcontrolling. Not a huge difference but forewarned is forearmed.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Of course, this all requires that your occupants are FAA average weights (170 lbs = 77 kg).

Exactly.

PA28s do seem to vary in empty CG quite a lot, I've seen aircraft easy to get out of forward, and others uncomfortably close to aft.

G

[SunnyDayInWiltshire]

I'm also a low hours PA28 PPL.

I've flown 3 up in a Warrior on a club trip to France. We did the W&B calcs and I recall filled up to tabs. From memory there wasn't a problem and although we did mainly straight and level flight, I didn't notice a radical change in aircraft handling. Wouldn't have wanted to try this with more fuel - now that Le Touquet doesn't have any over the summer, this would affect plans significantly.

I've also taken the family (ie 3 pax) up a couple of times. So not being 200lb each, the W&B calcs show this being within limits if fuel is at tabs. Here I did notice a longer ground roll on takeoff and landing, but pleased to say the occupants didn't think the arrival was too harsh - someone told me once to keep a bit of throttle on all the way to touchdown, but I guess that's where you have plenty of runway ahead.

So my suggestion is to do the W&B calcs as taught (including runway distance required) and you should be OK.

[IO540]

you would have to fly on fumes, with no luggage and stark naked - but it would be uncomfortably close to the truth.

Not necessarily uncomfortable though ;) ;)

(depending on the passengers, and the fumes)

[JW411]

Well; as it so happens, I have just sold my beloved PA28-161.

With 47 years of professional aviation behind me, I took the W&B in my PA-28 very seriously.

My family and I could just make it to the Westminster in Le Touquet for the weekend with the fuel on tabs. That is, four of us.

Baggage was not really tolerated because my youngest son is disabled and so his wheelchair had to come also.

For those of you who are interested in wheelchairs, the Invacare went into the baggage compartment with about one inch to spare having taken the wheels off.

We had many happy weekends in LTQ.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Was that 4 adults, or two adults plus two children? My experience of gliding - in which some clubs do get people to stand on the scales is that a healthy UK average is about 182lbs for a fully clothed man and 156lbs for a fully clothed woman. This will just about get within the limits on most PA28-161,

[gyrotyro]

Sunny day in Wiltshire

"Wouldn't have wanted to try this with more fuel - now that Le Touquet doesn't have any over the summer, this would affect plans significantly."

There are other airfields in France beside LFAT you know!

Braden your horizons.

[Pace]

Ok just to broaden the subject with a bit of stirring. How many pilots rather have fuel and takeoff overweight? What is overweight? 1 ib over 2ibs over 50 ibs over?
How often do you see the club 150 training aircraft load in a 14 stone instructor and a 16 stone student? I have seen it many times.
How many times have you fueled up away from home only to find your payload back has increased??
Have you defueled the aircraft or gone up and burnt fuel off or just gone?
Are you all really so to the book as portrayed in this thread?
Ferry aircraft take off hundreds of pounds overweight.
As long as the C of G is good and the runway long enough they dont mind.

Dont get me wrong as I am not condoning overweight takeoffs but what I read in this thread doesnt match what I often see in the field (I dont mean literally ;)
That isnt pilots running around doing detailed W and B calcs armed with scales but probably more knowing what their aircraft will do or not do?

addendum thought the average person weight had now increased to 200 ibs?
Another question? On a long runway would you rather takeoff slightly overweight but in C of G with more fuel at destination or at correct weight but just on required fuel at destination? Pace

[Jan Olieslagers]

That's a provocating post, Pace, and I am curious to the upcoming replies. Being a long way off - 30 miles of water is a real physical barrier, if one's supposed to remain below controlled airspace - and playing in a different competition, anyway, I'll risk my neck by citing from a discussion among local microlight pilots - all operating 80 hp Rotax-powered two-seaters - "of all these planes of ours, not a single one is taking off below MTOW with two people on board". The admitted sin being covered by the strong statement that these same craft we fly at a certified MTOW of 450 kg are certified as LSA's in the US with a MTOW close to 600 kg.
Why worry?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that my obvious answer to Pace's challenge is that I don't actually, 99/100 times, have to take off.

And to Jan's poser about microlight weights, is to look at the local accident statistics of these aeroplanes compared to light aeroplanes. You might also like to consider that LSAs in the USA are self-certified and do not have any competent authority oversight.

G

[IO540]

I think most clever pilots know that Pace is right i.e. if the CofG is at/near the middle of the envelope then being overloaded just means needing a longer runway.

x% more weight means x% higher Vr and Vref and 2x% longer takeoff roll.

Otherwise, ferry pilots could not fly overloaded by up to 35% as they do.

The problem is that a lot of planes can be easily overloaded fore/aft of the envelope, simply by having people in the back seats. This is much worse for 6-seaters e.g. Seneca, Saratoga, etc. This is dangerous because there is no easy way to estimate the higher speeds required for a safe takeoff or landing, and more importantly the plane can give the illusion of being safely airborne when in fact there is insufficient elevator authority to safely continue the flight out of the ground effect.

The TB20 is quite unusual in that it is not practically possible to overload it fore/aft without exceeding the MTOW. I am constantly grateful for having chosen well (in ignorance, at the time) because it enables me to fill up to the brim every time.

[Pace]

;)Genghis

Just the man a question for you? Given standard temps and sea level how much overweight will an aircraft takeoff presuming the C of G is ok and off an unlimited lenghth runway?

I have known tanked up ferry twins takeoff 600 ibs or more over grosse. Obviously engine out means earthbound in such a twin but they do fly!

Prob get shot to pieces :E ferried a jet to S Africa and had to depart a military base in Africa for an island called Sao Tome 500 miles off the Nigerian coastline and near the limits of range.

The airfield was 12000 feet long but 4600 feet AMSL and temp was plus 30 at that altitude, full fuel (needed) There was nothing in the manuals to match.
Rotated plus 20 Kts after using a lot of runway and flew off like a bird. (of course all made up ;)

in fact there is insufficient elevator authority to safely continue the flight out of the ground effect.

And if you are in an Out of C of G situation increase the speed to get more elevator authority

Pace

[mary meagher]

Friend of mine had a Cessna 180 on Floats, kept it on his dock by his home in Louisiana, on a bayou. He was well experienced, commercial pilot, and ran a business taking replacement crews out to the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico....

I watched him loading up two checkered shirt chaps, with their sleeping bags, weather gear, baseball caps, cases of beer, snacks, food, shotguns, ammunition, etc etc....and they were all 3 of them standard USA overweight....

But he knew what he was doing. Didn't matter how much he loaded up that Cessna, the takeoff on the bayou was quite simple, just went on round the bend, and around the next bend and the next bend until enough fuel had been used up and it took off.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis

Just the man a question for you? Given standard temps and sea level how much overweight will an aircraft takeoff presuming the C of G is ok and off an unlimited lenghth runway?

As you know very well - it depends upon the aeroplane and its characteristics. There is a recent AAIB report on an Afghani DC8 that took off 35,000lb overweight from Southend. I once had an aeroplane refuse to get airborne because my ex-wife had put a few too many pounds on and the grass needed mowing.

You are of-course right that CG is usually more critical (I've flown aeroplanes out of CG, how else could we work out the CG limits in the first place!), but the fact is that the numbers are there and go beyond them and you are in territory that will always be, to some extent, unknown.

If you know the aeroplane well enough, and don't care about the insurance.....

G

[Pace]

You are of-course right that CG is usually more critical (I've flown aeroplanes out of CG, how else could we work out the CG limits in the first place!),

Ghengis

How do you work out the max takeoff weight (In the first place ?)

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

MTOW is generally the weight at which the main structural (wing, tail, undercarriage) structural requirements are only just met. Typically this is in the order of 3.8g +Ve, -1.9g -Ve, 3g landing, Vd/fwd-CG/tailplane-loads: but the numbers are a lot more complex than that. The safety margins applied to those numbers depend upon construction methods, but for an all metal aeroplane, it'll be around 1.5.

There's usually some additional performance requirements particularly for twins or very underpowered microlights and motorgliders. However, in most cases there's a surplus of power so the MTOW dictates the performance numbers, rather than the other way around.

Fwd CG is dictated usually either by some measure of adequate controllability - the critical case is usually the (ability to) flare, or by tailplane attachment strength. Aft CG is dictated by a collection of controllability issues including spin resistance or recovery, stall characteristics, static directional stability, or pitch control forces. All of this takes quite a lot of time in flight test to get right.


In reality, the aeroplane is usually designed to a desired (or required by regulations) MTOW, and everything else made to fit it.

G

[UV]

Just did the sample calculation for one of our PA28s. It's a PA28-161 Cadet.

Empty weight 1465 lbs
Four FAA standard adults 4x170 = 680 lbs
30 USG fuel = 180 lbs
Total weight = 2325 lbs

Max weight = 2332 lbs. 7 lbs left over, and this situation is well within the CofG envelope. 30 USG is about 3.5 hours till empty tanks.

Filling to the tabs is actually 34 USG, formally, but I doubt whether anyone can fill to those tabs with +/- 1 USG accuracy. But anyway, with 34 USG fuel you will be 13 lbs overweight.



Backpacker...I think something has gone seriously wrong there!

Folklore has it that 3 is OK with full fuel and 4 OK with tabs. Not true. As pointed out earlier the difference in fuel actually only accounts for approx 70lbs

Monkey..I suggest you see your Flying Club and go thru the actual figures, for the subject aircraft with them, rather than relying on information from here!

[Pilot DAR]

I have condoned flying overweight, when it's done in accordance with an approval. It can be done, but somewhere, you are sacrificing a safety characteristic. If you reconize where you're making that sacrifice, and compensate, it can work. That's why we find an APPROVED way to do it! For example, Cessna will tell you right in the Type Certificate Data Sheet for a few of their models how to do it.

In most cases, however, the gross weight limit for any given aircraft is a product of what it was able to demonstrated at the point of reaching one of many certification limits - there are many.

When I think back on how aircraft have been presented to me for design approval flight test, the most common failing in preparation was the weight and balance. Therefore, if it is at all critical for the flight, I witness the weighing of the aircraft, and do the math myself.

I could go on and on here with the errors I have found in test subject aircraft, and aircraft at large. I can't type that much!

A few scary highlights:

A 8700 pound GW aircraft presented to me for flight test, with a fresh W&B by weighing. Everything within limits, but I noticed that the measured weight on the right wheel was 280 pounds more than that of the left. "why?" I asked. No good answer (fuel and all variables were as they should be). Weigh it again... They did, and the numbers were all completely different. I then had three more weighings done, saw the new numbers were close and averaged them. (I wanted it right, I was spinning this aircraft at GW, both C of G limits).

After test flying spin testing a modified C 185, which was ballasted to the aft limit at GW, (it was compliant but poor to fly). I complained the something was wrong, new W&B calculated, the aircraft had been several inches behind the aft limit for my test! I should have caught that before flying!

A client calls for removal of a float installation limitation on a Stinson, which prohibits back seat occupancy. I ask for the the weight and balance for the float equipped aircraft. I do the math. As is, with two front seat occupants, this aircraft is nearly never flown within the C of G range, it's always out aft (the most dangerous side).

and worst, back in my early days, I regularly flew freight in the owner's 182. He loaded, I flew - 6 hours each way. I departed a 1600' turf strip. The one morning he says "Fly 'er careful, she's real heavy today...". Okay, and off I go. Yep it felt heavy! I was very gentle and cautious for the whole flight. When I reached my destination, I tallied what I unloaded. I had been more than 800 pounds overgross on takeoff!

Pace and IO are right, in the real world, planes fly overgross some times. Those two fat guys in the 152 are a perfect, and all too common, example. Planning to do it without the legally required approvals, exposes you to all kinds of safety concerns and penaties. Can you look your passenger in the eye, and say "I'm about to fly you in an aircraft which is overweight and not approved"? No one's going to get you for being accidentally 30 pounds over, but that extra person is a very bad idea!

Yes, I once sent a pilot to fly circles for an hour, to get a Caravan back to the weight it needed to be to begin our testing.

[Final 3 Greens]

On a long runway would you rather takeoff slightly overweight but in C of G with more fuel at destination or at correct weight but just on required fuel at destination?

As a PPL, I don't need to get anywhere badly enough to make this decision. Apologies to Ghengis who already made this point, but I don't think repeating it does any harm.

Quick replan and either stop for gas on the way, reduce the load, change the destination or cancel the flight.

Like you, I've seen 152's stagger into the air overweight, I quit a flying school with such a attitude and found a decent one.

If one thinks it through, in a logical and rational manner, by flying overweight (as commander) you are invalidating your insurance in the event of an incident, making yourself a criminal if there is a bang and the authorities decide to prosecute and possibly disinheriting your family - think Graham Hill.

Yep, 99/100 you'll get away with it, but the day you don't, the investigation team will quickly find out and you'll have the rest of your life to regret it.

I understand, Pace, that you are a commercial pilot and face different pressures. I don't have the training or experience or necessity to make some of the decisions that you face everyday.

Back to the original questions. 4 up in a -161 is going to be margnal at the best, do the W&B very carefully and if you are legal, monitor the take off roll like a hawk and have a clear decision point in your mind, so you stop if you are not happy with the acceleration or feel of the aircraft.

Even if the book says you are okay, a 'tired' engine and hangar rash can impact performance and there is no shame in rejecting a takeoff, because it didn't feel right - I know, I've done it in a PA28 4 up (with 2 adults, over 8st adult and a child.)

Also, be very clear about EFATO options, as the glide performance will feel different to normal.

[BackPacker]

Backpacker...I think something has gone seriously wrong there!

Folklore has it that 3 is OK with full fuel and 4 OK with tabs. Not true. As pointed out earlier the difference in fuel actually only accounts for approx 70lbs

Just ran the calculation for the same aircraft with three adults and full fuel:

Empty weight 1465 lbs
3 FAA standard adults 510 lbs
48 USG fuel 288 lbs
Total 2263 lbs
MTOW 2332 lbs

So there's a healthy 69 lbs left over!

Furthermore, the difference between the tabs (34 USG) and full (48 USG) is actually 84 lbs, not 70 lbs.

Take that 69 lbs left over in the 3-adult configuration, add the fuel difference of 84 lbs and you have 153 lbs to play with. That's *almost* another adult.

I'm not making this up. These are the actual numbers, in this case for a PA28-161 Cadet. I can give you the moments and arms as well but I'm too lazy to start typing those in. But they all fall well within the limits.

But having said that, of course not all aircraft are equal and there seems to be a lot of variation within the PA28-161 range. Not just empty weight but also MTOW (Cadet vs. Warrior III for instance). And not all adults are FAA average. So the numbers may indeed work out differently for your aircraft.

[24Carrot]

I would be interested to learn what ferry pilots do with CG.

If I understand the moments right, with say a 100 inch arm to the tailplane, then every inch of aft CG gives roughly 1% extra lift (less downforce on the tailplane). So there is a stability / fuel load trade-off.

Not one I have any appetite for, but I'm no ferry pilot.

[Unusual Attitude]

I remember my PPL skills test many moons ago...

Myself at 6'3", 15st and my examiner of a similar height and even greater weight squeezed ourselves into a C152.

Examiner asks if i've done the W&B for the flight, "Yes" I reply, "What does it say?" he asks..."We're well out of the forward CG limit and xxxlbs over MTOW"

"Thats fine, as long as your aware of it, carry on...." and off we went for our flight.....

[1Wingnut]

As a former freightdog, I often had to resist pressure from management pushing me to load extra and fly overweight. I will tell you what I told them - The question is not how much can we overload and still heave the aircraft off the runway. The question is what will happen if an engine fails, and can we survive, and hopefully not have to drop the aircraft into the houses off the departure end of the runway. As a pilot, your responsibility goes beyond just yourself. Crash into a house, bad pilot.

Yes, a properly functioning aircraft can certainly lift off overweight. Every time you fly a 45 degree bank, you are producing lift suffienct to support 1.5 of the aircraft weight. If you do take off overweight, be sure you don't "crank and bank". Not a good time to be hotdogging and showing off your maneuvering skills! Remember, all your V speeds are no longer valid overweight. For instance stall speed will be higher. What is the new stall speed? Who knows - you are now a test pilot. Just don't do it, but if you do, avoid flying in turbulence, keep your banks shallow, and make sure you have plenty of runway. :=

[Pace]

24carrot
C of G is an absolute No No if it's out of limits and a very scary situation to be in.
Several years ago I took a businessman an engineer to Cork 50 times in the course of the year.
Normal trip he turned up with two others and light baggage.
All three were lightweight.
Fueled the Seneca five and ran off to the Loo leaving them chatting.
Came back and we all jumped in ready to go.
Two sat on the back club seats the other on one of the forward seats facing back.
I took off and the aircraft was almost unflyible
There was little elevator authority and the nose was trying to pitch up and down.
I flew level to build speed and called for both rear pax to move as far to the front as possible.
I did a gentle circuit and landed 10 kts above the normal landing speed.
The engineer owner had at the last minute decided to remove a heavy metal tool box and loaded it in the aft weight limited baggage compartment.
He dropped his coat on top and had done this when I had gone to the Loo without telling me.
I could hardly lift it out.
So don't mess with C of G

Pace

[24Carrot]

24carrot
C of G is an absolute No No if it's out of limits and a very scary situation to be in.
...
So don't mess with C of G
Pace


I don't need to and I won't - as I said, I have no appetite for that trade off.

But since ferry pilots are apparently breaking the weight limits, I was curious about where they put the CG. Mid point, max aft, three-quarters?

But then, where is 'max aft' if you are overweight? So presumably they should put it in the middle as that is the only position that they can still trust.

[IO540]

Ferry pilots normally fly alone, and those who fly with a ferry tank (note: most reasonable IFR planes don't need a ferry tank to do the USA-UK route via Greenland, Iceland, etc, or indeed anywhere else in the world except places like perhaps Australia) they have a ferry tank on the back seats.

Sometimes, like in one case of a TB20 currently flying USA-Australia over the Pacific, they remove the back seats and ship them as freight.

So the extra weight ends up more or less in the middle of the envelope.

[Jetblu]

This Cessna 172 FlightAware > N9086Y (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9086Y) C172
was grossly over weight when it left St John's early today.
It has an FAA approved ferry tank and been certified for this flight.

They use lots of runway and rotation is usually +20 knot's with a shallow climb out.

[Genghis the Engineer]

One point, one question (which is also really a point):-

Point: Ferry flights are done by very experienced pilots, who have done calculations to confirm acceptability of risk, and factor aircraft performance. They are not carrying passengers, they are carrying special insurance.

Question: Does anybody here weigh the FAA "standard" adult weight that keeps being quoted of 170lb / 12st 2/ 77kg, or less ? How about your regular passengers?

G

[Pace]

24Carrot

My best friend and almost like a second father to me was killed ferrying a 172 18 months back.
He was a wonderful guy and at the age of 78 was still ferrying singles across the pond at all times of year.
I know in his situation with the ferry tank full the aircraft was right at the back of the envelope regarding C of G and heavy.

Not the best situation at best of times but not a good sitution mid winter with icing around.

As I have stated I am not suggesting pilots especially inexperienced ones fly overweight.

I tried to broaden the discussion into an area which I know does happen a lot in GA.

There is a difference between being slightly overweight and as pilot DAR stated being 800 ibs over grosse.

On the right runway with my destinations both clear but something I dont like in the weather scenario will I go at MAX with legal fuel reserves or put in a few extra gals just incase????

Pace

[24Carrot]

Pace,
Understood, and I am sorry to hear about your friend.
24C

[liam548]

This Cessna 172 FlightAware > N9086Y (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9086Y) C172
was grossly over weight when it left St John's early today.
It has an FAA approved ferry tank and been certified for this flight.

They use lots of runway and rotation is usually +20 knot's with a shallow climb out.


thats a lot of water for a SEP!! any photos of the aircraft?
:)

[Mark1234]

Question: Does anybody here weigh the FAA "standard" adult weight that keeps being quoted of 170lb / 12st 2/ 77kg, or less ? How about your regular passengers?

As you asked, yes (75), and generally yes on the pax when I was regularly doing so. For whatever it's worth..

I have also done a weekend trip (I seem to recall about a 2hr flight) in a Pa28, 4 up, 2x blokes, 2x girls, light luggage, and a full w&b before takeoff including actually weighing folks and their stuff. I even had to de-fuel somewhat, but the club had a 40gal drum on a trolley with a hand pump for that very purpose!

It is possible, but a lot depends on the people you're sticking in it. I also had a spreadsheet of all the club a/c and their useful load, which came in handy when booking..

[Genghis the Engineer]

(About where I am in light clothing as well, but I am a shortarse on a diet).

But my point being that the majority weren't able to say this - so the 77kg "standard" pilot is an inappropriate figure for flight planning.

Light aeroplanes, we really need to use actual figures.

G

[Pilot DAR]

Passenger weight has always been a problem, but more recently, more so, as some of our society seem to have an increased average weight. It's up to what you as the pilot are prepared to defend, should you be challenged.

When I started flying jumpers in the C 185, it was the common practice for the aircraft to carry 4 jumpers. And this was the 265HP lighter version of the 185. Though I was trying to "fit in" as a pilot in the group, I started questioning this. I started producing informal W&B for flights I had done. When I came up with a flight which had very obviously been more than 300 pounds over gross - that's more than one jumper too much. My resistance to flying these flights did not receive a warm reception. It was time for me to leave that operation.

The pilot who took my place was a young commercial time builder type pilot, who happily carried these loads.

I did send an anonymous safety report to the reporting system, suggesting that jump pilots should be presented with a W&B for each flight, including a weighing of the equipped jumpers. I am not aware this was ever put in place. I have not flown jumpers since....

[osmosis]

monkeyscribbler,
I used to regularly observe an older and very experienced instructor carry himself, his trainee, and two observer trainees in such an aircraft regularly; even in the old Cruisers if memory serves me correctly. They did circuits and trips to the training area all the time and no-one battered an eyelid.

[Duchess_Driver]

Someone mentioned selecting a suitable rejection point on the runway if things don't seem to be going your way.

Here's a question....

Do you need more stopping distance due to the extra weight.... Or are the brakes more effective because of the extra weight?

I know what I think is the answer, but would be interested to know others thoughts!

DD...

[Mark1234]

Genghis,

I thought that went without saying - from memory the aussie regulator is quite specific that standard weights are only appropriate for aircraft with more than x seats (where x is I think 8, but don't remember)

I rather assumed standard weights were only used for example.

[Pilot DAR]

It is a good point that a rejected takeoff could take more distance to stop. When I developed an overweight flying procedure for a Cessna 207 I used to work with, this included a reference to the reality that if you do have to do an overgross stop with lots of brake, you'll need a brake inspection afterwards. You can burn out a set of brakes if you're really hard on them.

[monkeyscribbler]

Thanks all for your varying responses. I've finally been able to get down to the airfield since and do a W&B. with 2hrs of fuel + 45min reserve+SUTTO fuel, it looks like i can get everyone up and away within CofG and with 40lbs left over.

TODR & LDR are also both within available runway lengths, including for high temp, low wind and wet grass, so we're looking good.

I've spoken to a couple of the instructors there too who have said this isn't as experiemental a procedure as I had thought - just new PPL nerves i guess!

[Genghis the Engineer]

monkeyscribbler - this level of caution and paranoia will serve you well in your flying career, don't lose it !

G

[gasax]

Ok good to know that it is legal and theoretically possible.

Worth remembering though that the aircraft willl feel noticeably more sluggish than you are used to. It will be ready to fly at a higher speed and its initial climb will be poor - compared with what you are used to. If you add in a hot day the effects will all be magnified.

So the first time, if you are used to popping off the ground it will not happen - don't keep the nose up - let the speed build and the aircraft fly itself off. Depending on the aircraft the differences between 'light' and 'heavy' can be pretty dramatic, trying to do what you are used to may not work.

[BackPacker]

The other thing is that during your PPL training you will probably have used higher speeds than the Vr and Vref that are in the POH. Simply because you could, and because instructors tend to want to have a few extra knots in their pockets, so that they can let you make mistakes without having to take over immediately.

If you are going to fly to the limits, particularly the limits of take-off and landing distances, it is well worth doing a few circuits (while lightly loaded and with a sufficiently long runway) where you strictly fly to the Vr, Vx, Vy and Vref numbers from the POH. You will find that the picture at rotation/initial climb and final approach is different from what you're used to.

Remember: Only if you fly to the POH numbers will you get the performance as described in the POH.

[Victorian]

To my mind this thread represents all that is best about Pprune - an honest, sensible question answered in an honest and sensible way without any rocks being thrown. Wonderful!

A few years ago I was chatting to a friend in an FBO operation at VGT (North Las Vegas) when a group of 4 large blokes from Wolverhampton or somewhere strolled in, straight off the Virgin flight from London.

They'd booked an Archer and were set to depart immediately. My friend let them down gracefully but made it clear they would not be flying anywhere out there 4 up in a PA-28. One of them had a twin rating and so they agreed to upgrade, but that meant staying overnight so he could do the checkride.

Since they had no arrangements, I drove them to the nearby Texas Casino. The Texas has sleeping policemen and as we pulled into the residential section the car grounded menacingly. I happened to catch the pilot's face at that moment and his expression was priceless.

Well done, Pprune!