What 4 seater? 172SH vs PA28 warrior

[RyanRs]

Well, im into the last 10 hours of my PPL, all exams are done and dusted! just a Nav exercise, land away and QXC to go before the skills test!

I know that i should be concentrating on whats in hand before i look toward converting to other aircraft but tbh i intend to get these remaining 10 hours + test done within 1 week, which could be pretty soon.

What i would like to know is, What 4-seater is favoured to actually carry four people? I hear that some 4-seater aircraft can only infact carry three average size adults before being close to mass + balance limits? PA28 Arrow springs to mind? What i would like to do is take my girlfriend and her parents on a trip to Le Touquet in the summer. I have checked the M+B and the 172SH is capable but its only just within the weight limits. I guess i could fly there with enough fuel to get there + reserve and re-fuel once there for the return leg, but just wondering if there is any other aircraft that people prefer, that are more suitable for the job?

Many thanks
Ryan

[Katamarino]

What is a 172SH? I'm guessing you mean Skyhawk. You'll confuse people if you write it like that though, as usually the model number is the letter after "172" - eg a 172N or a 172S.

To actually carry 4 people and gear and fuel, you're looking one level up from the 172/PA28 range; a C182 is a nice choice. I'm don't know much about the Piper range...

[Dave Gittins]

The reality is that most PA-28s and 172s won't carry 4 reasonable sized people and reasonable amount of fuel. There are few in pieces littering the countryside from people who have tried.

Don't be tempted.

The answer to your question is it depends what is available to you via your school or club. If you can find a 200 hp 172 or 182 or Piper Dakota you stand a chance

An Arrow is a complex with retractable gear and so you need differences training and a sign off and nobody is going to let you just hire one with a PPL + 10 hours.

Maybe you should take your GF one week and her parents the next while you are building the hours to get to use a more capable aeroplane.

[dont overfil]

The nearest you will get of the types you mention is the 180hp Cessna 172S or SP. It will carry four 180lb people, no baggage and 2 hours of fuel with 20 min reserve.

The Piper Archer 11 & 111 from memory is similar. I don't think most of the Arrows are any better.

C182 and Dakota have about 200lb more capacity but are semi complex.

D.O.

[soaringhigh650]

Have a look at the Cessna 182 for a true 4 seater with capacity for heavy baggage

[Rod1]

Have a look at the Robin DR400-180

Rod1

[PilotPieces]

I think this question also depends on how heavy everyone is.

4 adults can weigh between 500 -1000 lbs easily. That can really effect your choice of aircraft.

[RyanRs]

Apologies, i guess i by SH i meant Skyhawk SP, for some reason i thought it was 172SH short for SkyHawk! lol.
Oh well.

Anyways, so how comes so many are against 4-up in a 172 / PA28? surely if they fall within the mass + balance envelope and the take off run is safely with the runway TODA (and obviously within the destination limits) then what is the issue?
I have had a look around my local flying clubs for a 182 but seems no one has one in there fleet! I wanted to take my gf and her parents over for her birthday so doing two separate journeys kinda defeats the object!

[dont overfil]

PilotPieces explains one of the problems of the average weight of you and your passengers. Don't take their word for it. Weigh them.

The other variable is the difference in individual aircraft performance and payload. Two apparently identical aircraft can differ substantially.

Remember to factor in density altitude.

D.O.

[miroc]

Weight is technically less important. She climbs and flies slower and accelerates longer if heavy. You can factor this into your calculations.

No technical problem here, rather a legal one. If nothing happens, nobody cares. If you will have a small accident and metal will bent, you will get probably problems with insurance. Not to speak if you will hurt somebody.:eek:

Much more important is the balance. You have to keep it well within limits. Fuel consumption will be higher.

The plane feels the same if slightly over gross. The performance numbers are worse however, most important is the ground roll and climb performance. Best glide speeds, approach speeds and the like will be higher.

And do not try any unusual maneuvers, fly very defensively, you are not a test pilot. If you will scare your girl and her parents it will have negative consequences in the relationship! Being you I would want to make some hourbuilding first.

I would rather take the risk of being heavy than marginal with fuel...

I have a C172SP. I take my wife and daughter and her boyfriend for longer trips. I can normally fly four of us and very light luggage with almost full tanks too. It is not legal but technically OK. If I remember correctly I was ca 70 kg over limit at take off.

My remarks are concentrating on technical aspects. Final decision and responsibility is yours you are the PIC. Lives of your passengers will be in your hands.

Miroc

[PilotPieces]

My advice would be to get the weights of your passengers, then fill out the weight and balance calculations for a few aircraft.

Also, I would not listen to miroc. Risking the lives of his wife and daughter because its not legal but "technically" OK. The only thing he said that was useful was that you are not a test pilot. Apparently he is and his family members are test passengers... :ugh:

pboyall makes a good point too, I would estimate that you have probably about a 20% chance of the day you plan to go actually working out weather wise.

If you want, I will take your girlfriend and you can take her parents. Hopefully that will ease any worries about W&B. :ok:

[JOE-FBS]

I'm only a couple of years ahead of you in experience so no sky god but I have managed to fly the 160hp PA28 and various different 172 models. In all cases, it has been either four people, no luggage, 3/4 fuel or only three people.

Runway length is vey important, if you apply the CAA guidance (and the likes of me and you should), the aforesaid 160hp PA28 at MAUW needs on a not very extreme pressure altitude day, 800+m hard or 1100+m grass.

W+B is can kill you and needs careful checking. We normally fly three-up with me in the front and the other two in the back. If we fill the luggage bay, one of them has to sit in front with me.

Finally to support the comments about setting a date, until I got an IMC rating, setting a date for a trip more often than not led to disappointment. Even with the IMCR (not valid in France remember), we don't always get the trip we want. If you want to go on a particular day, plan alternatives in different directions. Cornwall, Wales or Yorkshire could be just as nice.

[172driver]

I really hate to pour cold water on the dreams of someone, especially when it comes to aviation, but here I must.

Don't do it. You are already well on your way of lining up the proverbial holes in the cheese that lead to becoming a statistic in the AAIB reports.

Here's why:

1) you are putting yourself under pressure. Setting a date which cannot be moved (birthday in your case) is always a bad idea when flying light a/c, no matter the airplane or your level of experience

2) you are contemplating a flight that - while possibly just about legal - operates right on the edge of the airplane's envelope

3) even if the wx cooperates (a big IF), then crossing the Channel on a hazy summer's day isn't quite the same as flying over the green fields of England. You can be in perfect VFR from a legal POV, but in reality be flying on instruments, as there is no discernible horizon. No big deal in itself, but another hole...

4) you are attempting all of the above with precious little experience

Take your GF flying around locally, same with her parents - separately. Thus you will also see how they react to being in a small a/c - not everyone loves it.

You will eventually fly to Le Touquet and hopefully far beyond. But take a little more time in getting there.

[rmcb]

W&B may well be ok outbound, but return will be difficult - the temptation to overstock on heavy beverages is too great.

Personal experience of this - I went with two work colleagues. We stocked up, my having given an allocation for weight and positioning. The inevitable happened; too much booze. Their solution? Drink the excess... Seemed great until I pointed out they were merely redistributing the excess weight - even after ditching aluminium packaging. It took ten minutes of argument to prove my case to them. Both exceptional computer scientists.

Miroc It is not legal but technically OKI dare you to test this assertion...

[robin]

We normally fly three-up with me in the front and the other two in the back.

Why?

I prefer to have one alongside me to help with looking out or helping with chores. If they are in the back, what happens if you are incapacitated?

[JOE-FBS]

"Why"

Err, not sure really! I think they see it as more sociable or maybe they just feel the need to clutch each other in terror :-)

As for incapacitation, both my other half and our son (age fourteen) refuse to even consider having a feel of the controls never mind doing the flying companion course (which I would like them both to do).

[Gertrude the Wombat]

You are already well on your way of lining up the proverbial holes in the cheese
Another one is breaking your own rules because they won't work for a particular flight. If your normal personal rule is to take an hour's spare fuel, then cutting it down to 30 minutes because you've got a weight problem is wrong - you should stick to any such rules you've made for yourself. Break this one and which one are you going to break next? "Oh, I don't usually go flying in a crosswind this high, but it's her birthday"?

Miroc
Quote:
It is not legal but technically OK
I dare you to test this assertion...

C'mon, we all know that lots of lessons used to be given in 152s with two blokes and full fuel ... Cessna could, the urban myth goes, have certified it for a considerably higher weight if they hadn't wanted to market it to farmers with short rough grass strips well above sea level. I've not actually tried an overweight 172 but I would not be astonished to hear a similar story.

(FTAOD: Such musings about past misdeeds are not to be taken as suggestions as to how to behave.)

[Winhern]

To reduce the pressure on the day, give her a voucher and say it can be exchanged when the weather is suitable. It will give her something to look forward to.

I had a close look at the W&B on my flying club Cherokee 180C today in case the entire family come with me on the PPRUNE bash next week. I can take full fuel with two adults and two kids (combined weight 190kg) with about 40kg allowance to spare. So the folklore of 3 adults with full tanks, or four adults + tank to tabs is probably correct.

I would expect the south coast to France and back could be done on tabs with plenty of reserves. But dont forget to pack and allow for the weight of the liferaft and lifejackets.

W

[VP-F__]

I used to fly a 160hp 172P regularly which with a full tank of fuel (109kgs) left a useful load on that particular aircraft (the empty weights all vary a bit) of 300 kgs. Half the fuel and it was good for two hours flying with a half hour reserve at 100kts and allowed 350 kgs of pilot, pax and baggage.

[michigan dogsbody]

"What i would like to do is take my girlfriend and her parents on a trip to Le Touquet in the summer."

It sounds wonderful, but I must agree with some of the other pessimistic voices here. You shouldn't do a trip like this the first summer after you earn your PPL.

There are SO many things that can go wrong.

1) You'll be flying over the Channel on a hazy summer day. Maybe that will work out, but what if the visibility turns bad? You're not instrument-rated. It's amazing how quickly a VFR summer day can turn into instrument conditions over water. This is NOT good. I had a glimpse of this flying near the shoreline of Lake Michigan, and it was terrifying to think of flying into that.

2) You're planning to fly over the Channel in a single, piston engine airplane. The odds of surviving an engine-out incident over water are grim.

3) If you try to get back at night, your odds of survival plunge even more.

4) Your passengers probably aren't used to the bumpiness and noise of flying in a small plane. They very well may not like it! Putting them in a 172 or Piper Warrior for a long trip could be the end of that romance.

Here's a better idea: this summer take them for a shorter trip to someplace closer in the UK. There will be less time for them to get airsick, no fuel worries, no terrifying loss of visual horizon over the Channel. Just a pleasant, easy jaunt somewhere with a nice lunch and an easy flight back as dessert. If you're set on getting to Le Touquet, buy them all tickets. They'll be grateful, and in the long run so will you.

[brunodias]

i think the right question for the topic is

what is the best airplane to carry 4 persons, luggage, and fuel to do X miles??


sorry my bad enghish

[A and C]

As usual thread creep has given you a bunch of opinions that you did not ask for and one post that you did not need.

To pick up on what Rod1 had said...............

There ae very few non- complex 160HP aircraft that will lift the payload that you require along with a nice fat fuel reserve, the only one that springs to mind is Robin DR400/160.

The Robin would lift the payload and fuel for the trip you plan to Le Touquet and probably also lift enough fuel for the return trip.

If you can find a DR400/180 so much the better,that will do Oxfordshire to well south of Paris with 4 normal adults or Oxfordshire to northern Spain with 2 adults ( both including life raft & light baggage).

Oh and the last thing the Robin will do the trip out off a runway about 30% shorter and is 10-15 kt faster in the cruise.

[Veryimmature]

You are going to spend way too much time with your mother in law in years to come. Take every opportunity to avoid unnecessary contact now, as it will only bring forward the day when you eventually get sick of her. It might even make you rethink marrying your girlfriend- have a look at her mum, that's what you've got in 25 years!
Take the same weight in fuel instead. It will give you options, peace of mind and won't be whinging the whole way. It won't throw up on you. Won't cramp style with girlfriend.
By the way I personally have a great preference for the 172 over the warrior:
- 2 big doors
-easier to get into
-roomier
-can stand under wing out of sun and rain while waiting
-better visibility downwards for sightseeing

[huv]

Your best chance of finding an C172/PA28 capable of carrying 4 adults in a sensible and legal way is to look for an older (or old!), 180 HP PA-28.

But the C172 has its advantages, as Veryimmature points out, although I didnot think of "roomier" as one of them. The C172 is also a very forgiving aircraft with the lowest accident rate (together with the Diamond DA-40).

[2high2fastagain]

Ryan, Lots of good advice here. Fellow pilots don't want to see you in an AAIB bulletin.

What I'd strongly recommend is that you do 10 hours on your own after you qualify. Then work out a route which takes about 45 mins ( or no more than an hour) that gives some nice views (a bit of coast perhaps). I have one of these 'round the bay' trips permanently embossed into my memory and I use it a lot. Then take out your girlfriend on her own and finally take out her parents separately, preferably in the aircraft you learned in. You are going to be under pressure so you want everything to be as familiar as possible early on and this approach makes for a stress free flight for everyone..

If they like it, then you can plan the longer trip. I'm a very docile pilot, but I've had a couple of people go sickie on me in the air. Thank goodness for my autopilot! An instructor once tipped me off to keep a bag in my kneeboard when taking first timers up.

Oh, and 4 decent sized people with baggage for La France - I'd go for a C182, but you'd need additional training.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I'm a very docile pilot, but I've had a couple of people go sickie on me in the air. Thank goodness for my autopilot! An instructor once tipped me off to keep a bag in my kneeboard when taking first timers up.
My first passenger was my father.

He wasn't sick, but he told me after landing that he'd spent the whole flight worrying about being sick.

Because I hadn't told him where to find the sick bag, so he didn't even know that there was one.

This is now part of my passenger briefing!

[mary meagher]

Why not surprise your girlfriend with a flying lesson voucher for her birthday?
Although it might not take place on the day because of weather, plan a birthday dinner at a really splendid country hotel, with amazing bedrooms....swimming pool, spa, etc. Probably cost less than your contemplated cross channel flight with potential inlaws.

[Slasher]

PA28-151's MZFW could carry 30 or 40kg more than the 172
from distant memory, but the 172 had longer legs fuel wise
for a similar payload. Admittedly I'm a bit out of practice by
30 years. :\

Short trips with fat slobs + full baggage - PA28, longer trips
with same slobs but reduced baggage - 172. Slightly off the
topic but best of the lot was the C206 - full tanks, full bums
and 6 slabs in the back equalled MTOW. The CofG check was
simply to push the tail down...if it came up again you were in
the envelope.

[Flaymy]

I can't believe the pessimism here. He is not flying the Atlantic solo. He is planning a trip to Le Touquet.

OK, in amongst the doom and gloom is some good advice. Really do not go over water the first time in hazy conditions. You will scare yourself stupid, you will embarrass yourself in front of your girlfriend and you might kill yourself. Talk to someone who has just landed - it's almost impossible to judge from the ground.

Do obey the mass and balance to the pound. Not worth going outside despite the fact that most aircraft will happily fly heavy, especially when you can happily fly to Le Touquet from a few UK airfields in most PA28-161s with two male, two female modest-weight adults and land with more than an hour's fuel in the tanks. That gives reserves to divert if the runway is blocked and still land with 45 minutes gas - which puts you pretty much in IFR requirements for commercial flights!

Do plan that diversion even in great weather. The one in front has a gear collapse, blocks Le Touquet and suddenly you are really stressed, and mistakes happen.

I prefer the PA28 to the C172 - I just don't like the Cessna's dull handling, and don't see the point unless you are landing on a rough strip or need the downward visibility. PA28s always make you look better anyway, as all passengers judge you on the landing and it's easier to land well than the Cessna. Even better, as mentioned before, is a Robin DR400-180. The one I flew would carry full fuel and four 14-stone people, and hit 130 kts on a good day. However you will not easily find one to hire, and you will need a good check out. You might also need a map to find all the switches on the panel, due to completely random arrangement, and the cabin is tight for four people.

Think beforehand about emergencies. As soon as anything is wrong turn towards the nearest land and call MAYDAY. You can always cancel that later. Make sure everyone has lifejackets right in hand (try to get wearable ones) and knows how to use them, and not to inflate before leaving the aircraft. Dogsbody is pessimistic. People die landing wet, but most survive at least the initial touchdown and you will have plenty of ferries to help in the rescue. Ditch nearby but not in front, being run over by P&O is not funny.

Above all talk to your instructor before the flight. He will give you sound advice, more thorough than strangers on PPRuNe, and he will know whether you are up to this (some will be before even passing the PPL, some need more experience and a few should never cross a duck pond without an instructor). The trip is not hard, it is just different and a little more complicated.

Finally I repeat: don't do it unless the weather is great. Weather will kill you, not gross weight, navigation or technical problems.

Oh, and have fun!

[RyanRs]

Well, Thanks for all the tips and advice!! it seems everyone is a bit 50/50 with the weight 'n' balance factor as a lot of you highly discourage the idea of 4-up in a 172 however a few on here and a Lot of pilots / instructors that i know say its perfectly fine so long as the aircraft is within limits! I also think some people have missed the point too with regard to my intentions of the le Touquet trip! The idea was that I take my girlfriend and her parents to france for her birthday, I understand quite well that the weather has the last say over whether we can fly or not, but then again so does health, work, etc etc.. Basically what i am getting at is that her 'birthday trip' is whenever all them factors allow for it ;) not specifically on that exact day!! I would never compromise safety to hit a deadline in any way.
Fuel wise, i will be flying from rochester or headcorn, which is not far from the SE coast, its going to take roughly 45min to an hour to fly each way (subject to wind obviously) and thats why i suggested re-fuelling in france.

But anyway, I think i will leave the Le-Touquet trip until i have a few hours experience behind me then; i must admit, i flew a nav exercise on Monday, Rochester > Stapleford > Earls colne > Clacton VOR then straight line down the coast back to Rochester, and i did notice how hazy it was when looking out across the channel! i did struggle to find a horizon with the sun shining down on the water but it did look quite amazing tho i have to say :)

I have to ask tho (little bit off topic), giving how cautious a lot of people are on here, what is there views on schools that offer intensive integrated ATPL training?! surely the thought of 4 people in a Cessna flying a over 25 minutes of water with a PPL pilot of say 60 hours is a lot better than a 250 hour fresh out of training atpl cadet possibly at the controls of a A340 mid Atlantic with 200 people on board whilst the captain is having his nap?? hmmm?

[BackPacker]

Okay, my 0.02E worth.

On W&B: Have you ever (I mean ever) flown with an aircraft even near MTOW? During my PPL training I once had a student in the back seat to observe, which still left us maybe 60 kg below MTOW. That was it. All other flights were two-up, at least 100 kg below MTOW. At MTOW, or even above, aircraft really do fly differently, especially if you apply the same Vref and other speeds, and the flare pitch-up indifferently.

Nobody here will actively encourage you to depart above MTOW (although some of us may have done so, and lived to tell the tale) but even flying right at MTOW is something that you will want to experience first, when the other aspects of the flight are well within your personal limits and experience.

Next, passengers. Have you ever flown with passengers who have no experience in light aircraft? You will find they take up a lot of your mental capacity, because they start to babble at inopportune times, will distract you from your work of flying the aircraft, might get airsick, do stupid things, panic and so forth. Flying passengers in comfort is something you need to learn about, and you will want to build up that experience slowly. Take one passenger up initially. If that works, take two.

(Oh, and by the way, have you ever sat in the back of a C172 or PA28 with another person next to you, for half an hour or so? They are a lot smaller than your average family car, particularly in the back.)

Next, international flight. All of a sudden you have a lot more on your mind. GAR forms, customs, flight plans, different airspace rules, different ways of getting and paying for fuel, different ATC services, you name it.

Next, cross channel flying. Dealing with haze which reduces perfect VFR to IMC conditions anyway. And you have the ditching risk to worry about. Lifejackets, raft, PLB, ...

All this is stuff that can be experienced and learned, no question about that. The question is: Is just a few hours after your PPL exam a good time to learn and experience it all at once? Or would it be better to build up to this experience and knowledge slowly?

a 250 hour fresh out of training atpl cadet possibly at the controls of a A340 mid Atlantic with 200 people on board whilst the captain is having his nap??

I think you'll find it doesn't work that way. On flights where the captain needs a nap, you'll get a "heavy" crew, where at least one of the P2s is a "relief captain": Allowed to act as captain during the cruise. That designation only comes after a significant hours of experience on the line.

[Dave Gittins]

The guy in the A-340 won't be on his own (unless the captain has gone to the loo for a couple of mins) - only where there is a third flight crew member (sometimes AFAIK cruise qualified only) because the flight is about 10 hours will the captain go for a kip. The rules are set out in CAP371.

[derekl29]

Backpacker sums it up very well..

For a new or say 10 hours+ PPL, there's so much more to learn and take in about flying Cross Channel.

I found the best way to do it was to get in a plane with 2 more experienced pilots and let myself be guided by them.

The benefit of doing it with more experienced other pilots is we didn't have to pick the shortest channel crossing point, we coasted out from Hastings right over towards Dieppe and went half way down France.

A great learning experience and I got 3 hours P1 and the chance to fly in a very nice PA28 Archer III.

I found also, that when I did take my girlfriend up as soon as I'd passed, that a 20 minute trip locally for some lunch was more than enough to make for a good day out, but short enough so that if she didnt like it we'd have been quickly back to base.

[Flaymy]

Backpacker

Almost every male here who learnt in a Cessna 150/152 with a male instructor has flown close to max all-up as a zero-hour student. It isn't that different unless you are operating from a really short strip. I think you'll find that Headcorn and Rochester both have public-transport safety factor for operating full-weight in either aircraft, so no real problems. I was in Le Touquet today public-transport in something rather larger, there is stacks of runway! If he feels troubled by performance Lydd and Manston are not far off.

Passenger handling is a point worth considering. You are quite right that three on the first go is not a good idea, I am not sure that was the plan. An instructor could, again, give good advice - they are very used to dealing with some difficult first-time pax on trial lessons.

As for international flights - again the instructor will help in the UK end, but in Le Touquet they are well-set for inexperienced British visitors. Just make sure to file both flight plans before leaving. Easy enough to delay the return, and less to stress about.

Oh, and the rules changed a few years back so one pilot may nap briefly in the cruise even on a two-pilot crew. I knew a Captain who complained if he had a tired FO, as he could not get enough sleep himself.

[Final 3 Greens]

I have about 200 hours in various PA28s.

To say they don't handle differently 2 up as opposed to 4 up is not quite right, IMHO.

They are inherently docile aircraft, but the handling when slow, or rather the way you have to handle them when slow is a little different. The effect on balance is also quite important to know and understand.

For example, the 'pull' on the yoke, in the flare will feel different at light and max weights.

Nothing to be scared of, but something to be aware of and I second Backpacker's advice to try it with an instructor first.

Also, it is worth having some instruction on the earlier 'Hershey bar' winged types and the later semi-tapered designs, as they do land slightly differently.

The main thing in handling the PA28 near the ground is to develop the confidence to fly at the book approach speeds, which can be around 65kias at max, the taper wing types tend to float in ground effect with even a few extra knots - then again, ask an instructor about it, as I'm only a PPL. Landing into a 20 knot headwind at 63 knots (the actual speed for the PA28-181 I flew a lot) felt waaaaaay to slow :-)

But, all things considered, the PA28 is a very nice introduction to touring.

For the sake of balance, I liked the C172, as well, very good field performance, but I don't have enough hours on type to feel comfortable passing further comment.

[Katamarino]

Get a few hours under your belt post-PPL, but then go for it. Maybe sit right seat with a more experienced pilot who's going cross-channel, to see what's involved, first. But, you do not need to be some kind of sky-god to fly across the channel; I only had 150 hours total time when I hopped in a C172 and flew it from Florida to California and back! Looking back, I'm quite pleasantly surprised that they actually let me rent their airplane to do that..!

[Final 3 Greens]

Katamarino

It was probably very well insured ;)

(only joking)

[BackPacker]

Looking back through my logbook, I had about 35 hours PIC time after PPL issue when I made my first x-channel trip. But I only took one passenger. And I had cancelled that trip on an earlier date due to the weather not being suitable.

[Katamarino]

Now you mention it F3G, they did seem disappointed when we came back with it intact :}

[peterh337]

I've just read Ryan's posts here and nothing he says suggests he is going to go and kill himself.

He knows about W&B which is more than one could say about the majority of fully loaded spamcans making their way across the Channel on the average nice day.

Whether a particular plane will be within W&B with four people depends massively (pun intended) on the four people. If you weight say 80kg and you carry three Size 8 females (i.e. about the right size :E ) then you have a much better chance of fitting some juice in the tanks than if you pick up three teenage girls off the some council estate in N Wales :)

He is only flying from Kent (Headcorn or some such, I presume) to Le Touquet. He is not flying there from Trondheim.... so the return trip is well within any spamcan's capability.

Obviously he needs to be sure of his navigation (carry a GPS) and of the weather (look at the forecasts, but actually you can almost see LTQ from almost anywhere in Kent once you get airborne. Avoid very hazy days unless you are instrument capable, because (especially over the sea) you can just lose the horizon. But if you go with non-flying passengers then you want to pick good weather days anyway.

UK south coast to LTQ is a really nice really easy trip which non-flying passengers really appreciate because the place is very nice to visit. It's very good value and ticks all the boxes.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Obviously he needs to be sure of his navigation (carry a GPS) and of the weather (look at the forecasts, but actually you can almost see LTQ from almost anywhere in Kent once you get airborne.
Well quite. You don't want to head off across the channel below glide-to-land height, from which you can easily see your destination.

[AucT]

Why not have a fly out experience with instructor to Le Touquet? This will also allow you to pass "Channel Crossing Test" which is required by many in order to hire the aircraft to cross the channel.

[A and C]

These cross channel checks are no more than a money making scam that gives an instructor a bit of a perk.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

cross channel check
Mine consisted of the following conversation with the authorising instructor:

Instructor: Do you think you can find your way then?

Me: Well, I've managed to find my way to Lydd and back, and its only another ten minutes from there, so how hard could it be?

Instructor: Fine, off you go.

[RyanRs]

Thanks for your reply Peter, what you say is pretty much what i have been told by Every instructor + Examiner that i have personally spoke to at my flying school and others local -which is (well, was) Rochester, however i shall be doing my last 10 hours at headcorn. They all say that crossing the channel really isn't much of a challenge so long as its planned well and in the event that a drop in vis hides my horizon, then i just scan my altimeter, gyro and VSI periodically and stick to my plog workings until i can clearly see land again. I will have to do a cross channel check with my flying school with the instructor before i am allowed to go solo, they say that altho the flying is easy, its the France end that can be daunting as French ATC like chatting in French and sometimes there English is not all that easy to understand, so that combined with un-familiar airspace / airport, it can become all a little stressful if things start going not to plan!

Btw, some of you mention flying close to the MTOW and how its very different to what i am 'probably used to'.. Well, i am training in a 152, my instructor is 'at a guess' 17 stone and i am 13 stone, we quite often have full fuel onboard too, I can only guess that this much exceeds the 152's MTOW? and on the other end of the scale, i have flown the 152 solo with about 25L fuel remaining and the thing took off like a helicopter! Either way tho, i did not find the weight difference any more tricky to manage at the light end or the heavy end, i found i just adjusted my flying to suit it - ie, when heavy, slightly more RPM whilst cruise, slightly more power on approach etc, little more gentle on the controls etc.. I guess i get this from years of driving Articulated lorries / fuel tankers as they obviously handle differently when there empty at 13~14 tonnes or full at 44 tonnes, especially with a liquid load.

With regard to flying my Gf's parents to France on there first trip, i can assure you it will not be there first time up in a light aircraft with myself! My gf came along on my very first lesson in a pa28 and she was sick and to make it worse she passed me the sick bag as she got out of the aircraft and the bag split and went all down my leg :yuk: I myself got a funny stomach whilst flying on a couple of my early lessons too, so with that experience i shall certainly be doing some local flights in a 152 to start with so my passengers can get a feel for it etc.

** By the way, thanks to everyone else's replies also! So much advice and information in this thread, its hard to remember who said what! bare in mind tho i have read all and taken onboard any advice! Thanks loads :ok:

[Katamarino]

Well, i am training in a 152, my instructor is 'at a guess' 17 stone and i am 13 stone, we quite often have full fuel onboard too, I can only guess that this much exceeds the 152's MTOW?

To be frank, you shouldn't have to guess; this should have been calculated for each flight! :eek:

[BackPacker]

Btw, some of you mention flying close to the MTOW and how its very different to what i am 'probably used to'.

Remember that in a 152 the occupants sit right at the center of gravity. (With 17 and 13 stone, they probably *are* the center of gravity.)

In a 172 the occupants sit quite a ways removed from the center of gravity. This means it's easier to load the aircraft at the edges, or even outside the balance envelope - something that's near impossible in a side-by-side two-seater unless you take a ridiculous amount of baggage. Flying at the edges of the envelope will alter the flight characteristics, especially if you don't trim properly.

But there's something else too. Having weight far away from the center of gravity, even if the weight fwd and aft balances out, still leads to an increased polar moment of inertia. That means the aircraft will pitch up and down slower, and might take more time and effort to stabilize on a given pitch angle/speed. It's not something that's impossible to handle, but it is something to be aware of, especially during the flare.

In other words, the difference in flying characteristics between a "light" and a "heavy" 152 is less than the difference in flying characteristics between a "light" and a "heavy" 172.

But I'll admit that the difference between a "light" and a "heavy" articulated lorry is probably even bigger.

this should have been calculated for each flight!

I can well imagine that flight schools discourage students from doing an actual W&B if they're going to fly the 152 with two-up and full fuel. It might lead to the truth getting out...:ouch:

[mad_jock]

Well, i am training in a 152, my instructor is 'at a guess' 17 stone and i am 13 stone, we quite often have full fuel onboard too, I can only guess that this much exceeds the 152's MTOW?


Just a little bit. (it goes on all round the country and has done since the aircraft were imported, but its not the done thing to talk about it, cause folk get quite upset.)

The fact is that if the statistics were available for the training 2 seater fleet in the UK and how often they take off over weight I suspect there would be compleling evidence to increase C150/152' and PA38's MTOW by a good 60-100 kg.

(With 17 and 13 stone, they probably *are* the center of gravity.

top banter

[niceday2700classic]

Reckon Peter has it about right.

There is no reason why you shouldn't be doing it (ignore those who tell you that you need 1,000 hrs before you do anything meaningful with an aeroplane), but at the same time it's never a good idea to push the boundaries of what is legal and possible too much.

A PA28 Archer (180) would be a good shout. They can take a fair amount of weight and a decent amount of fuel at the same time.

However, the weight and balance situation is really, really simple. Do the full calculations for any aircraft you consider using for this trip. Decide how much fuel you need (no reason why you need to carry enough for the return trip, you can top up at Le Touquet) and then make conservative assumptions about how much everyone weighs. Then tell the ladies that handbags have to stay in the car, but add 20-30lb for general junk/coats/etc to the calculations anyway. Do the maths. You can either go or you can't. Make your rules about how much fuel you need before you do the maths - don't decide to make it fit the W&B.

I don't wouldn't fancy my chances if I was in the back of a C172 and the engine quit over water. Not only do they tend to flip, but can you imagine trying to get out of the back in a hurry - possibly with the people in the front incapacitated? At least in a PA28 you can climb over the seats if you have to.

It really is just a methodical process. Do the W&B and make sure it can be done with sufficient fuel. Then if that works out, make sure you're happy with the paperwork that needs to be done to fly abroad. It isn't too complex, but you do need to be absolutely clear you understand what needs to be done. As someone pointed out, file both flight plans the night before to make things easier. Then assuming we're still on, it's basically down the the weather. If you've done your PPL, then you'll know what is good enough and what isn't. To be honest, if it isn't good enough on the day then the authorising instructor probably won't let you go - but you should arrive at that decision yourself before you even try to sign the aircraft out.

No reason at all why you shouldn't plan this. But a lot of things will have to go right for you to get as far as backtracking to use every last yard, then lining up with 25 degrees of flap and putting full power against the brakes.

[Vlad the Imbiber]

i think the right question for the topic is

what is the best airplane to carry 4 persons, luggage, and fuel to do X miles??

Cessna Citation.

[Tay Cough]

I can lift four adults weighing 672lbs, more or less three quarters tanks and about 100lbs of baggage in a C182 from a sensible length runway at sea-level or thereabouts. It's technically OK. Luckily it's also legal and in accordance with the POH.

If you want to lift four adults and go anywhere practical, a PA28 or a 172 is unlikely to cut it.

If you want something completely different, which isn't outrageously expensive (although you'll have to buy either a whole one or a share), get hold of a Yak-18T. That'll lift four easily and you also have the advantage of a fully aerobatic machine two-up. :}

[Big Pistons Forever]

Well, i am training in a 152, my instructor is 'at a guess' 17 stone and i am 13 stone, we quite often have full fuel onboard too, I can only guess that this much exceeds the 152's MTOW?

I am frankly very disappointed to read this. First that you school did not ever require you to calculate the actual takeoff weight before you flew the aircraft, and the fact that they tacitly condoned over gross operation. I occasionally teach in a C 150/152. If the combined weight of the two of us does not let us carry a minimum of 2 hours of fuel then I tell the student he has to use a C 172 for training...end of.

In any case starting from the very first lesson every student of mine calculates the C of G at the actual takeoff weight (which obviously must be below MGTOW) and the actual endurance the fuel on board will give us at a training block fuel flow. The endurance time is then turned into a "must be on the ground time" (ie Bingo fuel time) that I expect my student to compare to the noted actual takeoff time.

[RyanRs]

I think the issue you have here though is the fact that most new students will be new to flying, no experience or knowledge in the field whatsoever and therefore there first few lessons are usually spent deciding whether flying is defiantly for them or not and if they can stomach it and adapt to 'driving' on 3 axis! I can only assume that this on its own is quite hard on the brain for some at first and then if you throw things like W&B, MTOWs, Fuel consumption calculations etc in from day one then i think that could be enough to cause brain overload for some and really put a student off! I know that on my first lesson i certainly was not thinking much more than 'am i gonna get back on the ground alive'! After all, the idea is to study for the ground exams parallel to training in the air, so your coursework is relevant to the exercises you are doing in the air, hence why W&B and fuel are not usually thrown into the equation until your due your solo navigation exercises as this is when you must have the Nav exam done and passed by.
As for training overweight in the cessna 152, like others have mentioned, i think this is a practise that is used more often than not and i think to tell a student that he has to train in a 172 is not always going to be the best idea neither. I know i could not afford 45 hours in a 172 for starters! and if i was told i could not fly dual in a 152, then i would find another instructor who could! Im pretty sure i read on here somewhere that the 152's MTOW actually has quite a large safety margin and altho i would never even consider loading to that margin, i do trust my instructors opinion as to what weight he is willing to take! After all, my instructor has had an ATPL since the 1970's and has much over 10k hours experience split between medium/heavy jets and light training aircraft and more importantly, he is still alive!

Tay -Yak sounds like a brill idea! if only i knew of a place local that owns one for hire hmmm lol.

Anyway, with regard to the le'touquet trip, i will complete my PPL, im going to gain some hours experience doing local flights with friends and i shall more than likely get a NR out of the way. Then ill do the cross channel check ride and make my mind up from there.

[POBJOY]

Ditto Cessna 182. Full load, full fuel, and hundreds of miles range, plus ability to do grass strips.
With regard to overweight training flights the problem here is the 'habit' overspilling to your proposed passenger flights.
The vast % number of incidents/accidents relating to take off (Or failing to take off) are due to pilots attempting such flights which fall outside of the aircrafts PERFORMANCE ability.The flight manual has this information, but it becomes critical when everything starts to get FULL, and the OAT is high. Frequently a machine will get out of a regional airport sized situation only to Fail to clear the hedge at a local club grass field.The benefit of a '182' type, is it has the power and a VP prop to do the job with a margin of SAFETY.

[172driver]

In any case starting from the very first lesson every student of mine calculates the C of G at the actual takeoff weight (which obviously must be below MGTOW) and the actual endurance the fuel on board will give us at a training block fuel flow. The endurance time is then turned into a "must be on the ground time" (ie Bingo fuel time) that I expect my student to compare to the noted actual takeoff time.

BPF - :D:D

Ryan - with all due respect, I am with BPF and some others on here. Having to 'guess' you are overgross sheds a very, very poor light on the training establishment where you are leaning. If they don't teach you W&B what do they actually teach you? Flying safely is about a lot more than just manipulating the controls, that's the easy part. It's about planning, decision making, knowing the machine you fly and its limitations (!!) and - importantly - knowing where to look up info you may need. It would appear from your posts that the 'school' you are at teaches you none of the above. Scary....:ugh:

[Aviater]

172 XP Hawk = 200 hp, CSU, 120 planned cruise (Usually better) 9gph fuel burn and you get 182 weight capacity. Pack the cabin full of people, full mains and it'll still leap off the ground. 182 performance in a 172 package!