Light Aircraft Crash on Isle of Wight
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify A and C's statement:
If you can't spot TWO fouled plugs in the SAME CYLINDER then kindly make sure that you post notice on here of any intended flight that you are planning so that we can all avoid you!
If you can't spot TWO fouled plugs in the SAME CYLINDER then kindly make sure that you post notice on here of any intended flight that you are planning so that we can all avoid you!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two average sized adults and full fuel will put you slightly out of CofG (forward) on a PA28,
I just checked for our PA28 140 and two 15st ers in the front with full fuel is still inside the envelope - just. Not that we allow such porkies in the group
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone interested in speculation which may have some practical value they could do no better than to read the CAA safety leaflet
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_web07ssl7.pdf
Note the reference to applying public transport factors to take off and landing performance.
Nearly airborne and nearly climbing have no place in professional flying and by professional I mean by attitude rather than occupation!
Remember history shows that people do not learn from history!
Some of the comments in this thread such as, flaps do not increase drag or flaps increase climb performance show a dangerous lack of basic understanding.
When these types of accident surface, which sadly they do on a regular basis. I am reminded of the statement an old DC3 captain I used to fly with always used to make, " Leave flying to the professionals"!
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_web07ssl7.pdf
Note the reference to applying public transport factors to take off and landing performance.
Nearly airborne and nearly climbing have no place in professional flying and by professional I mean by attitude rather than occupation!
Remember history shows that people do not learn from history!
Some of the comments in this thread such as, flaps do not increase drag or flaps increase climb performance show a dangerous lack of basic understanding.
When these types of accident surface, which sadly they do on a regular basis. I am reminded of the statement an old DC3 captain I used to fly with always used to make, " Leave flying to the professionals"!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dark art of leaning has many surprises. My aircraft has turbocharged engines with automatic wastegates, push everything to the front and go. However in the POH there is still a procedure for hot day takeoff which allows for reducing fuel flow by up to 10% to improve engine performance.
So for those with normally aspirated engines (and even turbocharged), the arrival of UK and Europe in the tropics suggests a visit to the POH is in order, even if you know the particular aircraft back to front.
rmac
So for those with normally aspirated engines (and even turbocharged), the arrival of UK and Europe in the tropics suggests a visit to the POH is in order, even if you know the particular aircraft back to front.
rmac
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ffb
Inside the weight limit (2041lbs with a MAX of 2150lbs) and just inside the C.G. (min C.G 87'' aft of datum at that weight, actual on same weights, 87.147'' aft of datum). So as I said, 'just' inside. I wouldn't normally fly it in that configuration but just to show it is a possibility that can be calculated and as such flyable.
When you say "inside the envelope" is that Weight AND C.G. Limits? The PA 28 - 140s I have flown were very close to if not beyond the forward c.g. limit in this situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FFB
It's nearly 15 years since I flew -140s (god I'm getting old), but IIRC correctly there were two versions, 1950lbs MTOW an 2150lbs MTOW.
And the W&B and C&G limits were different for both, so it may be that cotterpot and you are both correct!
One reason why one must always read the POH for a Cherokee, since they made so many subtly different versions, that its important to know which one you are about to fly in
It's nearly 15 years since I flew -140s (god I'm getting old), but IIRC correctly there were two versions, 1950lbs MTOW an 2150lbs MTOW.
And the W&B and C&G limits were different for both, so it may be that cotterpot and you are both correct!
One reason why one must always read the POH for a Cherokee, since they made so many subtly different versions, that its important to know which one you are about to fly in
It's nearly 15 years since I flew -140s (god I'm getting old), but IIRC correctly there were two versions, 1950lbs MTOW an 2150lbs MTOW.
Rather than two versions I recall that there were two categories - Utility and Normal. Certain manoeuvres were only permitted when within the Utility cat (1950 lbs and below and different cg limits).
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your memory is still ok - our 1967 pa28 140 is 1975lbs in the aerobatic? catagory and 2150lbs in the utility. If you can keep the weight down to 1650lbs the C.G can be at 84'' aft of datum.
