@ Step Turn
@ Dubbleyew 8
Yer not lost - I stuffed a large tool kit in the back (which put my back out for a year in physio) took 3 pax did the working out in the charts - WAT and all - and got up there. In the 172 I used 2350 RPM and whereas I would often get 102 knots or more indicated - on this day I barely got 82 knots flat out - waiting for the airspeed to increase and it did not. So, I landed back on - sod that. (the highest power setting I have used in my life to maintain the approach profile - interesting)
Yes, although clean I was stuck with that airspeed.
========================================================
@ Step Turn Yes. Step Turn I see you point and this is precisely my point when you mention design compliance. Well, Design Compliance is not the issue - because it does not state the airspeed you will achieve if heavy.
They DO say, on the charts that at a certain altitutde and temp and a certain power setting you will achieve an average of . . . Xknots . . . (an often lower figure with significant altitude increase and also a recommended Full Throttle setting0.
My point was to demonstrate that there is not one maxim of more weight equals more power. There is an examiner around who is not light in weight at all. In the 150 and with top fuel we are on the edge and, depending on the day (WAT) we might not even load max fuel.
My point was demonstrated in the above example of the 172.
However, as clearly seen - even using full power did nought to . . improve the situtation.
Had I have used normal cruise power - we would not be having this conversation.