Single for 4 people

[TDTURBO]

Before everyone gets their panties in wad they should read this thread, if you can't access it, it is becuase it is the CPA web forum so I will have to copy and paste the highlights.

http://www.cessna.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=cessna182&Number=158940&Searchpage=4&Main=157858&Words=gross&topic=&Search=true#Post158940



I don't think it will work so I will copy and paste some of the posts.

Here is one..........



When I bought my plane I talked to a guy at the airport that used to work for a part 135 operation using C-182 aircraft. They contacted the main engineer that designed the 182 and received a letter stating that the plane can handle 140% over gross weight. They then took it to the FAA and received permission to fly at this gross weight. From what I understand the underrating was mostly for legal reasons and fudge factors. I don't plan on loading my plane down at 140%, but it makes you know that GW isn't going to be a problem.

If anyone knows of this company, maybe we could get the specs for this? A copy of the letter?

Fred


--------------------
http://www.cessna.org/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif Fred http://www.cessna.org/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif


Here is another..........



received a letter stating that the plane can handle 140% over gross weight. They then took it to the FAA and received permission to fly at this gross weight.

Did you mean to say "140% OF gross weight"? In other words, 40% OVER gross weight? Perhaps of payload?

I can see that my 182 might take an additional 400 lbs. or so, but an additional 4,200 lbs. would take a mighty long runway.

On the other hand, an Alaskan bush pilot told me of once transporting some Caterpillar parts in his 185. At landing they weighed the parts to calculate freight costs and it totaled 2,700 pounds. He said he had to fly and land the plane VERY carefully. After that he always weighed BEFORE loading.

Dwane


Here is Freds response....


Dwane,

Well semantics, semantics. Okay, how I worded it is what they said, but I believe it would be 140% of the GW, not 140% over. Sorry to confuse anyone and if anyone is taking this to heart, remember I am not recommending anyone to fly over GW. Your plane, your flight, your life.

Clear Skies,
Fred

 

[TDTURBO]

This still isn't the thread that had the other topic about flying 1000lbs over, it isn't esay to find with theor search engine. I will say that flying a 182 100lbs over gross is the same as going 60 in a posted 55 mph speed zone. No biggy, but you also increase risk so it's all up to how much one is willing to take and for what reasons.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

That's exactly it. It boils down to how much risk your willing to take. For those of us who want to have a long and safe career in aviation, we don't operate under the assumption that the aircraft is built with a buffer that we can utilize. And this is NOT a mentality that anyone should take up. Those safeguards are built into the aircraft to account for the rare events, i.e. a last ditch effort to keep the wings on when the "blank" is hittin' the fan...

 

[TDTURBO]

I used to do a lot of skydiving, after a few hundred jumps it got boring and the risk just wasn't worth it anymore. People take risks everday, just make sure you are doing them for the right reasons. Some times you gotta do what you gotta do but don't push fate if you don't have too.

 

[HMR]

Some times you gotta do what you gotta do but don't push fate if you don't have too.

Huh? If I remember right, you were the guy advocating flying non-deiced A/C into known icing conditions. I think you said you did it regularly? Now you're questioning W&B limitations?

 

[HMR]

It boils down to how much risk your willing to take. For those of us who want to have a long and safe career in aviation, we don't operate under the assumption that the aircraft is built with a buffer that we can utilize. And this is NOT a mentality that anyone should take up.

Great Post!
You'd fit right in at our flight dept.

 

[TDTURBO]

Huh? If I remember right, you were the guy advocating flying non-deiced A/C into known icing conditions. I think you said you did it regularly? Now you're questioning W&B limitations?

I was the guy that said flying through a thin icing layer is done routinely in the midwest with a plan B. I don't take risks without knowing my options. That thread got so twisted that I fell into the "ya I'm nuts and don't give a sh*t what you think", attitude. The truth be told, I didn't fly for 22 years and live by being an idiot. I made mistakes, we all did but what was said was blown out of proportion.


So, you have a problem going through a 50 ft thick layer in the winter and clear on top? Remember, there is an Airmet for icing and you have a 182rg. What would you do?

 

[A Squared]

That's not a supercub, lol
Sorry, just had to say it.

No but it is a PA-12 which has much in common wih a cub.

THe difference between a PA-18 and a PA-12 with 160 hp, super cub wings and landing gear (fairly common mods) is minor. Besides no-one said it was a supercub