Single for 4 people

[WizardPilot]

Come on people can you look me in the eye and tell me you have never flown an airplane over weight? Didnt think so! There is a huge difference between taking a personal flight and flying with a student. The trip to texas was personal so no example was being set. Trust me the plane could have flown with 6 people if it had the seats.

Yes Ican. Try that in the mountains at a field at 5,000 feet. Gotta get over those ridges..... 100fpm doesnt cut it.

 

[Snakum]

My PPL check flight was overweight

Mine too, and I was told "Make me weight whatever you need to."

A C152 will also haul it, if you can fit it in.

As long as it's not in the middle of August ... and on a tiny runway bordered by trees and powerlines ... and on a very hot day ... not that I know that from experience .... I'm just say'n ...

Minh
D)

 

[Lead Sled]

Come on people can you look me in the eye and tell me you have never flown an airplane over weight? Didnt think so! There is a huge difference between taking a personal flight and flying with a student. The trip to texas was personal so no example was being set. Trust me the plane could have flown with 6 people if it had the seats.

Can I look you in the eye and say that I have never flown an airplane outside of the weight and balance envelope? No, I can't. But I can look you in the eye and tell you that I haven't knowingly done it in many years. I quit a corporate job that I held for nearly 15 years because I wouldn't bow to a new chief pilot's pressure to "look the other way" when it came to these issues.

Fltboyzz1, you're still a "newbie" and it sounds like you've still got a few lessons to learn. One of the big ones is that if you ignore a situation it doesn't go away, it merely lies in wait. Guys like HMR, Wizzard Pilot, and Vector4fun have my respect.

'Sled

 

[flyboyzz1]

Yes Ican. Try that in the mountains at a field at 5,000 feet. Gotta get over those ridges..... 100fpm doesnt cut it.

100fpm nope not here in Chicago it was more like 400-500 fpm. and I don't think I was asking for your respect just saying it can be done.

 

[dkelly]

210

Well, getting back to what the thread was originally made for, the 210 is a great airplane, but your looking at approximately 15 gallons per hour @ 160 TAS. Good luck with the long trip.

 

[flyboyzz1]

Jeff...
I don't get your point. What is wrong with making a wheel landing on 1/4" of standing water?

'Sled

As for this... I don't see how me flying a hundred lbs over weight is any different then you pulling this stunt. They both sound reckless and I guess stupid! Guess Im no different then you after all.

 

[flyboyzz1]

I'm with Snakum...August, 110 degrees with a density altitude of 8000 feet at sea level on a 1900ft runway with 100ft powerlines at the end.

Probably not a good idea then..

I agree... but for me the runway was long enough and nothing in the way of our climb.

 

[Lead Sled]

As for this... I don't see how me flying a hundred lbs over weight is any different then you pulling this stunt. They both sound reckless and I guess stupid! Guess Im no different then you after all.

You're making a BIG assumption here my friend. My quote that you used was meant to be taken as sarcasm. As for the avitar, it was downloaded from www.supercubs.org and no, it wasn't me flying. (I don't have the cajones to do something like that.) Evidently I am different than you.

'Sled

 

[dkelly]

You're making a BIG assumption here my friend. My quote that you used was meant to be taken as sarcasm. As for the avitar, it was downloaded from www.supercubs.com and no, it wasn't me. Evidently I am different than you.

'Sled

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

 

[flyboyzz1]

"yeah, well I had sex with your wife"

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

I'm crushed!

Guys like HMR, Wizzard Pilot, and Vector4fun have my respect.
'Sled

What am I, chopped liver?

 

[Workin'Stiff]

I know everyone's heard the saying, "there's old pilots and bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots." Now, if you get in the habit of looking at a 182, for instance, as being an airplane "that can handle it," you gonna get bit really hard. And you may not be lucky enough to walk away from that one... Just something to consider.

 

[HMR]

I know everyone's heard the saying, "there's old pilots and bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots." Now, if you get in the habit of looking at a 182, for instance, as being an airplane "that can handle it," you gonna get bit really hard. And you may not be lucky enough to walk away from that one... Just something to consider.

Excellent.
Some of the guys I knew who would overload light singles a few years ago are now doing it in jets. Their justification: "What are the odds we're going to lose an engine on T/O"?

Old habits die hard.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

All aspects of safety are important

You're making a BIG assumption here my friend. My quote that you used was meant to be taken as sarcasm. As for the avitar, it was downloaded from www.supercubs.org and no, it wasn't me flying. (I don't have the cajones to do something like that.) Evidently I am different than you.

'Sled

Safety effects us all the same. We make day to day decisions some good, some bad. Mission parameters often put us in a postion to try and tweek the regs., weights, etc. It is always best to side with safety for self preservation and to keep your licenses safe as well.

My point about your AVITAR was it seemed to promote unsafe or reckless practices in an airplane. Skimming the wheels at a high power setting and your quote "Now that's low flying" doesn't exactly promote safety. My point being it is probably harder for Flyboyzz1 to take a safety tip from your AVITAR.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

Back to the tread

The C210 is a good choice for a single, but if a twin is available, like a C310, the burn is not that much different.

 

[Snakum]

What am I, chopped liver?

No ... "diced".

And if you guys don't stop misspelling avatar I'm gonna screeeeeam!

Where the @#&* is Tony when we really need him?



Minh

 

[flyboyzz1]

I'm done with the thread. All I said is a 182 is a good single for the money and its ability to carry payload. If I go down because i'm 100 lbs over weight well I guess that was stupid. But for real what is going to happen I was 100 pounds overweight with the CG dead center. Would I have gone with the CG out of limit hell no. And I know Im going to get shat for the sex comment that was from Seinfield so don't bother. Im out

 

[Workin'Stiff]

Just be careful. All of us look back and see things that we would have definitely done different. Just make sure you learn from those scenarios...

 

[Lead Sled]

What am I, chopped liver?

Jeff, you're so right. Please excuse me, I didn't mean to be rude. You can sleep with Flyboyzz too.

'Sled

 

[TDTURBO]

It's near impossible to overload a 182, there is a cargo guy that was flying out of Chicago in one and they had the decimal place in the wrong spot. After landing safetly at his destination he inquired because the plane didn't feel right, slow rate of climb ect.... Come to find out he was 1000lbs over gross! I will see if I can find the thread. I will say that of any single, the 182 will hold it's own against any airplane of type.

 

[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