So, with four 80kg people but no bags or anything else, like covers, dinghy etc., that would be 90 litres of fuel.
Yes, but of course, not being over MTOW does not mean not being overweight…
They might have burned off a lot of those 90 litres and some people weigh 60kg.
Without the report, it’s impossible to say if they were overgross – in a C172N, you don’t need to be a jockey to have 4 adults – 4 me-sized adults will fit in a C172N and leave enough for more than half fuel (and I’m not a jockey). However, a C172N close to gross weight is pretty anaemic – I know, I’ve flown one at gross once or twice. I wouldn’t want to fly a C172 at gross weight off an upsloping runway with a tailwind, that’s for sure.
I agree – I once took some friends up in a 172M and quickly realised I would have to leave one out (two weighed 130kg and one was 100). There was nothing scary about it, but it was easy to see how one could get into trouble. On the other hand you might still have a reasonable margin with 4 × 70kg adults and an hour’s reserve of fuel.
tschnell wrote:
659 kg. MTOW 1043 kg.
Actually that is not too bad… 384 kgs payload, I’ve seen worse for 4 seaters.
4 standard males in today’s day and age would weigh somewhere between 80 and 100 kgs each, yet however the range is massive. Adult mainstream males realistically can be anything between 50 and 150 kgs. On the other hand, airplanes like these get really uncomfortable for individuals with higher weights, so probably 90 kg per male is not a bad starting point, considering that each of those will have his nic-naks to carry like cameras and so on.
4 × 90 kgs however is already 360 kgs. 4x 80 is 320 kgs. In the former case, any 4 seater I am aware of will be overloaded with a reasonable amount of fuel. In the latter, it may work out for short flights.
However, given the massive range of individual weights, we will not know until the report is published whether they were legally overloaded. But the likeliness that they were heavy is very high indeed. C172’s as well as Warriors e.t.c. really are not airplanes which should be used for this kind of transport, realistically they are 2+2 planes (2 adults and 2 kids).
Add to that baggage, which people always have to have. In the airlines at my time, people were calculating with 100 kgs per passenger as average including the 20 kgs of hold luggage. Today, I would say this is low and probably must be adjusted to 120 to 130 kgs particularly where handluggage is concerned, which most airlines simply ignore. Most passengers travel to the maximum of their allowance and then try to cheat their way to more. So an adult of 90 kgs average would end up with 23 kgs hold baggage plus maybe again that much as handluggage. So that is 140 kgs roughly.
In GA, many pilots trying to travel with their planes will have to fight their significant others who often appear to think that “this is my private plane so I can take what I want” and throw massive fits when told that they can take only half of what they can in the airlines. I can’t remember but someone in a forum used the hashtag #ineedabloodytransall and I know what he means. Add to that in GA usually there is no GDR-wrestler type checkin attendant who will prevent oversized and overweight baggage to enter a GA plane.
WnB is one of the worse problems GA has, as it is too often taken literally too lightly. Who of us does carry a passenger and baggage scale? Who relies on passengers telling the truth about their weight (seriously?) and take the answer for granted? Fact of the matter is, all our planes are very weight restricted and if I were in the ramp check business, this would be my main concern. Take the full plane onto a scale and see what happens. My guestimate is that lots of them will end up massively overloaded.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
WnB is one of the worse problems GA has, as it is too often taken literally too lightly. Who of us does carry a passenger and baggage scale? Who relies on passengers telling the truth about their weight (seriously?) and take the answer for granted? Fact of the matter is, all our planes are very weight restricted and if I were in the ramp check business, this would be my main concern. Take the full plane onto a scale and see what happens. My guestimate is that lots of them will end up massively overloaded.
Worse is the fact that I’ve had a number of WnB which have basically been inacceptable – our Cirrus had the engine overhauled and a composite prop – the first weight and balance was identical to the previous one, even though the MT prop was around 18kg lighter…. Another one was patently incorrect – they claimed it had an empty weight of 783kg which would mean a useful load of 578kg for an SR20…..
From my side, I generally add a minimum of 5kg of the declared weight per person because most people don’t stand on the scales in clothes. Nor do people weigh their keys, their mobile phones, their headsets. And if I’m close to MTOW, I will dump stuff from the boot to give me a few kilos more – you’d be amazed how heavy the stuff in your luggage bay can become. Shields for the screens to prevent the aircraft warming up? Not required. Hand tow bar? Not required, if just a round robin. Only when you’ve really removed everything from the boot, that 2l bottle of mineral water on the back seat, only then can you trust your WnB.
Steve6443 wrote:
Worse is the fact that I’ve had a number of WnB which have basically been inacceptable
Ditto. My company bought the airplane, and when loaded near MTOW it would always behave as if CG was far out of the envelope. The plane was reweighed after composite prop and wingtip tanks installation, it gained much more than anticipated. The handling problems continued. I made a big stink continuously for several months, until the plane was reweighed again while the CEO of the maintenance company personally supervised the procedure. Suddenly the empty CG moved by 10 inches (!!!!) and since then the plane behaves impeccably.
(Some?) Planes need to be put in their flight/cruise “neutral” attitude, which is different from attitude on the ground when on wheels (that is nose up for several types) before being weighed. I heavily suspect it wasn’t, then at the last weighing it was, and the result then came out correct.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
WnB is one of the worse problems GA has, as it is too often taken literally too lightly.
I totally agree. If done correctly, it is sometimes surprising how little some airplanes can carry. As an example, one of our club a/c is a 172S, that cannot legally fly with full fuel and three normal-sized people on board. I add 40 lbs for the stuff in the luggage bay (50 for our C182 and C210, as they also carry a stepladder), 10lbs per pax declared weight and try to get accurate weights of any bags. Also, don’t forget flight bags, especially if there’s two pilots on board. It all adds up….
After aborting a take-off and hitting the fence at Stronsay, Orkneys, I and my PPL rated pax weighed ourselves and all the aircraft contents. We’d burned fuel, but on departing Inverness had been just under max AUW. We were well inside C of G limits.
It was uphill, and the grass was long.
Fortunately there was no one to hit, and I flew the repaired Jodel out a few days later.
