Nah.
I don't know about the USAF, but when we flew the -3 on the lockheed tables, the stuff the chiefs had to do after EVERY return..."you mean we can't just load up and go again?"......."no, son. You can't".wabower said:
Nah.
When the bathroom scale located at the cargo door, totals 900. That is max legal gross, and IIRC, at Mt. Home- the highest GW departure for the folks I was taking, with an "out" was 750. And that late morning, the scale got to 710. 4570 minus 200 with 5000 feet on a hot summer day. And that's all, folks.
I don't know about the USAF, but when we flew the -3 on the lockheed tables, the stuff the chiefs had to do after EVERY return..."you mean we can't just load up and go again?"......."no, son. You can't".
The airplane doesn't know it is 20 or 30 pounds overweight. My 172 hadn't been on a scale in 15 years, the new owner put it on a scale and it lost 30 pounds of useful load, which means when I was flying at gross I was 30 pounds overweight.
Yet here I am sitting here typing to my friends on the internet. Is it a good idea? No. Will flying 30 pounds over gross during winter in the flatlands kill you? Probably not.
Because that is not true, and anyone who acts on that false hypothesis is just fooling him/herself.
"All the time"? Hardly. And they rarely if ever come without a physical change to the aircraft or at least to its operating limitations.
Not true either. For example, to get the full GW increase in the C-172, you also have to change the flap travel limit. In the Grumman AA-5/5A, with the O-360 STC, you also have to swap the center spar for a Tiger spar to get the GW increase -- otherwise, the MGW stays at the original 2200.
The airplane doesn't know it is 20 or 30 pounds overweight. My 172 hadn't been on a scale in 15 years, the new owner put it on a scale and it lost 30 pounds of useful load, which means when I was flying at gross I was 30 pounds overweight.
Yet here I am sitting here typing to my friends on the internet. Is it a good idea? No. Will flying 30 pounds over gross during winter in the flatlands kill you? Probably not.
I wonder if this was the female controller that seems to have a snarky attitude a lot.
If the $10K + that my insurance saved me at my first annual is an illusion, then I'll take it over reality any day.
Besides, carrying hull insurance is a condition of my hangar lease.
"May you find your way as pleasant."
I never said anything happened to my engine. I (more accurately the previous owner, but I inherited the problem) had a mouse nest above my headliner. The spar carrythrough was corroded beyond airworthiness limits and needed replacement.
While I agree that flying with an extra 25 or 50 lbs isn't going to break a Bonanza, the idea that there's a 50% safety margin in the design load limits of our airplanes isn't exactly correct. There are two load limits, the "yield" limit and the "ultimate" limit. Certification rules require that the ultimate limit be 150% of the design limit (e.g. 3.8 * MGW) but the yield limit requires no margins at all. Stress beyond the actual yield limit will cause permanent deformation and generally make an airplane unairworthy. It does require stress beyond the ultimate limit to catastrophically fail a major structural component though so it is technically/theoretically true that the wings won't fall off when the loads are less than 150% of the design limit.
The Bonanza was certified in the utility category (max +4.4G). All the STCs I've seen that include a GW increase (+150 to 200 lbs with tip tanks or +400 lb with tips and turbocharging) change the category to standard (+3.8G).
I already did. You just seem to disbelieve the basic laws of physics, mechanical engineering, and materials science.
Never said otherwise, but it's very rare without physical or opeerating limit changes, and not something done on a whim without a lot of engineering analysis.
One time only. Each time you overstress the structure beyond its intended operational limit, a little bit more of the safety margin is lost.
Pure speculation unsupported by engineering analysis.
Nah. they'll leave it for the NEXT guy, who flies with the weakened spar, unbenounced to the poor schluck....Remember, you don't want to look stupid in the NTSB report.
They do. The issue is how the planes are flown. The FAA trusts those professionals to stay within the reduced limits for such operations. They do not trust others the same.
No Kidding. One of the slowest, most painful climbs of my life was in a 177RG 200 or so under gross a couple summers ago, but we had anticipated the bad performance and planned a departure over decending terrain, so there were no suprises.
Coincidentally one of the slowest, most painful takeoffs I ever experienced was in a 180 HP FG Cardinal, leaving Grand Canyon airport around noon on a hot summer day.
