Useful load question

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,787
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name

Display name:
El Conquistador
Went to look at a 1975 C172M today. I was surprised to see That the empty weight was 1425 lbs. This yields only 875 lbs. of useful load Is this typical? I was expecting something closer to the published weight of 1300 lbs. , maybe 1360. There was not much in the way of radios or other items that would account for excess weight. Are the newer models heavier?
 
Airplanes gain weight over time. Yes, I think that is typical. The figures published by Cessna tend to be on the optimistic side.
 
If it's like most 40 year old planes, there's been lots of "math" weight adjustments to the plane. Go back through the changes and see if there's a math error somewhere.
Also, know that whatever you come up with is not the true empty weight. With 40 years of paper-based weight adjustments, the only way to know for sure is to weigh it.
 
My 1975 Arrow has gained about 50 pounds over what the paperwork changes had over the years. We had it weighed last annual.:mad2:
 
I rent a 172m from time to time. It holds around 640# w full fuel. Sea level warm - not hot day it will scare you with obstacles or a short runway. I have been at gross with density altitudes 1800-2000 and it is scary. Definitely not a number you would want to go over.

Same fbo has a 180hp coversion M model that will climb out at 800+ fpm with the same load. I believe useful load is around 1100 lbs. May be worth looking into.
 
Same fbo has a 180hp coversion M model that will climb out at 800+ fpm with the same load. I believe useful load is around 1100 lbs. May be worth looking into.

Did the conversion include a gross weight increase? Kinda doubt the 1100 pound figure.
 
Don't understand. Does the N model have a useful of around 1,100 lbs?
 
Don't understand. Does the N model have a useful of around 1,100 lbs?

Sorry, no similar to the OPs, its sub 900lbs.

There are up gross options available that can bump them up to that range however, but IIRC it takes a flap travel restriction in addition to the extra power.
 
Keep in mind that back in the 60's and 70's, the "published" useful loads were for the aircraft with "standard" equipment. In an effort to make the planes appear more capable than the competition, the marketing folks convinced the designers to make "standard" pretty skimpy -- like what was required by 91.205(b) for day VFR and that's about it. On many planes, that meant no radios, no external lights other than a rotating beacon, no vacuum pump or gyro instruments, etc. In those days, a typical plane left the factory weighing 75-100 lb more than the "standard" empty weight in the marketing material and owner's manual, and that meant taking a 75-100 lb bite out of the "published" useful load.

Today's planes typically come fully equipped for night and instrument flight, with advanced displays and systems along with much better creature comforts, and so they have much lower useful loads out of the factor than the same models did 40 years ago even with a typical set of optional equipment.

In any event, if you are looking at buying a plane, take a good look at the actual W&B data for that plane so you know what you're getting, and if you b want to know what you've got, get it weighed. That said, based on some weigh-ins in which I have participated with typical light 4-place singles, expect that weighing to give an actual weight of around 1 lb more than the paperwork says for each year since it was last weighed.
 
Our 172M with a Penn Yan 360 has 1085 useful. With just me (225 pounds) and full tanks at about 70 degrees outside, 1,000 FPM is normal. On a winter day and half tanks, it's off the scale, somewhere around 1300.

But it's still a 172, doesn't cruise any faster than the rest.
 
Did the conversion include a gross weight increase? Kinda doubt the 1100 pound figure.


I have a copy somewhere. If the 38gal tanks are topped off I can hold over 800lbs. 2550 gross weight.

It was down for maintenance during OSH so I rented a 182 instead, which actually required more math and less than full tanks to stay legal.
 
Yeah, that 180 Hp conversion plus the 30 deg flap restriction makes a huge difference. Extra 250 lb. That's one more large person or full tanks. Or a nice margin for mountains (but be careful -- it doesn't change the 14000+ ceiling, and really high mountains are still a problem).
 
Yeah, that 180 Hp conversion plus the 30 deg flap restriction makes a huge difference. Extra 250 lb. That's one more large person or full tanks. Or a nice margin for mountains (but be careful -- it doesn't change the 14000+ ceiling, and really high mountains are still a problem).

In the book it doesn't change, but it does change the ceiling.


I'm living breathing proof a 172 can make it up to 19,000' - which may very well be the highest a 172 not in the experimental category has ever been.
 
atude6uv.jpg


8uqutyhu.jpg
 
My 172 also had 40 degrees of flaps instead of the gweight increase - it was a MEAN short-field machine.
 
In the book it doesn't change, but it does change the ceiling.

I'm living breathing proof a 172 can make it up to 19,000' - which may very well be the highest a 172 not in the experimental category has ever been.

Nice! Was that as high as it would climb or was that as high as ATC would let you? Any comments from controllers about a skyhawk up in the flight levels?
 
Take cessnas figures with a grain of salt,have the airplane weighed.loved my 172 was a great two person aircraft with full fuel for cross country's.loved the 40 degree flaps with gap seals.
 
Whys your ELT upside down?


Lack of attention to detail by the installer.

These remote switches have a battery in them too, that often get missed on inspections.

I have found these switch panels inop BTW, and replacement of the whole switch panel was the only fix.
 
Yeah, that 180 Hp conversion plus the 30 deg flap restriction makes a huge difference. Extra 250 lb.
You don't get the full 250 lb increase in MGW back as useful load (the O-360 engine and bigger prop increase empty weight a bit -- 35 lb or so, IIRC) but it's a hefty increase nevertheless.
 
If you want to carry more than three people, a 182 is a better target.

No comparrison

4 banger 180 HP fixed pitch 172 or a 6 banger 230 HP constanst speed 182


Other option may be a 172XP I hear they do well with 195-210 HP constanst speed, but I don't believe the useful load will be comparible to the 182.



Personally I'd rather have fuel injection like the 172XP has, but the carbureted 182 is simpler/cheaper to maintain in the long run.
 
\__[Ô]__/;1230492 said:
Nice! Was that as high as it would climb or was that as high as ATC would let you? Any comments from controllers about a skyhawk up in the flight levels?

Lots. I reported level FL190 and I got congratulations from several airliners along with some questions from the controller (who flew a 150hp M model) about my airplane. I THINK it would have made it up to 20 - but I only had cannulas and didn't want to push my O2 system too far past where it was designed.
 
Ok, here is a generic question. What can be done to lighten up the airplane? Dumping old/unused avionics (LORAN/ADF), upgrading avionics, pulling out sound insulation, lightweight starter.... What else?
 
Lots. I reported level FL190 and I got congratulations from several airliners along with some questions from the controller (who flew a 150hp M model) about my airplane. I THINK it would have made it up to 20 - but I only had cannulas and didn't want to push my O2 system too far past where it was designed.
Did you tell them that you only had half a person on board? :wink2:
 
These remote switches have a battery in them too, that often get missed on inspections.

A'yup. Our AI found that one this year.

Our "remote" switch is mounted center high... In the back of the baggage area.

Me being a systems engineer and realizing how useless this is, had to ask...

"Can we just remove the stupid thing? Why is it back there?"

"The manufacturer requires it be installed somewhere but doesn't say where. Can't remove it without changing the ELT."

"Nevermind. Just change the battery no one has changed in years."
 
Ok, here is a generic question. What can be done to lighten up the airplane? Dumping old/unused avionics (LORAN/ADF), upgrading avionics, pulling out sound insulation, lightweight starter.... What else?

Cleaning out the bilges and removing all the unused wires will go a long way as well.

Pay attention to your "upgrades" as well if you are weight challenged
Skip the fancy interior, it adds weight
Skip the thicker windshield, weight
And so on
 
Back
Top