What is a TRUE 4 place airplane?

[Dean]

OK you all, most of you know the wife has OK'ed me to buy a new to us 4 place airplane. So my question is, what makes a 4 seater a TRUE 4 seater. I have been looking at 140-150-160 and 180 Cherokees, Musketeers, Sundowners, C-172's and now Mooneys. These all have 4 seats, but most pilots say until you get to the 180HP, they are just two seaters with more room for luggage or a kid or two. So, the question of the day is, what should be the minimum HP I should consider? 90% of the time it will be me, the wife and son and 100lbs or less of luggage. Speed is not much of a concern for me, but comfort is.

 

[mikea]

Wouldn't you just look at book useful load?

Like ummm.... A Cherokee 235 that has a 1400 pound useful load. Even with that I would not carry 4 grownups and the full 84 gallons of fuel on a hot day, especially when a certain pilot is well above an FAA standard weight.

John and Martha King tell how they took 2 adult friends into a California desert airport in their Cherokee 140. When the old timer asked, John said "Fill it up!" He kinda regretted that later.

I would think a 180 would get you where you want to be until the kid really grows up.

Comfortwise, the older Cherokees don't have a lot of rear legroom. I have to bring my seat forward a notch or two to let even a tween-aged kid sit behind me. Later models, the Pathfinder/Challenger up to the Dakota, have a slightly wider and slightly longer cabin. Go to a Cherokee 6 for comfort nirvana.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Don't forget the fuel load.

If you want to get off with that load, AND full fuel, you're likely going to have to get into the 180hp range. I bought a PA28-180, when a 140 "really" would have gotten the job done, most of the time. I've never been sorry that I 'stepped up'.

Look at the performance charts. Figure 4 FAA adults (170 lbs), full fuel, see what you have left for baggage. You might also have to check the "B" side of the W&B if some of that load isn't "evenly distributed". (IE, I gave a ride to a pretty big fella once,[1.5X FAA std] only place I could put him was in the back)

Also, don't discount doing a partnership. That way you can get a lot more plane than "going it alone", and get somebody else to help pay for the fixed costs.

OK you all, most of you know the wife has OK'ed me to buy a new to us 4 place airplane. So my question is, what makes a 4 seater a TRUE 4 seater. I have been looking at 140-150-160 and 180 Cherokees, Musketeers, Sundowners, C-172's and now Mooneys. These all have 4 seats, but most pilots say until you get to the 180HP, they are just two seaters with more room for luggage or a kid or two. So, the question of the day is, what should be the minimum HP I should consider? 90% of the time it will be me, the wife and son and 100lbs or less of luggage. Speed is not much of a concern for me, but comfort is.

 

[Bob Bement]

I had a Cessna 170B for about 11 years and it had 4 seats but was not always a 4 place airplane. It had a 145 cont. the same as the early 172's. You didn't want to fill all the seats and the fuel tank and try to get out of some airports. Jackpot, NV. for example I learned not to try that again and I had less than full fuel. Jackpot is 5217 ft. above sea level.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Figure the average 180HP - 200HP aircraft will have between 850 and 1,050 pounds of useful load. A newer aircraft with lots of widgets in the panel will have less useful load when compared to an older aircraft with just the basics.

Figure that same aircraft will burn between 10 and 11.5 GPH on average.

Some will be faster (Mooney) and some will be slower (everything else) but they will have stock fuel tanks that can carry about 50 or so gallons of fuel, again, on average. One exception that comes to mind, Arrow III with stock tanks that will hold 70-something gallons of fuel.

There are some exception aircraft that fall outside of these averages in one area or another but, I think, they are pretty good rules of thumb. I think Ron L typically suggests 180HP aircraft as about the minimum you want for 4 real people. I used to rent/fly a late 70's 160HP Warrior PA28161 that bosted a useful load of about 1,050 pounds. I never loaded it up and always thought that the weight and balance was wrong.

So, if you figure you want four hours of fuel (3 hour trip is about the longest the average non pilot "likes" to be in a GA airplane + 1 hour reserve). So for fuel maybe round up and take about 300 pounds off the useful load and you are looking at 600 or 700 pounds in the cabin. Less 100 pounds for baggage (unless you are doing SCUBA or golfing this is actually a significant volume of baggage for the average long weekend) and you are looking at 500 to 600 pounds of people.

A 180HP to 200HP four seat aircraft works for me and my family today (family includes the PIC, wife and two boys age 8 & 9). My wife and I are not tall though are heavier today then when we first met (though we are doing something to reverse that trend - don't mention this post to my wife). As the boys get older the back seat is going to get cramped and weight may become an issue.

Len

 

[Ken Ibold]

OK you all, most of you know the wife has OK'ed me to buy a new to us 4 place airplane. So my question is, what makes a 4 seater a TRUE 4 seater.

I submit that the answer to that question is irrelevant. The answer, of course, is "four seats."

What you really need to ask is what airplane can carry your desired payload your desired distance (at your desired speed, if that matters) for your desired investment at a comfort level you find acceptable. Otherwise you get lost in the "four FAA standard adults" and "full fuel payload" issues which are not necessarily germane to your search.

You're looking at flying with your wife and son. Planning more kids? Important question, since there are LOTS of "four seat" airplanes that will accommodate 3 (even as the kid grows up) but not 4, especially if you factor in baggage and longish trips.

So, how many adults do you want to haul? How far? Baggage? Speed? How much ya got to spend?

 

[wsuffa]

Dean,

You really have to look at it plane or model specific.

Figure your weight capacity needs (not in people, in pounds), add the fuel you want to carry for your trips, and then see what useful load you'll require.

Generally, the bigger the engine, the more it will haul, but it'll also burn more fuel.

Allow extra power/weight capacity if you live or plan to fly to a high density altitude location.

My mission profile is (generally) one person, long trips. So weight wasn't a big deal, except that I occasionally take a second or third person on a short trip. If it exceeds weight limits, I simply don't fill it. My plane will carry two, plus about 50 pounds of baggage, on a 4-1/2 - 5 hour trip, with reserves. Mine is turbocharged and will go high (therefore, faster).

Yours will be 2-1/2 to three people plus bags. For what length of trip (how much fuel will you require)? And how fast do you want to get there? Will you ever take older folks that will have trouble getting into a low-wing?

The answer may range from a Cardinal to a Cherokee 235 to a 210 depending on answers.

 

[astanley]

OK you all, most of you know the wife has OK'ed me to buy a new to us 4 place airplane. So my question is, what makes a 4 seater a TRUE 4 seater. I have been looking at 140-150-160 and 180 Cherokees, Musketeers, Sundowners, C-172's and now Mooneys. These all have 4 seats, but most pilots say until you get to the 180HP, they are just two seaters with more room for luggage or a kid or two. So, the question of the day is, what should be the minimum HP I should consider? 90% of the time it will be me, the wife and son and 100lbs or less of luggage. Speed is not much of a concern for me, but comfort is.

A plane with 6 seats?

I couldn't resist...

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[PoAdeleted5]

deleted.

 

[Len Lanetti]

A plane with 6 seats?

This is a very true answer but it is a very big purchase and operating cost step up from say a 70's-ish 180HP four seat airplane to something of similar vintage with six seats. Compare the listed asking prices of late 70's Archers with the asking prices of a similar condition Cherokee Sixers.

Len

 

[Dean]

Don't forget the fuel load.


Also, don't discount doing a partnership. That way you can get a lot more plane than "going it alone", and get somebody else to help pay for the fixed costs.

A partnership will not work for me, I work for the state and move a lot, so I will be buying on my own.

 

[PoAdeleted5]

deleted.

 

[Ken Ibold]

You know, this obsession with full fuel is kind of puzzling. A good design allows you to tradeoff fuel for load.

Absolutely true. Personally, I think the full fuel "obsession" stems from a couple of things. First, carrying around extra fuel is one way to make sure you don't run out, and we've seen that fuel exhaustion is a BIIIIIIIG reason for crunched airplanes. Second, most people were taught in a flight school environment where the standard practice was to top off the tanks between flights. Third, it cuts down the workload involved with assessing partial fuel. Calibrated dipsticks, tabs, multiple independent fuel tanks notwithstanding, pilots have shown an amazing willingness to reduce workload. (Put another way, we're a bunch of lazy-butts.)

 

[AirBaker]

This question also depends on where you live. I would be a little nervous with a 180hp Cherokee near gross crossing the Sierras. (At least with other passengers on board). I think a 235hp 182 or a Cherokee 235 would be a more comfortable choice.

 

[John J]

The Cherokee 180 is a great plane but as many have said before it is a balance of fuel and weight put on board. I have owned both a C 182 and a Piper 180 and they have such wonderful abilities to fly with 4 up. I always worked weight to carry and not people when flight planning. The Cherokee is very tight in the back where the C 182 has a bit more room. For distance flight I would go with either a C 182 or a Cherokee 235 or better a six place. On those long hauls it gets real uncomfortable in the back.


John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

OK you all, most of you know the wife has OK'ed me to buy a new to us 4 place airplane. So my question is, what makes a 4 seater a TRUE 4 seater. I have been looking at 140-150-160 and 180 Cherokees, Musketeers, Sundowners, C-172's and now Mooneys. These all have 4 seats, but most pilots say until you get to the 180HP, they are just two seaters with more room for luggage or a kid or two. So, the question of the day is, what should be the minimum HP I should consider? 90% of the time it will be me, the wife and son and 100lbs or less of luggage. Speed is not much of a concern for me, but comfort is.

Dean,

Lots of variables to consider. What do you want to do with the plane (IE, what is your mission)?

IIRC you're a Cessna driver. Would you prefer another Cessna or are you indifferent? I'd highly recommend you consider the 182 if you're looking at another Cessna. It's got a large interior and is very comfortable on long trips. (I spent a bit over 8 hours in our 182 in one day without getting sore or achy at all.)

Piper never really made anything equivalent to the 182 - The Cherokee 235/Pathfinder/Dakota have the same engine and such, but still use the smaller Cherokee airframe. The Cherokee Six (PA32) is more equivalent to the 182, but you're up to six seats now.

OTOH, if it's between a 172 and an Archer, I'll take the Piper any day. Similar cabin sizes, but you get the (IMHO) improved ground handling and easier landing characteristics. Plus, IIRC the 172 didn't come from the factory with a 180hp until fairly recently, so the older 180hp 172's are STC'd. Not that there's anything wrong with that I guess.

Our club Archers both have useful loads a hair over 1000 lbs and carry 48 gals of fuel topped or 34 fueled to the tabs. That leaves a full-fuel payload of around 715 lbs, or 800 with fuel to the tabs. I normally plan 10GPH and 115KTAS and an hour reserve, so that means four FAA people, 120 lbs of baggage, and about 2.5 hr/285nm between fuel stops with no wind. Pack light and you can get those same four people 3.75 hr/430nm.

If you have the budget for a newer plane, the Diamond DA40 is a joy to fly and has a back door, which most singles lack. 180hp/CS prop/140-145kt. Certainly plenty of other alternatives outside brands C and P. Tigers come to mind as well.

And all that's just fixed-gear singles...

Have fun shopping!

 

[wsuffa]

Absolutely true. Personally, I think the full fuel "obsession" stems from a couple of things. First, carrying around extra fuel is one way to make sure you don't run out, and we've seen that fuel exhaustion is a BIIIIIIIG reason for crunched airplanes. Second, most people were taught in a flight school environment where the standard practice was to top off the tanks between flights. Third, it cuts down the workload involved with assessing partial fuel. Calibrated dipsticks, tabs, multiple independent fuel tanks notwithstanding, pilots have shown an amazing willingness to reduce workload. (Put another way, we're a bunch of lazy-butts.)

And some of us like to patronize the FBOs that provide service to us so they won't go away.... but carry enough fuel to thumb our noses at the ones that charge outrageous prices and ramp fees.

Witness KDAL/Love. When I was there in July, there was a $1.20 difference per gallon between TXI (less than $3.00/gal, no ramp fee) and the other FBOs (Regal, Jet Aviation, Piedmont, $ignature) (all >$4.00 a gallon, some had ramp fees). I'll go back to TXI, and I'll gladly fill the tank. Without TXI, I'd just fly home without buying any fuel. It's still $2.85 at Stinson.

 

[dogman]

I have the cherokee Six 260, and I consider it A 4 place aircraft. I am a large man 6'6" 280 and my wife is not Small(SHHHH) 5'8 and around 150lb SHHHHHHHH
My 2 twin sons are 130lbs and growing. 690 total plus baggage 100lbs and normal stuff, flight bag, oil, tools, snacks kids music devises I have wayed it as much as 60lbs.That puts me at 850lbs total people and stuff. Full fuel 84gals ,which puts me 200 under gross, Thats OK on a hot day but does take some runway to get up, in the flat Lands.
Climbs at 500fpm VY loaded as above with 3000ft DA from my home fld
Cruise 130kias
Manuvering Spd 126kias ( I think this is important to pay attention to when shopping)
fuel burn 13 to 14gph
Gross 3400

I also have the 57 172 180 lyc. CS prop. It has a usefull of 940lbs. It has long range tanks (50gal ) so now we are down to 640 payload. The difference is the 172 has much more power reserve fully loaded. Than the six does. there for drop some fuel go into a 2000ft short strip and still have good performance. It will still climb at 700fpm VY on a 95deg. 3000ft DA 50lbs under gross, but stuff and someone has to stay home with the 172.
Cruise 125kias
Manuvering Spd 100kias
fuel burn 10gph +\-
Gross 2200lbs

But it is much more comfortable to have the extra power in some situations than to have the extra room. So I have to plan more carefull with the heavy load in six than in the 172. But in either case I always leave fuel behind when it is hot and I always like to leave myself the fudge factor,I never fly the planes that close to the top performance edge.

The 172 has more leg room in the back seats than the six does behind the Pilot and CoP seats. The 172 is much easier to get in and out of for older folks.

The 6 is good and stable in the bumps, approaches and can handle a lot more X wind.

They are both an absolute joy to fly they just both have there places and uses. 172 is a hoot loaded light it will jump off the ground in 300 to 400 feet
and land almost as short with the barn door flaps.
The six is a great XC machine and has desent short field capabilities(loaded light) and can carry more avionics and a lot of stuff.
So I do not need 2 airplanes but would love to. I will sell the 172 (Ilove it)
But the six fills more of my Hefty families Needs. If we were all smaller the 172 would be fine.

Get over this way and you can try them both on for size.

Good luck

Dogman

 

[Maverick]

OK you all, most of you know the wife has OK'ed me to buy a new to us 4 place airplane. So my question is, what makes a 4 seater a TRUE 4 seater. I have been looking at 140-150-160 and 180 Cherokees, Musketeers, Sundowners, C-172's and now Mooneys. These all have 4 seats, but most pilots say until you get to the 180HP, they are just two seaters with more room for luggage or a kid or two. So, the question of the day is, what should be the minimum HP I should consider? 90% of the time it will be me, the wife and son and 100lbs or less of luggage. Speed is not much of a concern for me, but comfort is.

I haven't read all the other replies so forgive me if I'm repeating. In my opinion a true 4 place airplane would start with the Cessna 182 if you want a high wing or the Cherokee 235 if you prefer the low wing. I believe those to be the entry level true four place airplanes and even with those you should be conscious of the size and weight of the people you're putting in the seats with full fuel and any amount of baggage. I've heard some say that if you can get it in the door of the 182 then you can fly. I certainly wouldn't go that far.

My Cardinal has a 200HP IO360 but it's definitely not a true four place airplane. If I were to put four people in my plane they would have to be light weight people and then I wouldn't do it with full fuel and baggage.

Jeannie

 

[Tom-D]

You really don't get true 4 place full fuel, and baggage until you get into the C-185 / 210 type aircraft.

 

[trombair]

folks,

i learned on my last bi-annual flight review that any aircraft that has a published "empty weight c.g." in the TCDS is characteristically incapable of being loaded aft of the c.g. limit (providing of course you observe the 170lb/seat limit and the baggage compartment limitations).

one of the few a/c i'm aware of that fits this bill is the 1948-49 stinson 108-3. i owned/flew N6252M for over 15 years and never encountered a W&B situation. you usually cube out before you max out. even with the 165hp "Franklin-stein" i had no reservations about 4 adults and full fuel. "mickey" would always climb out at at least 500fpm from our 1000ft msl field with no problems. minimum baggage was expected for such a 4 place load, but that was never a problem for day trips. it is a comfortable, affordable true 4 place light aircraft. it is also one of the easiest tailwheel airplanes you will ever have the pleasure of knowing.

the stinson is no speed wagon, but it will haul your freight!

hope this helps,
vic & N522A

 

[PoAdeleted5]

deleted.

 

[Len Lanetti]

(Put another way, we're a bunch of lazy-butts.)

Ken,

On the flip side you know exactly how much fuel you have when it leaks over the edge after putting the gas caps on. OK, maybe not exactly given expansion for heating and variations based on the individualness of basically hand made aircraft but exact as a person can get.

Also, there are aircraft that don't reveal their partial fuel load well. My Mooney for example has no tabs and I wouldn't trust the dip stick method unless the plane had sat still on a level surface for a significant amount of time. Another example are the Grumman two seaters. No way to accurately tell how much fuel is in one of those tanks unless it is full.

Len

 

[Len Lanetti]

i learned on my last bi-annual flight review that any aircraft that has a published "empty weight c.g." in the TCDS is characteristically incapable of being loaded aft of the c.g. limit (providing of course you observe the 170lb/seat limit and the baggage compartment limitations).

I'm sorry but I don't understand your statement. I don't know what you mean by a published empty weight c.g. and I don't know what you are referencing with the 170 pound per seat limit.

Len

 

[Len Lanetti]

Compare the listed asking prices of late 70's Archers with the asking prices of a similar condition Cherokee Sixers.

Ok, so not all Cherokee Sixers are over $100K...I don't know anything about these aircraft except what is printed here...these notices arrived in my email in box this morning from TaP. The '67 engine has a significant amount of time on it and the '72 does not appear to have flown much at all. I wonder when the OH was done - if the averages hold up it would have been 13 or 14 years ago. There was also a mid-60's Six listed for $55K in my last print edition of TaP (about a month old now so probably gone).

1967 PIPER PA-32-260 Cherokee Six, $83,500, 5180-TT, 1870 SMOH. Excellent July 2004 paint, speed mods, nice interior(8), club seating. IFR certified GNS-430 integrated WX-500 strikefinder, KNS-80 RNAV/VOR/ GS/DME, KY197 760 COMM, KT-76, intercom, coupled autopilot, JPI, Nu-lites. Great IFR flier. Hangared. TX/(972) 618-0506. http://tappix.com/727071

1972 PIPER CHEROKEE SIS 260, 1774 TT, 450 SMOH, fresh annual, King audio panel, dual KX170A Nav/Coms, one glideslope and one VOR indicator, KR85 ADF, Auto Control III Autopilot, KT76A transponder, Narco DME 190, 84 gallons fuel, 1546 useful load. This is a very original, extremely low time Cherokee Six! We have performed the last tow annual inspections. Hangared in Indiana since new, with no damage history, hail marks or corrosion. A rare find, and priced at only $89,500.00 with fresh annual inspection. Contact Kyle for more information… it won't last long. IN/(317) 335-3200. http://tappix.com/727081

 

[Anthony]

This question also depends on where you live. I would be a little nervous with a 180hp Cherokee near gross crossing the Sierras. (At least with other passengers on board). I think a 235hp 182 or a Cherokee 235 would be a more comfortable choice.

This is very true. If you're planning on real cross countries, I mean actually crossing the U.S. you will want to stay under gross, especially in the summer if flying in high Density Altitude. My Tiger, 180 HP, is a four place plane back east, albeit with fuel to the tabs (38 gallons) and little baggage. Still has close to a 4 hour range, but we typically do 3 hour legs anyways for bio reasons. Here in Colorado, I've been using the Tiger as a two place aircraft if needing to go into the mountains were I typically need to climb to at least 12.5K ft. Pressure Altitude which is more like 15 K ft D.A. or more in the summer.

In general though 180 HP is your minimum and go up in HP from there. I think a 235 HP Dakota would be perfect.

 

[trombair]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your statement. I don't know what you mean by a published empty weight c.g. and I don't know what you are referencing with the 170 pound per seat limit.

Len

hey len!

the definitive document for any certificated a/c is the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet. it is available on-line at the FAA's web site. here's a link to the Stinson 108 series TCDS:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/0F560D14E6C231D68525673E006713C9/$FILE/a-767.pdf

notice in the c.g. range section of the document is a description of the "empty weight c.g. range". this is what i was referring to in my previous post. not every a/c has this characteristic of being in balance and within the gross wgt. parameters when fully loaded.

170lbs/seat limit refers to the standard FAA weight of a person. i think that standard was codified many years ago when we were generally smaller and lighter folks.

hope this helps!

blue skies,
vic & N522A

 

[poadeleted20]

So, the question of the day is, what should be the minimum HP I should consider?

180.

90% of the time it will be me, the wife and son and 100lbs or less of luggage. Speed is not much of a concern for me, but comfort is.

The "Slowdowner" matches up well with that description -- big cabin, but the cabin is paid for with speed (slower than my old 150 HP Cheetah). But before you commit, check out the cabin room in the Tiger and 180 Cherokee/Archer, and see if there are any Penn Yan 180HP STC'd Skyhawks (or even any C-172Q's) available. Sit in them all, fly them all, and then choose, as all of these should handle the load you need and can take four "true" adults for less-than-full fuel hops.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Four Winds...Four place, four door...

http://www.fourwindsaircraft.com/aircraft.html

Cabin seating...

http://www.barraircraft.com/products.htm

All it take is time and $.

I find it interesting that Four Winds is advertising a "builder assist" program that lets you fly away from their facility in your new airplane in only 3 weeks. And with a Repairman Certificate. Amazing. That it's legal, I mean.

 

[grattonja]

The 2000 172SP (180 HP) that I regularly rent will haul me, my wife, my daughter (6 YO and fairly small still), full fuel and around 80 to 100 pounds of luggage no problem. We are east coasters, so DA is not usually a factor, but it has gotten us out of 2000 foot plus elevations no problem. Full fuel puts us pretty much at gross weight but it is definitely do-able. We have done this too in the 172R that used to be around here (160 HP). But it was tighter and I think that, if at full fuel, we would have been over gross.

We have decided not to try to go to something bigger, as that is as big as we intend for the family to get. That skyhawk should continue to serve us well, IMO. A 6 seater with higher usable weight would be nice sometimes, when we would like to take the two grandparents up with the three of us. Otherwise, the 'hawk serves us well.

It sounds like our regular mission is pretty similar to yours.

Jim G

 

[AdamZ]

I can vouch that the back seat of a Tiger is reasonably comfortable I flew in the back with Ron as PIC and my former CFI in the right seat at the time I was about 183 my CFI was certainly 200+ and my guess is Ron was an FAA adult or less.

It was a cool October evening and the plane had no problems lifting off or climbing what so ever, perhaps Ron's deft control of the yoke. I think the fuel was pretty full but can't recall exactly. I would have had room with another adult back there The flight was from PNE to SBY. Only guesstimating but I don't' think another 170lber would give us much of a problem but then again it was cool.

My only complaint was that the heat in the back of a Tiger SUC#s. Man was I cold. For cooler flying temps a blanket is a MUST!!

Len the Grumman trainers have those clear tubes with those floating balls running up either side of the side wall in the cockpit. that act as a mechanical fuel gauge. I wonder if the liquid in them is actually fuel ( it dosen't have the blue tint) and if they are more accurate that those panel gauges with the scale and needles. If you don't know Perhaps Ron does.

 

[AdamZ]

BTW the Archer III that I often fly will carry me now at 195 my wife and 70lb daughter 50 lbs of baggage and full fuel and still be 100lbs under gross. Note however that even 100lbs under max gross in warm temps it will climb like a Basset Hound.

 

[Len Lanetti]

not every a/c has this characteristic of being in balance and within the gross wgt. parameters when fully loaded.

170lbs/seat limit refers to the standard FAA weight of a person. i think that standard was codified many years ago when we were generally smaller and lighter folks.

I think the 170 pounds you reference is simply a suggested standard reference value and not a seat limit. It is used in FAR Part 23 for certification testing standards. I agree, with the fattening of America 170 pounds doesn't apply these days.

I also agree that there are aircraft that can be under the maximum gross weight and be also out of CG range and that some are harder to do this in than others.

Len

 

[Len Lanetti]

Len the Grumman trainers have those clear tubes with those floating balls running up either side of the side wall in the cockpit. that act as a mechanical fuel gauge.

I remember them.

I wonder if the liquid in them is actually fuel ( it dosen't have the blue tint) and

AFAIK it is fuel....I once heard a story regarding a non standard, non STCable, don't smoke during the flight, method of increasing the fuel load on AA1 aircraft.

if they are more accurate that those panel gauges with the scale and needles.

I wouldn't trust them as far as I can spit but that is how I feel about all fuel quantity indicators on small aircraft and Triumphs.

If you don't know Perhaps Ron does.

I'm sure he does. :<)

Len

 

[trombair]

I think the 170 pounds you reference is simply a suggested standard reference value and not a seat limit. It is used in FAR Part 23 for certification testing standards. I agree, with the fattening of America 170 pounds doesn't apply these days.

I also agree that there are aircraft that can be under the maximum gross weight and be also out of CG range and that some are harder to do this in than others.

Len

len!

you're absolutely correct. 170lbs is not a "limit". i used the wrong term. it is, as you stated, a certification standard. thanks for keeping the "ball centered".

 

[AirBaker]

I dunno, I've done it plenty of times in my 180. Depends on where you want to cross the Sierras. There's plenty of places I wouldn't enjoy crossing in a twin.

I'm also based at RHV.

True. Just where your comfort level is.

 

[poadeleted20]

you're absolutely correct. 170lbs is not a "limit". i used the wrong term. it is, as you stated, a certification standard. thanks for keeping the "ball centered".

The principal use for that FAA "standard" weight is for air carrier W&B calculations, and it was raised 10 lb after the Charlotte accident. There's also a "standard" bag weight, which was also raised after Charlotte. Note that the rules allow you to use those values only if you have more than some number of seats/pax (which I probably had to know when I took my ATP written and then promptly forgot), but the number is a lot more than anything most of us fly.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've heard some say that if you can get it in the door of the 182 then you can fly. I certainly wouldn't go that far.

Definitely not. Our 182 is an older one and has a max landing weight. Unless I'm gonna burn off 150 lbs of fuel (~2 hrs of flying) then the Archers are actually a hair more flexible in terms of w&b.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've heard some say that if you can get it in the door of the 182 then you can fly. I certainly wouldn't go that far.

Definitely not. Our 182 is an older one and has a max landing weight. Unless I'm gonna burn off 150 lbs of fuel (~2 hrs of flying) then the Archers are actually a hair more flexible in terms of w&b.

 

[The Old Man]

You know, this obsession with full fuel is kind of puzzling. A good design allows you to tradeoff fuel for load. Like I said, on my Cherokee 180, it has the option of filling to the tabs for 36 gallons, or to the top of the necks for 50 gallons. 36 gallons (3.5+ hrs) is probably about the bladder limit for most folks, so you are likely to stop anyway.

You'll never burn all 50 with a female on board. No offense to the ladies, they just aren't comfortable that long without taking a restroom break. Heck, neither am I, but males generally can hold out longer than females, or find alternative solutions less troublesome in the air.

If you think that is true, please do not, repeat, do not, marry a school teacher. They can hold out forever.