Why? W&B

I feel your pain @CharlieD3. I called on a Six a couple weeks ago. He told me useful was 1483. Awesome, I'll be down to look at it tomorrow.

Got there and find the newest w&b in the poh was from 2000, and was for installing avionics that had since been replaced. That one showed 1320 useful. Never mind the fact that the plane isn't airworthy.... that's a long damn way from the number he gave me, and well short of what I'm looking for.

They said they had never actually done a w&b, so they didn't notice it wasn't up to date....:rolleyes: I think a shockingly low percentage of pilots even bother, which is why it shows up so infrequently in ads and so frequently in NTSB reports.
 
Jim K said:
I feel your pain @CharlieD3. I called on a Six a couple weeks ago. He told me useful was 1483. Awesome, I'll be down to look at it tomorrow.

Got there and find the newest w&b in the poh was from 2000, and was for installing avionics that had since been replaced. That one showed 1320 useful. Never mind the fact that the plane isn't airworthy.... that's a long damn way from the number he gave me, and well short of what I'm looking for.

They said they had never actually done a w&b, so they didn't notice it wasn't up to date....:rolleyes: I think a shockingly low percentage of pilots even bother, which is why it shows up so infrequently in ads and so frequently in NTSB reports.
Click to expand...
But, '... they only vary a hundred or two from published numbers...'

I mean if your looking at a 150, 52, 172.... You do know what to expect... Sorta...

If you're looking at anything much bigger, you're doing it for a reason... You might actually want to carry a 4th person, or more luggage for a longer trip...

We all left our PPL check ride thinking we'd buy a plane and travel the country... And then reality...

But later when we can actually do it, we look for a semi practical means of accomplishing the goal. We really don't care that we can get in a tube and do it for less... We want to control where we go and when... With or without diversions for weather, or just for fun...

Heck, birdus is doing it in a luscome, albeit alone... But that's his mission....
 
Change the mission.

Problem solved. I never once deluded myself that an airplane is a "practical" travelling machine. I'm happy with a duffel bag and some snacks.

Airplanes are for flying upside down and hot, nasty speed. Anything not capable of that is a waste of space.
 
Jim K said:
I feel your pain @CharlieD3. I called on a Six a couple weeks ago. He told me useful was 1483. Awesome, I'll be down to look at it tomorrow.

Got there and find the newest w&b in the poh was from 2000, and was for installing avionics that had since been replaced. That one showed 1320 useful. Never mind the fact that the plane isn't airworthy.... that's a long damn way from the number he gave me, and well short of what I'm looking for.

They said they had never actually done a w&b, so they didn't notice it wasn't up to date....:rolleyes: I think a shockingly low percentage of pilots even bother, which is why it shows up so infrequently in ads and so frequently in NTSB reports.
Click to expand...
Not only the weight side...I’ve flown several airplanes with miscalculated empty CGs that wouldn’t allow the airplane to be loaded within the envelope, so W&B for a flight obviously hadn’t been done for a long time.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Change the mission.

Problem solved. I never once deluded myself that an airplane is a "practical" travelling machine. I'm happy with a duffel bag and some snacks.

Airplanes are for flying upside down and hot, nasty speed. Anything not capable of that is a waste of space.
Click to expand...
If that's your mission, great! I'll watch from the ground and be thoroughly entertained...

As to flying in the tube... For me, it's about freedom and control. Free to go off the beaten path, or not.

I do the same thing when traveling by car... As long as I don't have to be somewhere, by a certain time... Where does that road go? Let's find out!

Owning a plane is not practical... But, you can make it as practical as possible...
 
CharlieD3 said:
Owning a plane is not practical... But, you can make it as practical as possible...
Click to expand...

You're defining "practicality" according to YOUR mission, right? My airplane is completely practical for MY mission. Your's wouldn't be.
 
EdFred said:
Unless of course there's a math mistake found in the W&B sheet that kept getting carried over and over even without major changes. Yep, found that, gained 50#.
Click to expand...
Very common. And then there are the mods that were done without any amendments. A recent actual is of considerable value.

I once did a prebuy on a Taylorcraft whose W&B showed a useful load of 120 pounds. Major mistake in there somewhere that the mechanic had completely ignored.
 
I would push back on a light aircraft not being practical for transportation. I flew to Florida this spring with my wife & two kids, and spent very nearly the same money, about the same time considering 'security' BS and boarding, and certainly WAY less hassle than on the airlines...and as brought up in another thread...a Dakota ain't exactly fast. We got to do it on OUR schedule, I got to do something I love, and we all got to see the scenery between here & there. Allegiant doesn't do low passes over the Shuttle landing facility, or cruise up the coast at 1000' AGL. True, we got stuck on the way home, but only because I wasn't instrument rated yet, and I would take the adventure we had over being crammed into an Airbus any day of the week.
 
Jim K said:
I would push back on a light aircraft not being practical for transportation. I flew to Florida this spring with my wife & two kids, and spent very nearly the same money, about the same time considering 'security' BS and boarding, and certainly WAY less hassle than on the airlines...and as brought up in another thread...a Dakota ain't exactly fast. We got to do it on OUR schedule, I got to do something I love, and we all got to see the scenery between here & there. Allegiant doesn't do low passes over the Shuttle landing facility, or cruise up the coast at 1000' AGL. True, we got stuck on the way home, but only because I wasn't instrument rated yet, and I would take the adventure we had over being crammed into an Airbus any day of the week.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but from a practicality (financially at least) standpoint, how much was insurance, hangar, maintenance, etc...that was all paid in addition to that trip. Don't get me wrong, I've done multiple trips this year that saved me a crap ton of time and hassle, but financially speaking for the year not the most practical.
 
MacFly said:
You're defining "practicality" according to YOUR mission, right? My airplane is completely practical for MY mission. Your's wouldn't be.
Click to expand...

If you defined your mission I am certain we would be able to poke holes in it.

"Because I want to..." is a perfectly valid reason to owning a plane. For 99% of of the practicality argument of owning is easily destroyed. You included.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Very common. And then there are the mods that were done without any amendments. A recent actual is of considerable value.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen some pretty scary math on “actual” weight/CG calculations as well...mostly on the CG side.
 
Aircraft practicability is in the eye of the owner. Depending on the budget, desires, needs and wants it will very from one pilot to another. The only real justification I have ever used in 45 years of ownership is "I want it and I can afford it". As far as travel, there is always a cheaper way to get there unless you are into back country flying. I fly for my pleasure and convenience. When I had my business often the only realistic way to get where I needed to be somewhere when I needed to be there was flying myself. Since I retired a few years ago I can come and go where and when I want on my own schedule.

In regards to weight and balance I weigh the plane and do a fresh W&B when something is added or removed, or every 5 years, usually during the annual.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but from a practicality (financially at least) standpoint, how much was insurance, hangar, maintenance, etc...that was all paid in addition to that trip. Don't get me wrong, I've done multiple trips this year that saved me a crap ton of time and hassle, but financially speaking for the year not the most practical.
Click to expand...
As a club plane, that's all rolled into the hourly rate, but I take your point. One thing I feel is always overlooked in this discussion is that we compare our ga planes to Allegiant cattle class rates. All our club planes are far nicer places to be than economy class. If i wanted to fly somewhere business class, I'd have to either take a regional jet or drive 3 hours, at which point ga wins EASILY on both cost and time.
 
Jim K said:
As a club plane, that's all rolled into the hourly rate, but I take your point. One thing I feel is always overlooked in this discussion is that we compare our ga planes to Allegiant cattle class rates. All our club planes are far nicer places to be than economy class. If i wanted to fly somewhere business class, I'd have to either take a regional jet or drive 3 hours, at which point ga wins EASILY on both cost and time.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, for a straight up "what does it cost me only for these 3 days" I can beat the airlines door to door pretty much anywhere from the Rockies east (Dallas is probably an exception since it's a hub and there's direct flights from here), and I'm way more comfy. Throw in 2 other people on the trip, and I beat 'em on price too.
 
MacFly said:
Not if 700 lbs is all you will ever need. For many pilots, 1000 lbs of "USEFULNESS" is pointless and likely contrary to the "mission".
Click to expand...

A plane that's 300 lbs lighter than another of the same model would climb and cruise faster. Most pilots like faster. ;)
 
Jim K said:
I would push back on a light aircraft not being practical for transportation. I flew to Florida this spring with my wife & two kids, and spent very nearly the same money, about the same time considering 'security' BS and boarding, and certainly WAY less hassle than on the airlines...and as brought up in another thread...a Dakota ain't exactly fast. We got to do it on OUR schedule, I got to do something I love, and we all got to see the scenery between here & there. Allegiant doesn't do low passes over the Shuttle landing facility, or cruise up the coast at 1000' AGL. True, we got stuck on the way home, but only because I wasn't instrument rated yet, and I would take the adventure we had over being crammed into an Airbus any day of the week.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I mean...

But, from a frugality-practicality standpoint it isn't "frugal."

And, THAT said, the practicality is a matter of personal decisions/definitions... Compromising between necessity, frugality, wants, and needs... Like all things in aviation...

But, it's still a shame that you can't cull undesirable aircraft on the basis of the ads,
Except by everything but one of the final specifications that determine whether an offer will even be made...
 
CharlieD3 said:
This is exactly what I mean...

But, from a frugality-practicality standpoint it isn't "frugal."

And, THAT said, the practicality is a matter of personal decisions/definitions... Compromising between necessity, frugality, wants, and needs... Like all things in aviation...
Click to expand...

Well, the most frugal option is a greyhound bus...
Not gonna do that, either.

Sorry for the derail. Just drives me nuts when pilots say ga isn't a practical transportation option. It's not easy, and it's not cheap, but it's the best option for what I want to do.

Back to your topic, I like that controller and trade-a-plane have a spot for it, although not everyone fills out. I've also found that shopping by year is fairly effective for the planes I'm looking at. Seems like after '75 the Sixes gained weight. I should've known the '76 I went to see would be too heavy. From now on I'm going to ask for a photo of the w&b before I go look, which will probably take me out of competition on a few of them.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but from a practicality (financially at least) standpoint, how much was insurance, hangar, maintenance, etc...that was all paid in addition to that trip. Don't get me wrong, I've done multiple trips this year that saved me a crap ton of time and hassle, but financially speaking for the year not the most practical.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you view aircraft differently than most people view a car. I don't add the car payment, maintenance and the cost of my garage when I think of the cost of driving somewhere.
 
Jim K said:
Well, the most frugal option is a greyhound bus...
Not gonna do that, either.

Sorry for the derail. Just drives me nuts when pilots say ga isn't a practical transportation option. It's not easy, and it's not cheap, but it's the best option for what I want to do.

...

From now on I'm going to ask for a photo of the w&b before I go look, which will probably take me out of competition on a few of them.
Click to expand...

Yep, not cheap, but at times the best or only option. Sometimes it's on par cost wise with other options. I've flown the family on spring break trips that were cheaper than on the airlines, plus we got to do and see more, such as flying low up the Keys and stopping to see my wife's mother on the way home.

If it takes you out of the competition you're probably saving yourself time chasing planes that don't meet your needs. ;)
 
jonnyjetprop said:
I'm assuming that you view aircraft differently than most people view a car. I don't add the car payment, maintenance and the cost of my garage when I think of the cost of driving somewhere.
Click to expand...

Most people would be in shock if they really knew what it cost them to drive. :eek:

Capital, interest (if there's a loan), insurance, sales tax (some states), tags (some states have a usage tax), fuel, tires, oil changes, maintenance, parking, tolls, etc.
 
Jim K said:
Well, the most frugal option is a greyhound bus...
Not gonna do that, either.

Sorry for the derail. Just drives me nuts when pilots say ga isn't a practical transportation option. It's not easy, and it's not cheap, but it's the best option for what I want to do.

Back to your topic, I like that controller and trade-a-plane have a spot for it, although not everyone fills out. I've also found that shopping by year is fairly effective for the planes I'm looking at. Seems like after '75 the Sixes gained weight. I should've known the '76 I went to see would be too heavy. From now on I'm going to ask for a photo of the w&b before I go look, which will probably take me out of competition on a few of them.
Click to expand...

The MOST frugal option would be Shanks' mare. So you're right. But I was correlating it to GA... of which little is frugal in the true sense of the word.

I wanna fly when I wanna. I wanna go where I wanna go. Within the limitations of airspace regulation and weather, of course.

AOPA is currently sloganizing "Your freedom to fly" that sums it up for me.

Obviously, short of a winning lottery ticket, getting what I want when I want it ain't likely...

But, with the proper craft, much can be done, somewhat frugally.
 
wayne said:
A plane that's 300 lbs lighter than another of the same model would climb and cruise faster. Most pilots like faster. ;)
Click to expand...
I like faster and more nimble. Anything over 600 lbs useful load is wasted on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top