Weight Loss

[N601RX]

Here are a few things that has been done over the years to lighten up my plane a little. I purposely left avionics off as every plane is different.  None of these make sense to do just for the weight savings, but if the part needs replacing or gets replaced anyway might as well get the weight savings.  All of them together add up.   There are also lighter props available.  Throw in the avionics and its up in the 50lb range.

 

Remove                                             Replace with               Weight Savings

Original Starter                                    Lightweight Starter                10

Original Generator                              lightweight alternator               8

Oil cooler relocation                            Lasar kit                                  2.4

Bendix mags                                       Slick Mags                                3.5

Shock absorber                                  nothing                                     2.2

factory gages+secondary monitor      Primary monitor(JPI900)           6

Hartzell Governor H1                          PCU5000                                  2.4               

Total Weight Savings                                                                     34.5

[RobertGary1]

That probably puts you back close to the weight when it left the factory. Over the years of maintenance a little extra wire is used. A few bolts more are used, etc. planes have a habit of putting on weight.

[John Pleisse]

If budget allows, an Apsen will yield a solid 10-14 pounds, depending.

[Marauder]

If budget allows, an Apsen will yield a solid 10-14 pounds, depending.

I forgot how much I gained with the Aspens, but I do know the avionics upgrade I did, saved me some weight.

[Wakeup]

The cheapest way to lighten your plane is for the pilot to loose some weight. . I need to loose about 25 lbs myself. I think I will prob just throw money at the plane first. Troy

[John Pleisse]

Chris, what is your useful? I only ask because you lighted your load pretty good, yet you have bladders. Could all of this be a better case for adding bladders? Net-net?

[N601RX]

I have bladders and still have over 1000 useful.  I also have a few other heavier things that didn't come from the factory.  1pc belly, 201 window, full autopilot.

[John Pleisse]

I have bladders and still have over 1000 useful.  I also have a few other heavier things that didn't come from the factory.  1pc belly, 201 window, full autopilot.

 

 

OK, that's awesomeness.

[Marauder]

Chris, what is your useful? I only ask because you lighted your load pretty good, yet you have bladders. Could all of this be a better case for adding bladders? Net-net?

962. There are a few items that I could still change to improve it more (starter, etc.).

[ArtVandelay]

Has anybody weighed their plane to compare with current W&B that has evolved over the years?

[Marauder]

Has anybody weighed their plane to compare with current W&B that has evolved over the years?

Afraid to weigh it. Dirt weighs a lot.

[RobertGary1]

Has anybody weighed their plane to compare with current W&B that has evolved over the years?

 

Make sure your A&P isn't around so nothing gets logged. These planes gain a fair amount of weight over the years. All those "W&B negligible"'s add up. Doublers, an extra screw or two, an extra bit of wire, etc add up. The local avionics shop says they've pulled 30 pounds of excess avionics wire out of planes. Each time something is added the installer wants to leave a bit extra "just in case". Death by a thousand needles. 

 

-Robert

[DonMuncy]

My! My! My!

Would anyone on this list, weigh their plane, find it was over the official weight in their W&B records, and then blithely fly on without changing the records.

[Guest]

The starter I removed from my 400 saved 25 pound, and the prop change saved another 35. When I put my last Mooney on a diet I replaced every screw with the shortest possible one. While its a small amount, spread over 2-300 screws it does add up. In my experience most Weight and Balance reports are guesses at best, reweighed or not.

Clarence

[Marauder]

My! My! My!

Would anyone on this list, weigh their plane, find it was over the official weight in their W&B records, and then blithely fly on without changing the records.

Oh no! Peter Garmin has claimed another one. The reality is Don, how many actually even do a proper weight and balance calculation?

[ArtVandelay]

Are the gross weight restrictions are statement about the takeoff performance or landing stresses? I'm thinking the Boeings have to dump fuel to land on truncated flights because they are too heavy to land, but obviously can takeoff

[MB65E]

I did a physical re-weigh on mine. It's actually easier than doing all the math, guessing on arms, weighing components. I use the small sheer nuts on sheer applications, thin washers, correct screws lengths, chord lace instead of zipties, etc. Our 2013 overhaul pulled over 26lbs out of the airplane, 9lbs in wiring alone... 916lb useful now. I believe our last paint job in '91 was a scratch and paint. So there could be some weight under the paint. It all adds up. I'd like to know the actual weight than to have 20years of guessing...

-Matt

[DonMuncy]

I wasn't obvious enough with my smiley face. I guess I should have said "this is in jest" etc. Or maybe I should have said this is a job to assign to one's hangar elf

[Marauder]

I wasn't obvious enough with my smiley face. I guess I should have said "this is in jest" etc. Or maybe I should have said this is a job to assign to one's hangar elf

I'm the one missing the smiley face . I figured you hadn't gone over to the the dark side!

[Marauder]

Are the gross weight restrictions are statement about the takeoff performance or landing stresses? I'm thinking the Boeings have to dump fuel to land on truncated flights because they are too heavy to land, but obviously can takeoff

I think it is primarily the takeoff component that it pertains to. If it were landing weight, I suspect the FAA would have us flying around with fuel dumping valves

[carusoam]

Data for TJ...

Os have MGTW and a lighter landing weight...

Expect to burn off an hour's worth of fuel if you need to come back to get your iPad....

1) The engine needs to be able to lift the full plane in concurrence with the book data...

2) The legs aren't strong enough to bounce a full load...

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

Os have MGTW and a lighter landing weight...

Expect to burn off an hour's worth of fuel if you need to come back to get your iPad....

-a-

 

What happens when your engine quits? Got time to dump fuel? I suspect you would be dumping, but not fuel!

[carusoam]

Expect to buy new legs...

And hardware...

And ......

[jetdriven]

My! My! My!Would anyone on this list, weigh their plane, find it was over the official weight in their W&B records, and then blithely fly on without changing the records.

Just don't weigh it. With a legal 2900 lb gross weight for later models, an early J model flies just fine, why risk losing 100 lbs of useful load by re-weighing? It's legal now, but after you know It's heavier, as you say, how can you ignore it?

[jetdriven]

Are the gross weight restrictions are statement about the takeoff performance or landing stresses? I'm thinking the Boeings have to dump fuel to land on truncated flights because they are too heavy to land, but obviously can takeoff

But every Boeing airplane built can safely land at the maximum certified takeoff weight without damage, in case of an emergency return to the field.