Bad Useful Load in M20K

[Jerry 5TJ]

Maybe you would be happier with a Cessna 210. Or a Pilatus.

[AndyFromCB]

I suck on the hose most of the time, no matter what altitude. Keeps me sharp (as sharp as my burnt out brain can be). I like the built in system because it keeps the cockpit clean. I fly about 100 hours a year or so in the Bravo and get my tank filled up at annual for a grand total of $25 or so (quarter hour is what my shop charges) and during the mid year oil change for another $25.

 

Another reason for just keeping it on and using it is the ability to just climb higher without messing with putting in on during the flight. Usually I want higher for a good reason and I'm already busy as is.

[AndyFromCB]

Maybe you would be happier with a Cessna 210. Or a Pilatus.

 

Don't get me started, my dream bird is a PC12NG, personally owned. Just about $5 million short, though.

[Bob]

My 231 has 930lb useful load with nice avionics, MT Prop, built in O2, no TKS, no speed brakes.  The one you are looking at seams very low.  I would look close at the W&B from new to current to find an error.

[aaronk25]

I bet that K at gross climbs Better than a C at gross. Just saying.

I think, although not practical, gross weight should be written around DA and runway length.

That might offer 250lbs or more useful load. Although our current level of government oversize wont allow for it.

I'd rather fly a turbo bird with tks and O2 heavy than a naturally aspirated bird with fewer options.

[aviatoreb]

I bet that K at gross climbs Better than a C at gross. Just saying.

I think, although not practical, gross weight should be written around DA and runway length.

That might offer 250lbs or more useful load. Although our current level of government oversize wont allow for it.

I'd rather fly a turbo bird with tks and O2 heavy than a naturally aspirated bird with fewer options.

 

My rocket climbs at 1500fpm at gross of 3200.  Even a lot better in the winter.  But still I don't violate gross weight because there is another thing to worry about - don't collapse your gear by going over gross.

[AndyFromCB]

My rocket climbs at 1500fpm at gross of 3200.  Even a lot better in the winter.  But still I don't violate gross weight because there is another thing to worry about - don't collapse your gear by going over gross.

 

I'm less than religious with my calculations on take off from long, sea level fields. I am however religious when it comes to the 3200lb landing weight. Gear will not be collapsing on take off...

[aaronk25]

Name one single overgross gear collapse please, where the gear was adjust properly.

[rbridges]

My rocket climbs at 1500fpm at gross of 3200.  Even a lot better in the winter.  But still I don't violate gross weight because there is another thing to worry about - don't collapse your gear by going over gross.

 

the P and Q model Cessna 182 has an STC that allows 150lb increase in takeoff weight.  Too bad something similar can't be done for some of the mooney models.

[aviatoreb]

Name one single overgross gear collapse please, where the gear was adjust properly.

 

Yes you are right.  I was wrong.  I will begin flying over gross now.  Thank you for setting me straight.

[aaronk25]

Yes you are right. I was wrong. I will begin flying over gross now. Thank you for setting me straight.

No one ever ...so far on this thread condoned flying overgross....don't lose your panties...

[aviatoreb]

No one ever ...so far on this thread condoned flying overgross....don't lose your panties...

 

Don't worry - I still have my panties.  Thanks for asking though.

[AndyFromCB]

the P and Q model Cessna 182 has an STC that allows 150lb increase in takeoff weight.  Too bad something similar can't be done for some of the mooney models.

 

Mooney did that too with the long bodies. Originally, the Bravo had a 3200lb take off weight, increased to 3368lb

[rbridges]

Mooney did that too with the long bodies. Originally, the Bravo had a 3200lb take off weight, increased to 3368lb

 

thanks for the info.  I didn't know that.

[AndyFromCB]

thanks for the info.  I didn't know that.

 

Yeah,

 

But the landing weight remained at 3200lb because it cannot pass the drop test over 3200lb. This is one major advantage that beech has over mooney. A 'real' landing gear, capable of absorbing energy, hence so many different gross weight increase STCs for Beechcraft. I still question the wisdom of taking off at 4000lb in 300hp aircraft, especially with the Genesis conversion that's not turbo normalized, but to each their own…I've been in a TA A36 loaded to gross, and it eats runway and takes its sweet time accelerating to climb speed following lift off. Not my idea of fun, especially if the engine was to fail right then.

[Jerry 5TJ]

Don't get me started, my dream bird is a PC12NG, personally owned. Just about $5 million short, though.

No need to despair -- you can get a very nice used one for well under $3M

[AndyFromCB]

No need to despair -- you can get a very nice used one for well under $3M

 

Want to lend me $3M? I'll write you a postdated check for $9million, cashable 2066?

[Rik]

All this talk, but I don't see a link to the plane in question..

[mpg]

Looking at a plane with all the bells and whistles:  TKS, speed brakes, oxygen.  However, the logs say useful load of 750lbs with empty fuel and TKS fluid, which seems like the TKS would be useless with 2 people and gear.  Anyone know what it would cost to remove the oxygen and TKS and how much weight that would get you?  Maybe consider another plane?  

Just for fun,,,   I will offer my 2 cents to an old thread asking the really odd question.

A guy wants to buy a 130K plane,,  then scrap 60K worth of highly desirable stuff so he can carry more stuff.

 

Go buy an F,,  get a turbo bolted on  (its the only thing he didnt want to keep),,,   carry 1020lbs useful load!