Oldguy

Dreaming of 900 UL...

Recommended Posts

I just got word back from the avionics shop my plane is finished with the upgrades I had done to her. New Aspen EFD 1000 Pro with AOA and SV, new PMA 450B, new 406mHz ELT, Sandia 340 Quattro,a KAS 297B, and various cleaning up of leftover wiring and "stuff" from years gone by. By installing the Quattro and Aspen, I have lost the stand-by vacuum pump (to @NJMac) but have to keep the engine pump for the speed brakes. I was hoping to pick up some useful load, and while I did gain a bit over 10 lbs., is still leaves me shy of my self-imposed goal of a 900 UL.

My J is a 1984, so the MTOW is 2,740. In reading through my POH, the "basic empty weight as delivered" is 1836 lbs., so I am thinking my goal is unattainable. I know as a 4-seat plane we are closer to 3 people, fuel and some luggage, but what are the useful loads others are seeing in the pre-2900 MTOW J models? Should I be happy with the 880 lbs. UL and fly the wings off, or is my plane, like her owner, needing to slim down a little?

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

My 78 was 1744 as delivered, wonder where your extra weight came from?

I don''t know, but they are incredibly detailed in the equipment list. Did you know the "D" rings in the cargo area weigh 0.16 lbs. and sit at an arm of 119"?

Maybe one night when I can't sleep I will go through the list and see what is checked off and still in the plane. But I am reluctant to have it weighed until I get it painted and have the inside cleaned out well enough to eat off of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I'd just fly the wings off of her. That having been said, your goal is probably  very much obtainable, and then some, via the installation of an MT prop and lightweight starter and alternator if you are not already so equipped. 

I've got the starter but not the prop and not sure of the alternator. 

And I am not sure I am willing to pay the cost of the prop to lose the weight. Not saying never, just not sure at this point.

But you do bring up a couple of things to research. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oldguy said:

Should I be happy with the 880 lbs. UL and fly the wings off, or is my plane, like her owner, needing to slim down a little?

My 231 had 892 lb useful load. I wanted more so I sold it and bought a Baron. Now I have 1702 lb useful load.  Simple solution, sell the Mooney and buy a Baron :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 77’ J has 1000lbs useful load. Im about to remove my vacuum pump installing a G5, all stock gauges with a jpi900, and a lot of garbage with a new clean panel. Still contemplating installing the HSI G5 to remove the Bendix King 55a. Then I can get rid of the heavy gyros for it. I’m hoping for 15-20lbs more of useful load. Even more with the second G5.

My better half and I have a couple we fly around with. I can get full fuel, us, my survival pack and maintenance bag now.

7d6350cd0185784f72e5bfe4952eb401.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Early J’s are a pretty sweet compromise on all of the variables. But, admittedly, I am biased towards them. 
Jim
’78 J

My thoughts exactly!! It took me over two years to find my plane. But I had a set criteria that I was able to hold myself to and very happy with the plane I have. Useful load was number two on my list. It gives the plane a lot of utility because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples to oranges, but my C has 1,015# useful load and I get heavy, often. But then again, all the fancy stuff up front would be nice to have.

Disclaimer: Just so my posts are clear, and non - harrasing to others and don't get reported again:

By apples and oranges, I am referring to the edible fruit and their contradictory appearances.
By "heavy" I am referring to weight, in this instance, in Imperial pounds. 
By "fancy stuff" I am referring to complex avionics. 
 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m at 984lbs UL with bladders. I did JPI 900 and removed a lot of stuff. Also sky tech starter. I have a big fat old alternator that’s still trucking and looks heavy compared to Plane Power. Haven’t shed the vacuum but that’ll be next for maybe 8+ more lbs or so. 

A0B2D5F8-8A2A-4458-8D6C-B40E4058D3FA.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of the higher useful loads are based on a calculation or an actual re weighing?

Clarence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

How many of the higher useful loads are based on a calculation or an actual re weighing?

Clarence

Most of us probably have 10 pounds of dirt hidden in the corners not to mention 5 pounds of skin flakes. From my observations, avionic shops tend to leave a lot of dead wires during upgrades. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many of the higher useful loads are based on a calculation or an actual re weighing?
Clarence

Mine was put on a scale in 2013 according to the weight and balance calculations form. If mine has five to ten pounds of dirt and grime in it I’m okay with it. I’m not promoting it but people fly their Mooney’s 100’s of pounds over gross.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

How many of the higher useful loads are based on a calculation or an actual re weighing?

Clarence

Mine is calculated. I plan to weigh it at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, M20Doc said:

How many of the higher useful loads are based on a calculation or an actual re weighing?

Clarence

Few people outside of Canada actually weigh their planes, unless they find a second / third layer of paint when doing a full strip and repaint job. Lots of figuring and reckoning happens over the decades, an occasional mistake is inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hank said:

Few people outside of Canada actually weigh their planes, unless they find a second / third layer of paint when doing a full strip and repaint job. Lots of figuring and reckoning happens over the decades, an occasional mistake is inevitable.

I guess that’s my point, actual weights are usually higher than the calculated weight, so most are living a dream as to useful loads.  My 400 lost weight with the MT propeller and avionics changes, but has slowly been gaining some, so I’ve chosen to reweigh it to know the truth.  It’s now less than 1500 pounds.

Clarence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I guess that’s my point, actual weights are usually higher than the calculated weight, so most are living a dream as to useful loads.  My 400 lost weight with the MT propeller and avionics changes, but has slowly been gaining some, so I’ve chosen to reweigh it to know the truth.  It’s now less than 1500 pounds.

Clarence

But but but it's legal! And the plane flies! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine is a 77 J as well.  Calculated UL of 1004.  my SN doesn’t qualify for the 2900 lb GW increase but I know I’m in a safe margin even if UL is calculated.  Don’t fly over gross.  .  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess that’s my point, actual weights are usually higher than the calculated weight, so most are living a dream as to useful loads.  My 400 lost weight with the MT propeller and avionics changes, but has slowly been gaining some, so I’ve chosen to reweigh it to know the truth.  It’s now less than 1500 pounds.
Clarence

In your experience, how much difference is there between weighed vs calculated? What’s the biggest increase you’ve seen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10’s of pounds in small airframes and I have seen hundreds in a Beech 200.

Clarence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems I am closer to my UL than it originally seemed. When the avionics shop wrote up the new W&B at the end of the process, they inventoried everything they had removed and added, netted them out, and updated the W & B doc for the POH. Unfortunately, they missed the standby vacuum pump I got from the tech early in the job and sent to @NJMac, so it looks like I gained another 12.04 lbs of UL. That will take my UL up to ~897, so I am going to stop whining about a 900 UL.

And if I look at what @Hank posted above, I probably have lost a couple pounds of paint from rain buffing off paint on various places on the plane during IMC flying. :huh: 

Co-pilot and I are working on gaining back about 25 lbs. of UL ourselves, and I am still pursuing some of the weight saving updates mentioned above, which I want to thank everyone for suggesting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

To get a feeling of the weight saving afforded by the composite MT option....

From MT site...

‘Approx. 11 lbs less weight than the original propellers’

http://www.flight-resource.com/Datasheets/FL015.pdf

Oddly, the spec sheet doesn’t list the actual weight...

This is a three blade version, a two blade would save another blade’s worth...

I’m not sure why the two blade option wasn’t listed...

 

When removing the weight from the front... it is helpful if weight comes off the back as well... for WnB

See if the ADF and it’s antenna have been completely removed...

the back up vac system from the tail cone is a nice balance...

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha. You shared 12 lbs with me. Thanks! Lol

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NJMac said:

Ha. You shared 12 lbs with me. Thanks! Lol
 

Very welcome. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, carusoam said:

John,

To get a feeling of the weight saving afforded by the composite MT option....

From MT site...

‘Approx. 11 lbs less weight than the original propellers’

http://www.flight-resource.com/Datasheets/FL015.pdf

Oddly, the spec sheet doesn’t list the actual weight...

This is a three blade version, a two blade would save another blade’s worth...

I’m not sure why the two blade option wasn’t listed...

 

When removing the weight from the front... it is helpful if weight comes off the back as well... for WnB

See if the ADF and it’s antenna have been completely removed...

the back up vac system from the tail cone is a nice balance...

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

Anthony,

I have looked for a two blade MT, but it appears there is not one approved, and I am one of the two blade people when it comes to 4 cylinder engines.

I will keep looking for intelligent options to reduce my weight (LED position/strobe lights?), but I feel I am approaching the area where things I want will likely add a pound or two (paint, interior, etc.). I think there is still a few pounds of wire to be removed, but rather than have the shop keep the plane for another week or so, I had them button it back up and get it to me. Since this will be my forever-plane, I am willing to take the long view on getting things done.

Take care.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now