Going a bit overgross

[AndyFromCB]

Quote: carusoam

 

AstelM,

 

So you are asking...

 

(1) How far overweight you can fly a Bravo?

(2) how much ice you can fly a FIKI Bravo through?

 

Overweight and picking up ice, are you feeling lucky?

 

Best regards,

 

-a-

 

[carusoam]

Good to see we are all on the same page...

 

Clearly I can't help you as I don't have primary membership in the FIKI Bravo club.

 

This was just a check to see if you were serious.

 

You are definitely visiting the fringe of piston ownership.

 

Best regards,

 

-a-

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: astelmaszek

The primary reason for the Bravo is not speed but the ability to punch thru an icing layer on the way up and down.

[AndyFromCB]

ParkerW,

You are right and I'm sure I'll change my mind sooner rather than later on selling the arrow. The M20M will be just fine for about 95% of our trips (just me and my girlfriend) loaded with about 70gallons of fuel we will right on or under gross and be able to make it to our favorite trips which are KCBF-KAPA, KCBF-KCOS, KCBF-KCYS, KCBF-KMDW. On the KCBF-KJAC trip, we will simply have to make a fuel stop, not that big of a deal. My calculation is 70gal - 15gal for ground and cruise climb, = 55 left, about 40NM covered, 55 / 16 = 3.5 hours, 2.5 hours * 175knots = 430NM, 40 free NM on descent. I know I can realistically get 175kt at 12,000 on less than 16 per hour in a Bravo, still landing with more than 45 minutes of fuel...

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: KSMooniac

Even more puzzling is the fact that many of the Acclaims were delivered with 130 g fuel tanks, TKS, and air-conditioning.  I remember looking at the useful load on one particular example and calculated a full-fuel payload of only 70 lbs, without the TKS tank filled!  Absolutely mind-boggling IMO... anyone bigger than an elementary school kid would be over gross.

EDIT:  To expand on a bit of Ward's wisdom... as you move up the equipment food chain, it is somewhat silly to look at full-fuel payload since speeds, fuel burns, and fuel capacity are different with every plane.  Saying you can put 4 folks in the Arrow and "fill the tanks" where you might not be able to do so in a Mooney is pointless.  My M20J has 1025 of useful load, but carries up to 64 gallons of gas and burns 9 GPH or less at cruise (145-150 KTAS).  I could likely carry the same payload as your Arrow, but a longer distance, even if I can't top off my tanks for that mission.  You need to think in terms of carrying XXX pounds of butts or bags over XXX miles.

[KSMooniac]

It is definitely a different mind set when flying personal XC trips with people and bags vs. what we were all used to in training when it seems to S.O.P. to top-off the planes at least every day, if not after every flight.  That ingrains the notion that you should always have maximum fuel, and so very few planes can fill the cabin and tanks at the same time.  

My J is extremely flexible in that regard, and having a reasonably high useful load coupled with a fuel totalizer allows me to accurately trade fuel and payload.  I've done a few 500 NM trips with 4 adults and weekend bags and that is pretty much the maximum performance mission for my plane.  I've done 900 NM solo (and could've easily gone another 150 NM) but couldn't take more than 1 or 2 additional people and few to no bags on that trip.  

I never routinely top-off or fill to the tabs these days unless I need the fuel for *that* trip, or unless I found cheap gas somewhere.  I relish the extra climb rate that comes from reduced fuel loads to get me out of the heat and bumps more quickly.  

[RJBrown]

Quote: WardHolbrook

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: RJBrown

Unlike our piston singles I thought the pilots were included in the empty weight of most jets. Anyone know for sure?

[PTK]

Quote: johnggreen

 

Gentlemen,

Are some of you wearing your headphones to tight?

Not meaning to insult, but SOME OF YOU GUYS SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF ME.  For anyone, and I mean ANYONE,  of whatever experience and education, to pontificate on what is the "safe" max gross of the Bravo without the reams of design and test data that went into that determination is sheer folly.  There is a plethora of factors that go into the determination of an aircraft's gross weight; about which none of you has even the faintest of knowledge.  Perhaps the silliest conclusion is that the manufacturer limited the gross weight and thereby the useful load for some minor, easily overcome parameter that can safely be ignored in the "real world".  Really? Mooney limited the gross weight of the Bravo because they wanted to limit its usefulness and appeal to buyers. I don't think so. 

There is a good reason that general aviation is five times more likely to kill you than an automobile and fifty times more likely than an airliner; poor pilotage.  That according to statistics is responsible for 80-85% of general aviation accidents and this blog removes all doubt in my mind as to why.

The FAA lists five HAZARDOUS ATTITUDES that contribute to poor pilot judgement and the first is:

ANTIAUTHORITY:  THE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME.

The first thing I tell a student is DON'T LISTEN TO HANGAR TALK.  The ones that do the most talking almost always know the least.  What has been written in this thread has contributed much to the lackadaisical attitude that is so dangerous to resposible pilotage.  

If the gross weight doesn't "really" mean anything, then what about maneuvering speed in turbulent weather, or air speed limitations, or c.g., or weather minimums, icing forecasts, fuel reserves since really they are just all arbitrary rules put in place to limit your enjoyment of flying.

Now, don't get the idea that I care whether you go out and kill yourself.  I assure you I do not.  I do care about the guys who are trying to become responsible, safe pilots and who are looking, IN THIS BLOG, for the accepted methods of behavior, conduct, and pilotage in that regard, who might mistakingly believe that YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALING ABOUT?

When I joined this blog, I put as my signature "Even a fool says something right some of the time."

Sorry, but I'm beginning to wonder.

My name is always available in my signature, but just for the point of it, here it is again.

John G. Green

CFII #1763946