Turbo-Normalizing System

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, jkhirsch said:

Newer equipment weighs a lot less than it did in 1967. Very specifically two pieces shed a lot of weight. 

Can you share Which two pieces??? Some of us may want to upgrade, too! This will be motivation.

[LANCECASPER]

6 hours ago, jkhirsch said:

Newer equipment weighs a lot less than it did in 1967. Very specifically two pieces shed a lot of weight. 

That is no way to talk about your ex-wife and her friend.

[jkhirsch]

On 6/16/2023 at 8:21 PM, LANCECASPER said:

That is no way to talk about your ex-wife and her friend.

Definitely one way to cause a spark  

[Mcstealth]

On 3/31/2023 at 7:55 PM, LANCECASPER said:

Spring Texas is North of Houston, however Tom of TomGo (aerocessories.aero) is at Kestrel in Spring Branch (1T7) , Texas, North of San Antonio. (https://www.airnav.com/airport/1T7)

I looked a little cross-eyed at that statement also.

[Schllc]

Definitely curious which two pieces as well , especially since you said that you haven't replaced the avionics.

[Shadrach]

On 6/16/2023 at 1:31 PM, jkhirsch said:

Newer equipment weighs a lot less than it did in 1967. Very specifically two pieces shed a lot of weight. 

I have a 67F (Jbar and hydraulic flaps) with all the original W&B revisions. I’m currently at 1060UL. I can see no pathway to 1200UL. With all new avionics, accessories, prop and a Lith/ion battery I could get north of 1100 but nowhere near 1200. I think someone made an error in your W&B.

[jkhirsch]

On 7/1/2023 at 1:18 PM, Shadrach said:

I have a 67F (Jbar and hydraulic flaps) with all the original W&B revisions. I’m currently at 1060UL. I can see no pathway to 1200UL. With all new avionics, accessories, prop and a Lith/ion battery I could get north of 1100 but nowhere near 1200. I think someone made an error in your W&B.

You're not thinking specifically thinking of a couple of the heaviest items in front of the firewall.  

[Shadrach]

23 minutes ago, jkhirsch said:

You're not thinking specifically thinking of a couple of the heaviest items in front of the firewall.  

MT prop and Alternator...very nice and much lighter. No where near a 140lb differential.  I have the lightest F I know of next to yours which is apparently 140lbs lighter.

[kortopates]

MT prop and Alternator...very nice and much lighter. No where near a 140lb differential.  I have the lightest F I know of next to yours which is apparently 140lbs lighter.

Agreed! on my K going from the 2 blade alumin prop to the 3 blade MT was good for about 15 lbs. A couple lbs better without prop deice. I don’t recall but would expect a light weight starter would get a few lbs, but better adding alternator when coming from a generator. It’s hard to imagine much more than about 20 lbs without knowing specifics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, jkhirsch said:

You're not thinking specifically thinking of a couple of the heaviest items in front of the firewall.  

Never weigh that airplane -- you probably won't be happy.

[Shadrach]

16 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Never weigh that airplane -- you probably won't be happy.

Nor go through all the W&B revisions.

[N201MKTurbo]

21 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Never weigh that airplane -- you probably won't be happy.

So, let's say you reconciled the W/B and it is all legit. Then you weigh the plane (like 3 times) and it comes out ~50 Lbs heavier. You are in a moral dilemma. do you ignore the weighing and just go by your W/B? 

[Fly Boomer]

25 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, let's say you reconciled the W/B and it is all legit. Then you weigh the plane (like 3 times) and it comes out ~50 Lbs heavier. You are in a moral dilemma. do you ignore the weighing and just go by your W/B? 

Gets tricky if you are having it weighed by an A&P or IA.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, let's say you reconciled the W/B and it is all legit. Then you weigh the plane (like 3 times) and it comes out ~50 Lbs heavier. You are in a moral dilemma. do you ignore the weighing and just go by your W/B? 

Sort of like the lawyer whose blind, widow client paid him $500 in cash for legal services with five crisp new $100 bills. After the client left, the lawyer was smelling the money when he discovered that two bills had stuck together -- he'd been overpaid by $100!

This posed an ethical dilemma for the lawyer: Was he obligated to share the extra $100 with his partner?  

 - - - 

That's why you never consent to having your airplane weighed . . lol They gain weight over the years. Go with the W & B calculations and keep it away from any scales.

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, let's say you reconciled the W/B and it is all legit. Then you weigh the plane (like 3 times) and it comes out ~50 Lbs heavier. You are in a moral dilemma. do you ignore the weighing and just go by your W/B? 

Me no think that is likely unless factory lied.  Almost every W&B negligible entry we've done was a matter of ounces and often a small net gain in UL but not worth the calculation. I'm sure if I weighed it that it would differ from the W&B entry but I would bet the delta is less than 1% of empty weight.

To get to 50lbs out on a 1700lb airplane would require at lease "50 W&B negligible" entries. 

I don't have anything against weighing per say, but there is no logical reason to put one's self in the position you mention if everything else is operating as it should.  My performance numbers are good. I have a legal document showing the aircraft's W&B is in compliance. There is no logical reason to throw a scale into that state of affairs.

[kortopates]

Gets tricky if you are having it weighed by an A&P or IA.

Not at all. There is absolutely no requirement to use a new weight and balance after weighing. You can discard if it you want.
It’s not even a legal dilemma if you have a valid weight and balance by calculation.
As mentioned, if you know the performance at your max gross weight including stall speed. A bigger concern would be if the two CG’s are far off from each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PT20J]

I never understood this fear of weighing thing. It weighs what it weighs. Suppose you weigh it and find out that it is 100 lbs heavier than the calculated W&B. That means there is some mistake in the calculations. If you don't trust the scales, reweigh using different scales. So, now you find out that you have been flying 100 lbs over gross for years. So, you can continue to do that. No one will ever know unless you have an accident. And it you have an accident, maybe it is because you are flying over gross.

[kortopates]

I never understood this fear of weighing thing. It weighs what it weighs. Suppose you weigh it and find out that it is 100 lbs heavier than the calculated W&B. That means there is some mistake in the calculations. If you don't trust the scales, reweigh using different scales. So, now you find out that you have been flying 100 lbs over gross for years. So, you can continue to do that. No one will ever know unless you have an accident. And it you have an accident, maybe it is because you are flying over gross.

i’ve seen a weighing go bad too with clearly inaccurate results. there are many ways to weight the plane each with their own inaccuracies. Not that common, just like weight and balance calculations are mostly correct. still everything needs to be double checked.
A&P’s aren’t known for their math skills.

I’ve never heard of the FAA weighing an accident airplane. They may re-check calculations when the info is available just like i hope every new owner does reviewing old records.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F]

5 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, let's say you reconciled the W/B and it is all legit. Then you weigh the plane (like 3 times) and it comes out ~50 Lbs heavier. You are in a moral dilemma. do you ignore the weighing and just go by your W/B? 

I can guarantee you that 90% of planes that get reweighed come in heavier, this is why nobody reweighs.

Most people never fly close to gross at least in the classics where you have 1000lbs+ so the whole discussion is kind of silly. 
 
I moved from Chicago to NJ and then to Atlanta in my F.  I swear to the FAA I did my W&B but something makes me believe that I could shove a lot more weight in then prescribed…..

[Shadrach]

We’re a family of 4. Kids are young. With full fuel (384lbs) and max baggage weight (120lbs + 10lbs in the hat rack). We’d each need to bring a 25lb dumbbell to get to gross

[M20F]

7 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

We’re a family of 4. Kids are young. With full fuel (384lbs) and max baggage weight (120lbs + 10lbs in the hat rack). We’d each need to bring a 25lb dumbbell to get to gross

Stick it on the scales, odds are the 25lb dumbbell does you in.  This debate is always about a paper w&b, nobody ever wants to put their plane on a scale (even if they got paid to do it).  
 
That being said a Mooney ain’t a 206 but I moved a lot of cast iron pans from Chicago to NJ and then down to ATL.  I live in a more gray world. 

[Shadrach]

14 hours ago, M20F said:

Stick it on the scales, odds are the 25lb dumbbell does you in.  This debate is always about a paper w&b, nobody ever wants to put their plane on a scale (even if they got paid to do it).  
 
That being said a Mooney ain’t a 206 but I moved a lot of cast iron pans from Chicago to NJ and then down to ATL.  I live in a more gray world. 

I don't really care as long as it's legal and performing well. It's almost dead on for book climb numbers. I've had it to 13,000msl loaded as previously mentioned with no trouble last summer.  If she's overweight, it does not show.