Overgross

[aviatoreb]

Yes, flutter is a function of TAS.

What's miserable is that the Rocket conversion didn't require new counterweights on the flight controls to my knowledge, but my Encore conversion did, just because it was on factory paper.

 

10 horsepower extra and 230 lbs more capacity on the Encore conversion.  95 horsepower and a heavy engine on the 305 Rocket Conversion.  Plus whatever weight increase was allowed.

 

Strange.

 

People have told me the rocket feels nose heave compared to other Mooneys they have flown.  I have never flown another Mooney (well once as copilot in an m20c long ago), and for two years now it is the only airplane I am flying, so it feels completely normal to me.  It trims out seemingly easily in the middle of the range of trim and it feels to me light on the touch.  Hold the nose off on landing with the "normal and usual" pressure I apply.

[FloridaMan]

I know this may be bringing up a sore spot, but just before I joined here, I believe that mooneyspace lost a member in an incident in the northeast in an M20J. There's a possibility that he was pushing things a little with the W&B and short field performance. 

[M016576]

So... What's holding a J or K back from a 3200lbs STC'ed gross weight (other than a long runway)? Or at least early J model gross weight increases to 2900? Obviously it's not the airframe or stall speed, as the Rocket is the same. Just paperwork? If a 1980 M20K rocket conversion can now fly at 3200 gross, why couldn't a 1980 J or K get the same "upgrade"?

[aviatoreb]

So... What's holding a J or K back from a 3200lbs STC'ed gross weight (other than a long runway)? Or at least early J model gross weight increases to 2900? Obviously it's not the airframe or stall speed, as the Rocket is the same. Just paperwork? If a 1980 M20K rocket conversion can now fly at 3200 gross, why couldn't a 1980 J or K get the same "upgrade"?

 

You are probably right.  You would loose your peppy climb but the climb would still be way better than the Cherokee 140 I trained in...  Or the Alarus I trained in...  I bet it would be a paperwork STC.

[goncaloareia]

So... What's holding a J or K back from a 3200lbs STC'ed gross weight (other than a long runway)? Or at least early J model gross weight increases to 2900? Obviously it's not the airframe or stall speed, as the Rocket is the same. Just paperwork? If a 1980 M20K rocket conversion can now fly at 3200 gross, why couldn't a 1980 J or K get the same "upgrade"?

 

That's a good point... Recovering the "252-encore" conversion subject, it's a fact that the only changes required are more powerful brakes, new counterweights (this is probably the most important aspect of the mandatory changes, together with the 10hp added), and changes in the engine to get 10hp more.

So if the gear is the same and the airframe is the same, it would mean that 3200 lbs. TOW operation (inside the W&B envelope) may not be a BBIIGG issue from a technical point of view (even though it's illegal), if we are wise operating in those conditions (big runways, no terrain limitations, no W&B problems...).

Am I missing something?

[aviatoreb]

That's a good point... Recovering the "252-encore" conversion subject, it's a fact that the only changes required are more powerful brakes, new counterweights (this is probably the most important aspect of the mandatory changes, together with the 10hp added), and changes in the engine to get 10hp more.

So if the gear is the same and the airframe is the same, it would mean that 3200 lbs. TOW operation (inside the W&B envelope) may not be a BBIIGG issue from a technical point of view (even though it's illegal), if we are wise operating in those conditions (big runways, no terrain limitations, no W&B problems...).

Am I missing something?

 

You are missing that pushing an STC through is expensive, even a paper STC, and it would take someone with the energy and investment to do it.

[carusoam]

What would it take to do this as a community?

The nice folks at MidWest Mooney, as well as others, are knowledgable on the paperwork process, as well as most of the engineering requirements.

What would it take, or how big would the collection need to be, to build and submit the proper documents?

If MooneySpace develops an STC? Who owns it and where does it reside?

Again, the idea is to further the knowledge and benefits of the community, not making a profit.

Thinking out loud,

-a-

[AndyFromCB]

What would it take to do this as a community?

The nice folks at MidWest Mooney, as well as others, are knowledgable on the paperwork process, as well as most of the engineering requirements.

What would it take, or how big would the collection need to be, to build and submit the proper documents?

If MooneySpace develops an STC? Who owns it and where does it reside?

Again, the idea is to further the knowledge and benefits of the community, not making a profit.

Thinking out loud,

-a-

 

So essentially, we'd have a M20J with a 3200lb gross weight aka 16lb to a hp at sea level, no thanks, and 21lb to a hp at any density alitutude over 7000. No thanks. I like to see the terrain disappear below me, not grow taller in the windshield.

[aviatoreb]

So essentially, we'd have a M20J with a 3200lb gross weight aka 16lb to a hp at sea level, no thanks, and 21lb to a hp at any density alitutude over 7000. No thanks. I like to see the terrain disappear below me, not grow taller in the windshield.

 

The community could do it I bet.  There are many STC's owned buy other airplane type groups, Cessna, Beech, Piper, etc.  If you guys are interested - I would start by querying how they did that.

 

astelmaszek, I wouldn't be too put off. If you have the STC for 3200 does not mean you need to use it on a short field.  Suppose you are departing a 6000ft field at sea level with you and your 3 closest adult friends? OTOH you can still depart much lighter from shorter higher DA fields.  Decision is up to the PIC.  Such an STC would make for more flexibility to make decisions.

[aaronk25]

Took off in a J that was 3050lbs 88 degrees 650ft above sea level no wind and held it on the runway until about 72-74kts where it was obvious it wouldn't stay on the runway and was going to start riding up on the nose wheel so ever so gently tip toed it of the runway built speed to 85 kts gear up then started a climb at 90kts. It climbed 500fpm or maybe even slightly better. Only used maybe 1700ft.

The trouble with being heavy when its hot is trying to climb at a low airspeed and plowing though the air in a high nose attitude condition as it adds alot of drag and there is only so much power available. Keep the nose leve let air speed gain then slowly climb out.

I can also say that later that day with a load at 3000lbs 3800ft above sea level at 92 degrees da of 6,650 only made about 300 Fpm climb. Never again on that one, to marginal. Used 2400 ft of runway.

So what's the point? First don't fly over gross just offering some info. I think out POH should have a max gross weight that varies with density altitude. At 1000da a J will climb great, at 9000ft da I wouldn't want more than 2600lbs. Round numbers of course but sure would let us get more utility out of our planes. I'd also put a restriction on additional weight if it raining, that takes away some lift by distrubing the laminar flow.

At a gross weight of 2740 in a early J its like taking a f250 and labeling it a ranger. Oh well fly safe friends.

Again not advocating flying illegal just offering up info for the topic because I don't agree with the POH max gross numbers.

[Piloto]

So essentially, we'd have a M20J with a 3200lb gross weight aka 16lb to a hp at sea level, no thanks, and 21lb to a hp at any density alitutude over 7000. No thanks. I like to see the terrain disappear below me, not grow taller in the windshield.

+1 Not only the climb is affected but the speed performace is also affected. In practicality there is no need for an added weight STC. Most of the Mooneys are flown with only two people onboard. But even if you fly 300 pounds overgross it will still fly safely but at a degraded performance. I have ferry 4 Mooneys (M20M, M20R, M20K, M20J) at 300+ overgross and never found a problem except taxing on grass. Of course you have to be aware of your take off and climb limitations. I know of two Mooneys that attemped take off at 300 pounds overgross from dirt 2000ft strips with trees at the end that endup in flames. Good judgement is always important.

José

[carusoam]

Astel,

I'm trying to enable the conversation...

If it's a safety issue, let's not promote it.

If it's not a safety issue in one area of the country, then let's discuss it with the required detail.

I'm in the camp of more HP is better than less.

Putting it in perspective...

O3: 310 HP/ 3,358 # = 1/ 10.8

O1: 280 HP/ 3,358 = 1/ 12.0

Eagle1: 240 HP/ 3,358 = 1/ 14.0

"Overloaded" 201: 200 HP/ 3,200# = 1/ 16.0. (this is not as good as a Piper Cherokee)

C4 Corvette: 300 HP / 3239# = 1/ 10.8

2013 SRX crossover by Cadillac: 308 HP/ 5467# = 1/ 17.8

Cherokee 140: 150 HP/ 2,150# = 1/ 14.3

If we don't like the Cherokee performance with a 14.3 wgt/HP ratio, then overloading the 201 to the level of a 252 stands out something like a Crossover Cadillac on the runway at sea level!

People with an Eagle are known to spend a fist full of AMU to bump up to the O3 performance of the Screamin' Eagle.

Let me know if I made any math errors. YMMV.

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

Astel,

I'm trying to enable the conversation...

If it's a safety issue, let's not promote it.

If it's not a safety issue in one area of the country, then let's discuss it with the required detail.

I'm in the camp of more HP is better than less.

Putting it in perspective...

O3: 310 HP/ 3,358 # = 1/ 10.8

O1: 280 HP/ 3,358 = 1/ 12.0

Eagle1: 240 HP/ 3,358 = 1/ 14.0

"Overloaded" 201: 200 HP/ 3,200# = 1/ 16.0. (this is not as good as a Piper Cherokee)

C4 Corvette: 300 HP / 3239# = 1/ 10.8

2013 SRX crossover by Cadillac: 308 HP/ 5467# = 1/ 17.8

Cherokee 140: 150 HP/ 2,150# = 1/ 14.3

If we don't like the Cherokee performance with a 14.3 wgt/HP ratio, then overloading the 201 to the level of a 252 stands out something like a Crossover Cadillac on the runway at sea level!

People with an Eagle are known to spend a fist full of AMU to bump up to the O3 performance of the Screamin' Eagle.

Let me know if I made any math errors. YMMV.

Best regards,

-a-

 

Nice analysis carusoam,

 

So running the statement backwards - a cherokee 140 is a dawn, but perfectly safe if the take off settings are carefully chosen.  So using the same 1/14.3 cherokee number on the 200hp 201 gives 2860lb.  What is the current gross of a 201? 

 

Or on a O3 with 310hp at 1/14.3 gives 4433lb for similar crummy performance.  Just speaking theoretically.  

 

I trained on an AMD Alarus - don't laugh - it was what was available and it was just fine.  It was a dawgs dawg if you wanted it to go uphill.  116hp pushing 1,692lb, so 1/14.58 hp/#.  Maybe 1/16hp/# is a very bad idea.

[Smiles201]

Hate to say it, but overloading is for either the very rich, or for single people with no children who don't care if their liability insurance does not cover them if something bad happens.

[carusoam]

EB,

Gross weight of an M20J is listed at 2,900#

300# over gross, as José mentioned, 3,200#...

Clearly the wgt/HP ratio doesn't clearly tell us what WILL fly, but it sure INDICATES (as José pointed out) what MAY NOT...

Patrick is speaking to us clearly on this one...

Best regards,

-a-

[201er]

Eagle1: 240 HP/ 3,358 = 1/ 14.0

"Overloaded" 201: 200 HP/ 3,200# = 1/ 16.0. (this is not as good as a Piper Cherokee)

Cherokee 140: 150 HP/ 2,150# = 1/ 14.3

Anthony, I don't think it only comes down to power to weight ratio. These aircraft have differing drag profiles and airfoils. Furthermore, one has a constant speed prop and the other doesn't. According to your numbers, an M20J at standard gross of 2740 is 1/13.7 which is very close to the 14.3 of the cherokee but I can tell you in practice, the 201 far far outclimbs the cherokee 160s I've flown which come in at the same 1/13.7!!!!

[carusoam]

Mike,

The ratio only makes a suggestion and positive proof is what is required. Suggestions aren't enough for the average pilot with average skills to "go" when overloaded.

As you point out, with identical airframes, would increasing my HP automatically increase my GW?

Increased HP doesn't automatically increase GW, it could....with an STC???

How much additional HP comes with the IO390? Any?

Adding a Hartzell Scimitar prop?

It's better to drive the fat Caddy on that odd day. Especially when out west in the mountains, on hot days, or with short unpaved runways.

PIC has some pretty important responsibility.

Best regards,

-a-

[Parker_Woodruff]

You guys are flat out ridiculous that want to fly overweight without enough power.  Especially with some of the higher numbers I'm hearing here.  3000+ in a 200 hp M20J??!!  Higher angle of attack to support your climb also means more drag and weak performance.  Just wait till you get in a bind overgross and NEED that climb rate.  Just wait till you need the power on a go-around or aborted landing.

[aaronk25]

The J will climb 600-650fpm at 3000lbs. At a da of 3000 just not 7000, then its about 400 Fpm.

And it's not more angle of attack if IAS is increased by 5kts or so. Longer runways less obstical clearance is definitely a issue but If given a choice is fly a 3000lbs m20j in a second compared to any piper with a Hershey bar wing at gross.

All I wish we would have is a gross operating limitation weight that varied with DA much like jets do with weight and runway lengths.

[AndyFromCB]

You guys are flat out ridiculous that want to fly overweight without enough power.  Especially with some of the higher numbers I'm hearing here.  3000+ in a 200 hp M20J??!!  Higher angle of attack to support your climb also means more drag and weak performance.  Just wait till you get in a bind overgross and NEED that climb rate.  Just wait till you need the power on a go-around or aborted landing.

 

My point exactly, that's why I had them download fuel;-) It's one thing to depart 150lb over gross in my Bravo from my home airport at 1000MSL on a nice cold day (can't tell a difference), it's another to depart from Denver on a warm day with downdrafts from the mountains. Even at gross, the take off roll was sluggish and much longer and it took it's sweet time to accelerate to 85knots from lift off.

[Parker_Woodruff]

The J will climb 600-650fpm at 3000lbs. At a da of 3000 just not 7000, then its about 400 Fpm.

And it's not more angle of attack if IAS is increased by 5kts or so. Longer runways less obstical clearance is definitely a issue but If given a choice is fly a 3000lbs m20j in a second compared to any piper with a Hershey bar wing at gross.

All I wish we would have is a gross operating limitation weight that varied with DA much like jets do with weight and runway lengths.

 

I've flown the M20J at 2900 lbs and I'm sure it can be flown at 3000 lbs.  That's not the point.

 

The operating limitation you need for these airframes is structural in many ways.  But it's also performance based.  Performance charts should help make your go/no-go decision when it comes to Density Altutude.

[goncaloareia]

The J will climb 600-650fpm at 3000lbs. At a da of 3000 just not 7000, then its about 400 Fpm.

And it's not more angle of attack if IAS is increased by 5kts or so. Longer runways less obstical clearance is definitely a issue but If given a choice is fly a 3000lbs m20j in a second compared to any piper with a Hershey bar wing at gross.

All I wish we would have is a gross operating limitation weight that varied with DA much like jets do with weight and runway lengths.

Aaron is totally right!

And guys, let's stop the finger pointing! It's not ridiculous to discuss these matters and we're all grown up, responsible and liable for our acts! And by the way, I'm a lawyer so I guess I have a clear picture of these matters...

Let's keep the discussion as opened as possible for the sake of the airmanship that we all must look for.

We all know that one day or another we'll operate our ship's at gross or very near it, so this discussion is very important for all of us to understand what's involved and allow us to make the best decisions.

[Parker_Woodruff]

And guys, let's stop the finger pointing! It's not ridiculous to discuss these matters and we're all grown up, responsible and liable for our acts! And by the way, I'm a lawyer so I guess I have a clear picture of these matters...

 

 

Speaking of liability, think of what every CFI on this board has to worry about - negligent instruction.  Some CFIs carry insurance for it, some don't.

 

Which is why I won't hand over the weight and balance docs of a 220 horsepower M20K to the owner of a 210 horsepower M20K.

 

In insurance I deal with people quite often who get dragged into annoying situations by litigious people.  I've got my own story of having to provide documentation for a court in order to defend someone that hired me to deliver an airplane.

[N201MKTurbo]

I believe that if we have an accident while over gross, we have effectively canceled our insurance policy.

[Parker_Woodruff]

I believe that if we have an accident while over gross, we have effectively canceled our insurance policy.

Not necessarily, unless there is a provision for that in the policy (and in some cases there may be).  I have actually seen that wording in some policies, but it's not everywhere.

 

Insurance is designed to protect you in the event of your negligence.  Intentional acts to cause bodily injury or property damage are not covered, that is for sure.

 

In short, aviation insurance companies are not looking for reasons to deny claims.  But everyone has a duty to uphold their end of the contract.