Thread: Useful load and flying above MTOW

OK, I'll admit it. I used to fly my Archer above MTOW knowing that in an hour I would have burned enough fuel to be below the max. I didn't do it at high DA's or heavy winds or with any other malevolent factor present. Now I feel better, confession is good for the soul.........

That being said I was looking at the specs for the LS vs the SW and it looks like they shaved about 120 lbs off of the useful. I thought that I read an article that said the net gain for the new model was 25 lbs. Guess I read that one wrong. The big useful load is one of the attractions of the CT's. That -120 is a big deal (to me) and I am just wondering if the changes to the LS in terms of flyability compensate for the loss of the useful.

I guess another question is do these planes absolutely, no kidding, gotta do it, have to be flown at or below MTOW? And before you ask I am not a madman nor have I been drinking. I just know that planes get lighter as they fly and sometimes you have to carry a lot of junk.

I gotta leave the booth now, there is some nervous looking guy in line who flies J3 Cubs into IMC......

First off I would say that because of the regs I would not take off above MTOW. However the CT is a lot like a 182 if it will fit it will fly. The numbers you looked up are not quite real world figures. If you get an SW equiped like an LS the LS will have about 35-50 pound less useful load. Both are good airplanes. The early LS's had very heavy controls compared to the SW, but the later LS's are about the same. I have about 300-400 hours in a SW then about 150 in a LS. I had a chance to go fly a SW again and it realy made me appreciate the LS. Tom

Tom,

When you say early LS's are you talking 2008's or just the first few planes. I am hoping to get the chance to fly both planes. I was very lucky to fly an SW yesterday due to the generosity of Roger F, it was fun and I really appreciated it.

david,

how about a pirep? was co-ordination non-intuitive? do you approach with 30 degrees and closed throttle? site picture? round out? flare? control forces? responsive? did you over controll?

it might be a big adjustment

Charlie,

If you are talking about the flight I had with Roger, I flew the plane for about 20 minutes in the middle of the flight. Roger did the take off and landing. What I found during the flight was that there will be a yoke to stick transition for sure. Although I was much finer in my movements at the end of the 20 minutes than I was at the beginning. The coordination seemed like about any other plane but more responsive. My Pipers take more force to get the same result. I was flying the stick with my right hand, I was in the right seat, at the beginning of the flight so that my left would be near the throttle, radio, etc. In the middle I switched to my left hand and I was much better, that is the hand I fly with in my plane. I found the VSI on the Dynan to be sensitive so I just paid attention to the altimeter and that was enough. Roger said the VSI does race up and down some and not to chase it. Other than just feeling new it was fun to fly and I really enjoyed the visibility.

Like I said Roger landed the plane and I can see that the technique is different. I am in the 30 degrees flaps, full stall landing camp with the planes that I fly so adjustment will be needed. But it really just looked like he flew the plane all the way to the ground with some power, 15 degrees flaps and we landed on the mains. I don't ride much in the right seat so I can't say about the site picture, it all looks weird from over there to me.

I really had fun and it was way generous of Roger to accommodate me. I plan on doing much more flying this summer in a CT so I should have a better feel in a few months. I am not the fastest learner in the world, so I take my time and make sure that I really understand the techniques and unique characteristics of each plane. I will also read up more and hopefully get my hands on the planes POH.

All in all I don't think that the transition will be much more than going from a Cessna to a Piper which I did during training when I bought my Archer. I am looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by Redpenny

Tom,

When you say early LS's are you talking 2008's or just the first few planes. I am hoping to get the chance to fly both planes. I was very lucky to fly an SW yesterday due to the generosity of Roger F, it was fun and I really appreciated it.

About the first half of 2008.

I heard a rumor in the spam can days that 10% over gross is often used as a rule for how much to cheat when in a load-challenged bird (like the Rockwell Commander 112 I used to rent), but not when you are hot and high. Thats an extra 132# in the CT. I would not claim to have tried it, but I think that our birds might run out of steam fairly quickly if you pushed the limits compared to some production planes. In my experience the rotax is affected more by hot and high than some engines. This could be because the altitude compensation in the carbs is not as accurate as manual leaning, but our birds might also be affected a lot by an overweight condition. I can certainly feel the difference between max gross and 132# under gross. - WF

I suggest you read the log book entrys of the Swiss pilots who are flying CTLSs around the world with 120 gallons of fuel on board. My quick calculation would put them about 500 lbs. over gross. They admit they need long runways and need to be very careful on the controls until the weight gets closer to normal. They have flown 17 hour legs burning off about 85 gallons of 100LL.

100LL because more readly available and consistant standard of quality than hi-test auto gas?

What the swiss pilots are doing is just testimony to what our little planes are capable of under very carefully controlled conditions that are very limited in time.
Make no mistake, doing this on a regular basis would sooner rather than later result in catastrophic failure where slowly and gradually exceeding the airframe design specs would lead to that.
Not a good thing to be considering.

Cheers,
J