TupolevTu154 From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2116 posts, RR: 31 Posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6753 times:
Evening everyone.
Whilst browsing through the database, and having seen them "in the flesh", Cessna Stationairs and Piper Cherokee 6's, amongst others, look like they could be prone some weight related issues.
How much of a danger is there of the aircraft "popping a wheelie" like that infamous Korean MD11 photograph? How is the weight balanced to ensure the rear fuselage doesn't touch the ground, should the rear seats be occupied?
I'm assuming some description of ballast would be required in the front of the aircraft, or in cruise, some serious trimming.
Any insight as to the prevention of an incident would be appreciated.
CptSpeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6731 times:
I've flown a 206 at Max Gross...the tail comes pretty close to the ground, especially before you start the engine, but once you get it running, the nosewheel strut compresses and it's not that much of an issue... In this case, I make it a point to put somebody up front first before loading the rear passengers to further reduce the chances of the plane coming back on the tail. Also, the 206 and PA-32s are designed that way...I've never seen one that doesn't sit low in the back...
All airplanes have weight and balance limitations that are clearly laid out in the POH. This data is modified for any changes to the airplane also, whether it be an avionics upgrade, new interior, bigger fuel tanks, etc. The manufacturer establishes limits for how much weight can be put where in the airplane so you don't run into issues like this. If you follow the rules, you shouldn't have any issues...if you bend the rules a little, you run a greater risk of damaging the aircraft.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6714 times:
CptSpeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6703 times:
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6685 times:
It is easily possible to load the 206/7 out of CG with high density items. When empty, I found the 206 to be somewhat nose heavy. After you run a few practice scenarios though, it is easy to get a feel for what will work and what wont. I always tried to put the heaviest items in the middle.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29349 posts, RR: 62 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6663 times:
Quoting TupolevTu154 (Thread starter): How much of a danger is there of the aircraft "popping a wheelie" like that infamous Korean MD11 photograph? How is the weight balanced to ensure the rear fuselage doesn't touch the ground, should the rear seats be occupied?
I have put a 207 (actually it was the same A/C) on it's arse twice. Once putting a free-standing commerical ice cream maker in one, and the other time it too 3 150HP and two 75HP Mercury outboards to do it.
Both the 207 and the stretched PA-28's have a nose baggage compartment to help out with CG issues. But that being said, both aircraft have pretty wide CG ranges.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
TupolevTu154 From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2116 posts, RR: 31 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6616 times:
Thanks for the replies everybody.
So, if the aircraft is empty, it's nose heavy ayway? I'm also assuming the aircraft would be equipped with a more powerful engine up front in order to lift those two more extra people.
CptSpeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6608 times:
Quoting TupolevTu154 (Reply 6): I'm also assuming the aircraft would be equipped with a more powerful engine up front in order to lift those two more extra people.
Sure thing...of course, "more powerful" is a relative term, but I'm assuming you're referring to a number in relation to a 172 or 182, something along those lines, considering the addition of two seats. Standard 172s now come with 180hp engines, normally aspirated...the 206 I fly has a turbocharged 310hp engine... the Lycoming TIO-540. As a bigger engine, you've got to be more careful about shock cooling it in the descent, and it's actually very easy to do because the airplane does not like to slow down...if the descent planning isn't done well ahead of time, you're usually not going to make target altitudes and airspeeds without shocking the engine. It's a very fun airplane to fly when it's lightly loaded though
ATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2035 posts, RR: 41 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6565 times:
Yea ive never had a problem with CG in the Cherokee 6 300 I flew a couple times. (once with 6 adults). I cant say anything for the 206 or 207's as ive never flown one as PIC (or done any w&b calcs on em), closest for me would be a 210 which is a little different (though very similiar).
ATCT
Real pilots fly planes that take and measure oil in gallons
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3081 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6553 times:
Six seat aircraft can get a little interesting. This is one of the reasons many have a club seating configuration. Yes, it's better for passenger interaction but the primary purpose was placing the two in the middle seat further forward.
The third seat in a bonanza is pretty much useless unless you have a couple kids along for the ride. Then again, an adult wouldn't have enough headroom anyway.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5929 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6548 times:
Quoting ATCT (Reply 8): closest for me would be a 210 which is a little different (though very similiar).
The gear retraction system in the 210 helps out any nose heaviness issues that the bird might otherwise have...I have flown the 210 solo before. Nothing like a 182...I think when I'm solo aboard a 182 with full fuel, the CG is actually too far forward (that's what a 5'6", 160 pound pilot does for ya.. ). I was shocked when I actually computed a weight and balance for a 182 (with just me and fuel on board) once...
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29349 posts, RR: 62 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6531 times:
So, if the aircraft is empty, it's nose heavy ayway? I'm also assuming the aircraft would be equipped with a more powerful engine up front in order to lift those two more extra people.
Thanks again.
One other thought,
A lot of these aircraft if they are used in rural Alaska will take a nose high attitude while sitting on the ground. It is a combination of running larger then stock tires and putting more pressure in the nosewheel strut.
Improves the ground angle and floatation on soft strips.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2116 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, 
). I was shocked when I actually computed a weight and balance for a 182 (with just me and fuel on board) once...
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
