Fat boy wants to soar...

[toggles mcfarley]

Hi,
after a hiatus of nearly 20 years I'd like to start soaring again
only this time I'm carrying a few extra pounds. Having decided on this
last year I started working on the weight in Jan and am down to 230lb
in boxers though I am continuing work on it.
As I start to look for a club can anyone point to gliders that can
handle taller (6') people with larger front seat max weights so I can
look for clubs with them? I'm located in south west PA so if anynoe
knows a club with a bigger ship within a few hours that can help that
would be great.

Cheers.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Mar 17, 7:00*am, toggles mcfarley >
wrote:
> Hi,
> *after a hiatus of nearly 20 years I'd like to start soaring again
> only this time I'm carrying a few extra pounds. Having decided on this
> last year I started working on the weight in Jan and am down to 230lb
> in boxers though I am continuing work on it.
> *As I start to look for a club can anyone point to gliders that can
> handle taller (6') people with larger front seat max weights so I can
> look for clubs with them? I'm located in south west PA so if anynoe
> knows a club with a bigger ship within a few hours that can help that
> would be great.
>
> *Cheers.

Look at the SSA Where to Fly map for opportunities. Click on each one
to examine the fleet. Any with a G103, 2-33, L-13, or L-23 should
work IF they have a light instructor. Wear light shoes. You appear
to have maybe 6-7 options within a 150 mile radius.

Frank Whiteley

[Fred[_5_]]

SoaringNV has a 2-32 we use for instruction for folks with extra
pounds. We have someone in the high 200's who finished his private
certificate with us last year and now comes every week for more
soaring. I know, Minden is a long way from Pennsylvania, but if you
want to do a concentrated program and get your certificate, we can
accommodate you. And as Frank says, shed just a few more pounds or
fly in your briefs and you'll be ok for the K-21 or Duo Discus. So if
you want some really outstanding soaring, come visit and get your
instruction at SoaringNV in Minden!

Fred LaSor
SoaringNV
Minden, NV
775 782-9595

[BT[_3_]]

6ft and 230# will not work in our 2-33A, the front seat student will not be
able to effectively move the control stick as needed.
Legs and belly get in the way. And yes, you need a very light weight
instructor.

Most "European" gliders of the Grob 103, L-23 design are limited to 242# per
seat and our Grob 103 is limited to 400# total useful load.

We use our Grob 103 for the larger students, and at 230#, the instructor has
to be 170# or less. We have one of those.
We have also found that even at 230-240# in the front seat, our student is
having problems with smooth landings and keeping the nose up for landing. He
runs out of elevator travel at touch down speed, an extra 5knts helps, but
then he still two points it.
BT

"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 17, 7:00 am, toggles mcfarley >
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> after a hiatus of nearly 20 years I'd like to start soaring again
>> only this time I'm carrying a few extra pounds. Having decided on this
>> last year I started working on the weight in Jan and am down to 230lb
>> in boxers though I am continuing work on it.
>> As I start to look for a club can anyone point to gliders that can
>> handle taller (6') people with larger front seat max weights so I can
>> look for clubs with them? I'm located in south west PA so if anynoe
>> knows a club with a bigger ship within a few hours that can help that
>> would be great.
>>
>> Cheers.
>
> Look at the SSA Where to Fly map for opportunities. Click on each one
> to examine the fleet. Any with a G103, 2-33, L-13, or L-23 should
> work IF they have a light instructor. Wear light shoes. You appear
> to have maybe 6-7 options within a 150 mile radius.
>
> Frank Whiteley

[Bruce Hoult]

On Mar 18, 2:00*am, toggles mcfarley >
wrote:
> Hi,
> *after a hiatus of nearly 20 years I'd like to start soaring again
> only this time I'm carrying a few extra pounds. Having decided on this
> last year I started working on the weight in Jan and am down to 230lb
> in boxers though I am continuing work on it.

It's really not a big deal. Yeah, most gliders have the seats
placarded as 110 kg (242.5 lb), but it's not as hard a limit as some
people like to make out. All gliders are built to take at least 5g of
acceleration at the placarded maximum weights, so they have huge
amounts of reserve strength in normal flying never going above 2 - 3
Gs.

There are a number of things that impose weight limits, but the main
one for the standard 110 kg per-seat limit is that the seat belt
straps and mounting points are rated for a 40g load with a 110 kg
pilot in the event of a crash. If you're a bit over, like me, then try
to keep any crashes down to 35g.

Weight of the non-lifting parts is an important limit. You can
compensate for that one with a light instructor, in which case feel
free to throw the beast around as much as you like. Otherwise go easy
on the aerobatics and fly a bit slower in rough air than the book
says.

The other technical thing to worry about is CofG. Most gliders are
very tolerant of a too-forward C of G. It's pretty common to not be
able to completely trim out the elevator force in a thermalling turn,
even for pilots within the placarded limits, but you'd have to be
grossly out of trim for it not to fly ok. I'm not very proud of this,
but I once forgot to look under the seat for ballast and took off in a
Janus with around 145 - 150 kg in the front seat, between me and the
ballast I didn't notice, and with a reasonably large guy in the back
seat as well. I did notice on liftoff that the stick needed to be
maybe half an inch further back than normal, but it flew just fine
with no problems at all in tight thermalling or in the flare on
landing, and it could still be stalled at right around the normal
speed.

More of a worry, especially with operators in the USA, seems to be
insurance. Some places are absolutely strict about doing everything by
the book. As far as I can tell they are worried about claims being
denied in the event of an accident. Or maybe being sued, I don't
know. Here in NZ a claim could only be denied if exceeding a
particular placarded limit can be shown to have contributed to the
crash, but it may be different elsewhere. Excess weight is of great
concern in powered aircraft as it can easily contribute to failure to
take off in the available space, or failure to get an adequate rate of
climb, but that is far less of an issue in gliders where we regularly
throw 200 kg of ballast in the wings and we're probably only talking
at most 10 or 20 kg extra in a pilot. Maybe it's a different attitude
here but, for example, it is absolutely standard for agricultural
operators to take off at 30% over the manufacturer's MTOW and the
aviation authorities and insurers are happy with it as long as the
excess can be jettisoned in a few seconds.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Mar 17, 8:49*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2:00*am, toggles mcfarley >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > *after a hiatus of nearly 20 years I'd like to start soaring again
> > only this time I'm carrying a few extra pounds. Having decided on this
> > last year I started working on the weight in Jan and am down to 230lb
> > in boxers though I am continuing work on it.
>
> It's really not a big deal. Yeah, most gliders have the seats
> placarded as 110 kg (242.5 lb), but it's not as hard a limit as some
> people like to make out. All gliders are built to take at least 5g of
> acceleration at the placarded maximum weights, so they have huge
> amounts of reserve strength in normal flying never going above 2 - 3
> Gs.
>
> There are a number of things that impose weight limits, but the main
> one for the standard 110 kg per-seat limit is that the seat belt
> straps and mounting points are rated for a 40g load with a 110 kg
> pilot in the event of a crash. If you're a bit over, like me, then try
> to keep any crashes down to 35g.
>
> Weight of the non-lifting parts is an important limit. You can
> compensate for that one with a light instructor, in which case feel
> free to throw the beast around as much as you like. Otherwise go easy
> on the aerobatics and fly a bit slower in rough air than the book
> says.
>
> The other technical thing to worry about is CofG. *Most gliders are
> very tolerant of a too-forward C of G. It's pretty common to not be
> able to completely trim out the elevator force in a thermalling turn,
> even for pilots within the placarded limits, but you'd have to be
> grossly out of trim for it not to fly ok. I'm not very proud of this,
> but I once forgot to look under the seat for ballast and took off in a
> Janus with around 145 - 150 kg in the front seat, between me and the
> ballast I didn't notice, and with a reasonably large guy in the back
> seat as well. I did notice on liftoff that the stick needed to be
> maybe half an inch further back than normal, but it flew just fine
> with *no problems at all in tight thermalling or in the flare on
> landing, and it could still be stalled at right around the normal
> speed.
>
> More of a worry, especially with operators in the USA, seems to be
> insurance. Some places are absolutely strict about doing everything by
> the book. As far as I can tell they are worried about claims being
> denied in the event of an accident. Or maybe being sued, I don't
> know. *Here in NZ a claim could only be denied if exceeding a
> particular placarded limit can be shown to have contributed to the
> crash, but it may be different elsewhere. *Excess weight is of great
> concern in powered aircraft as it can easily contribute to failure to
> take off in the available space, or failure to get an adequate rate of
> climb, but that is far less of an issue in gliders where we regularly
> throw 200 kg of ballast in the wings and we're probably only talking
> at most 10 or 20 kg extra in a pilot. *Maybe it's a different attitude
> here but, for example, it is absolutely standard for agricultural
> operators to take off at 30% over the manufacturer's MTOW and the
> aviation authorities and insurers are happy with it as long as the
> excess can be jettisoned in a few seconds.

Many BGA gliders get a weight concession for non-aerobatic flights,
but that's strictly a BGA matter AFAIK. Not sure if it will apply
after EASA gets done.

[BT[_3_]]

Knowing flying over the MTOW or out of the CG range can cause an insurance
company to deny a claim.
Continued flight over Max GW can increase the fatigue on an aircraft over
time and increase failures to controls, hinges or wing structures.
Knowingly flying out of CG range, and you are a test pilot.

You mention the Janus with extra weight, our Janus C has a lot of useful
load, max the seats at 110kg each and yes, it can still carry more to reach
Max allowable GW. You mention needing more aft stick to keep the nose up.
Yes, the aircraft will still stall about the same speed, but recovery can be
delayed because more tail force is needed to raise the nose after stalling,
that means more airspeed for recovery to get the elevator to be effective.

You mention loading up "200kg" of water in the wings. Most single seat
gliders are made to carry ballast "up to max GW", to knowingly fly over the
max allowable GW with extra water ballast. Again, you are a test pilot. Not
all gliders can be "filled" as in filling the the water bags to the max
quantity without going over max GW. Each glider is different and should be
checked.



"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 18, 2:00 am, toggles mcfarley >
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> after a hiatus of nearly 20 years I'd like to start soaring again
>> only this time I'm carrying a few extra pounds. Having decided on this
>> last year I started working on the weight in Jan and am down to 230lb
>> in boxers though I am continuing work on it.
>
> It's really not a big deal. Yeah, most gliders have the seats
> placarded as 110 kg (242.5 lb), but it's not as hard a limit as some
> people like to make out. All gliders are built to take at least 5g of
> acceleration at the placarded maximum weights, so they have huge
> amounts of reserve strength in normal flying never going above 2 - 3
> Gs.
>
> There are a number of things that impose weight limits, but the main
> one for the standard 110 kg per-seat limit is that the seat belt
> straps and mounting points are rated for a 40g load with a 110 kg
> pilot in the event of a crash. If you're a bit over, like me, then try
> to keep any crashes down to 35g.
>
> Weight of the non-lifting parts is an important limit. You can
> compensate for that one with a light instructor, in which case feel
> free to throw the beast around as much as you like. Otherwise go easy
> on the aerobatics and fly a bit slower in rough air than the book
> says.
>
> The other technical thing to worry about is CofG. Most gliders are
> very tolerant of a too-forward C of G. It's pretty common to not be
> able to completely trim out the elevator force in a thermalling turn,
> even for pilots within the placarded limits, but you'd have to be
> grossly out of trim for it not to fly ok. I'm not very proud of this,
> but I once forgot to look under the seat for ballast and took off in a
> Janus with around 145 - 150 kg in the front seat, between me and the
> ballast I didn't notice, and with a reasonably large guy in the back
> seat as well. I did notice on liftoff that the stick needed to be
> maybe half an inch further back than normal, but it flew just fine
> with no problems at all in tight thermalling or in the flare on
> landing, and it could still be stalled at right around the normal
> speed.
>
> More of a worry, especially with operators in the USA, seems to be
> insurance. Some places are absolutely strict about doing everything by
> the book. As far as I can tell they are worried about claims being
> denied in the event of an accident. Or maybe being sued, I don't
> know. Here in NZ a claim could only be denied if exceeding a
> particular placarded limit can be shown to have contributed to the
> crash, but it may be different elsewhere. Excess weight is of great
> concern in powered aircraft as it can easily contribute to failure to
> take off in the available space, or failure to get an adequate rate of
> climb, but that is far less of an issue in gliders where we regularly
> throw 200 kg of ballast in the wings and we're probably only talking
> at most 10 or 20 kg extra in a pilot. Maybe it's a different attitude
> here but, for example, it is absolutely standard for agricultural
> operators to take off at 30% over the manufacturer's MTOW and the
> aviation authorities and insurers are happy with it as long as the
> excess can be jettisoned in a few seconds.

[Guy Byars[_2_]]

On Mar 18, 12:43*am, "BT" > wrote:

> Knowing flying over the MTOW or out of the CG range can cause an insurance
> company to deny a claim.


Can anyone anywhere cite a single example of an insurance company
denying a claim due to flying outside MTOW or CG ranges?

[Mitch]

On Mar 18, 2:23*pm, Guy Byars > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:43*am, "BT" > wrote:
>
> Can anyone anywhere cite a single example of an insurance company
> denying a claim due to flying outside MTOW or CG ranges?

Wow, Guy. I'd guess the answer thus far is "no".

[bildan]

On Mar 18, 2:23*pm, Guy Byars > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:43*am, "BT" > wrote:
>
> > Knowing flying over the MTOW or out of the CG range can cause an insurance
> > company to deny a claim.
>
> Can anyone anywhere cite a single example of an insurance company
> denying a claim due to flying outside MTOW or CG ranges?

The insurance issue isn't getting a settlement for the first accident
related to an over gross flight - you will get paid. However, a
problem may arise at renewal time.

There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. The
JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
fries.

The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.

It may only be my impression but it seems to me that gliders that are
habitually operated over gross suffer undue wear and damage to the
landing gear, seats and cockpit area. I've noticed that some POH's
call for tire pressure above the max pressure on the tire sidewall.
I wouldn't think operating those gliders over gross is a good idea.

[delboy]

On Mar 20, 2:15*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2:23*pm, Guy Byars > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 12:43*am, "BT" > wrote:
>
> > > Knowing flying over the MTOW or out of the CG range can cause an insurance
> > > company to deny a claim.
>
> > Can anyone anywhere cite a single example of an insurance company
> > denying a claim due to flying outside MTOW or CG ranges?
>
> The insurance issue isn't getting a settlement for the first accident
> related to an over gross flight - you will get paid. *However, a
> problem may arise at renewal time.
>
> There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. *The
> JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
> but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
> fries.
>
> The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
> Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
> The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.
>
> It may only be my impression but it seems to me that gliders that are
> habitually operated over gross suffer undue wear and damage to the
> landing gear, seats and cockpit area. *I've noticed that some POH's
> call for tire pressure above the max pressure on the tire sidewall.
> I wouldn't think operating those gliders over gross is a good idea.

You could always suggest that Mr McFarley cuts down on the Burgers,
French fries and beer, and does a bit of exercise. Or is that not
'American'?

Derek C

[Brad[_2_]]

On Mar 20, 7:41*am, delboy > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:15*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 2:23*pm, Guy Byars > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 12:43*am, "BT" > wrote:
>
> > > > Knowing flying over the MTOW or out of the CG range can cause an insurance
> > > > company to deny a claim.
>
> > > Can anyone anywhere cite a single example of an insurance company
> > > denying a claim due to flying outside MTOW or CG ranges?
>
> > The insurance issue isn't getting a settlement for the first accident
> > related to an over gross flight - you will get paid. *However, a
> > problem may arise at renewal time.
>
> > There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. *The
> > JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
> > but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
> > fries.
>
> > The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
> > Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
> > The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.
>
> > It may only be my impression but it seems to me that gliders that are
> > habitually operated over gross suffer undue wear and damage to the
> > landing gear, seats and cockpit area. *I've noticed that some POH's
> > call for tire pressure above the max pressure on the tire sidewall.
> > I wouldn't think operating those gliders over gross is a good idea.
>
> You could always suggest that Mr McFarley cuts down on the Burgers,
> French fries and beer, and does a bit of exercise. Or is that not
> 'American'?
>
> Derek C

careful................remember we have lot's of cruise
missiles.........;)

[delboy]

On Mar 20, 4:01*pm, Brad > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 7:41*am, delboy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2:15*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 2:23*pm, Guy Byars > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 18, 12:43*am, "BT" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Knowing flying over the MTOW or out of the CG range can cause an insurance
> > > > > company to deny a claim.
>
> > > > Can anyone anywhere cite a single example of an insurance company
> > > > denying a claim due to flying outside MTOW or CG ranges?
>
> > > The insurance issue isn't getting a settlement for the first accident
> > > related to an over gross flight - you will get paid. *However, a
> > > problem may arise at renewal time.
>
> > > There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. *The
> > > JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
> > > but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
> > > fries.
>
> > > The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
> > > Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
> > > The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.
>
> > > It may only be my impression but it seems to me that gliders that are
> > > habitually operated over gross suffer undue wear and damage to the
> > > landing gear, seats and cockpit area. *I've noticed that some POH's
> > > call for tire pressure above the max pressure on the tire sidewall.
> > > I wouldn't think operating those gliders over gross is a good idea.
>
> > You could always suggest that Mr McFarley cuts down on the Burgers,
> > French fries and beer, and does a bit of exercise. Or is that not
> > 'American'?
>
> > Derek C
>
> careful................remember we have lot's of cruise
> missiles.........;)- Hide quoted text -
>

You also have a lot of very *big* people, so I guess you are right! We
see some of them in the UK during the tourist season.

A quick plug for our tourist industry (about all we have left) if you
don't mind:

Thanks to our useless 'socialist' government the pound is now worth
b*gg*r all, so you will get a good exchange rate if you come over this
year. We even have gliding, and a lot of sites that do winch launching
if you want to give it try, or wish to learn properly. We will make
you very welcome, although we would appreciate it if you weigh less
than 232 lbs (105 kg) to allow for wearing a 10 lb parachute. We speak
a fairly quaint old fashioned form of American called English by the
way, so no need to learn another language.

Derek C

[Bruce Hoult]

On Mar 21, 3:15*am, bildan > wrote:
> The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
> Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
> The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.

That is clearly not true. A lot of aircraft design is trading off one
desirable feature against another.

In the case of powered aircraft the MTOW is the weight used to
establish the published takeoff run, the distance to clear a 50'
obstacle, the rate of climb, the service ceiling, and probably others.
If you're operating out of short strips then you want to know how much
load you can carry. If you're operating a cessna off a 4 km runway at
sea level with no obstructions then it will be perfectly safe to
operate somewhat over MTOW, especially if the extra weight is carried
in the wings.

In the case of, for example, our club's DG1000 basic trainers, the
aircraft is permitted to do unlimited aerobatics with a +7/-5 G rating
at MTOW. If that's not a requirement on a particular flight and you're
happy with the +5/-3 G like most other gliders then you could operate
at some higher weight.


> There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. *The
> JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
> but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
> fries.

Seat weight is one thing, CofG is quite another. With the tail ballast
box full, those same DG1000's are within the published CofG limit even
with two pilots well over 110 kg each.

[bildan]

On Mar 21, 2:05*am, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 3:15*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
> > Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
> > The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.
>
> That is clearly not true. A lot of aircraft design is trading off one
> desirable feature against another.

We're talking gliders not airplanes. I claim it's precisely true.
Trade-offs you mention were made by the engineers who signed the
airworthiness documents. Estimates made on the flight line don't even
remotely rise to that level of expertise.

>
> In the case of powered aircraft the MTOW is the weight used to
> establish the published takeoff run, the distance to clear a 50'
> obstacle, the rate of climb, the service ceiling, and probably others.
> If you're operating out of short strips then you want to know how much
> load you can carry. If you're operating a cessna off a 4 km runway at
> sea level with no obstructions then it will be perfectly safe to
> operate somewhat over MTOW, especially if the extra weight is carried
> in the wings.

Although an overweight glider could make an aero tow takeoffs
hazardous under some conditions for the same reasons.

>
> In the case of, for example, our club's DG1000 basic trainers, the
> aircraft is permitted to do unlimited aerobatics with a +7/-5 G rating
> at MTOW. If that's not a requirement on a particular flight and you're
> happy with the +5/-3 G like most other gliders then you could operate
> at some higher weight.

Yes, you can fly an aerobatic glider at a heavier weight if flown
within standard class G limits. But, we were not talking about
aerobatic gliders.

>
> > There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. *The
> > JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
> > but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
> > fries.
>
> Seat weight is one thing, CofG is quite another. With the tail ballast
> box full, those same DG1000's are within the published CofG limit even
> with two pilots well over 110 kg each.

We're not talking about 'CofG' we're talking about gross weight. The
seat is primary structure just like a wing spar and is only designed
to support 110 Kg. In many, if not most, gliders, if the seat
structure fails, the flight controls would be jammed - just as
catastrophic as a wing failure.

Bottom line, if you fly outside the airworthiness certification
limits, you're a fool claiming to be smarter than the engineers who
designed the glider. Yes, I know the BGA allows over gross flights.

[Bruce]

Hi Bill

I agree on the - fly within the limits. But I must disagree on your view
that seats are designed for 110kg. There is no rule that says you have
to limit it to 110kg. Read CS 22.25(a)(2)- the a minimum assumed single
seat load is 110kg - and all the force multipliers work fomr that
assumption. Effectively - For JAR-22/EASA CS-22 they are designed to
withstand 110kg*40g - that's 4400kg...

So - no - a fat guy sitting on one is not going to break it. Although
some of them might deform enough to be a problem at reachable G levels.
This is the "test pilot" part of exceeding the design limits.

It's all here if you feel like reading.
http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/rg_certspecs.php

CS 22.625 Fitting factors - Says you have to multiply by 1.33 for seat
loads.
CS 22.561
CS 22.785 Seats and safety harnesses says it has to be strong enough to
handle the force multipliers specified for emergency landings and crash
resistance with the designed seat load. The minimum load for calculation
of strength required being 110kg.

Practically the force multipliers are so high the they design for 110kg.
Practically - the size of the cockpit naturally limits the amount of
load you can put on the seat pan. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to
manage a 200kg load on a single seat...

Of more interest structurally is the total mass of non-lifting
components. That puts bending load into the main spar - so it does
matter. Although - again the multipliers used are very high. You are
unlikely to exceed safe strength margins unless you are executing
aerobatic manoeuvres.

Bruce

bildan wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2:05 am, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 3:15 am, bildan > wrote:
>>
>>> The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
>>> Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
>>> The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.
>> That is clearly not true. A lot of aircraft design is trading off one
>> desirable feature against another.
>
> We're talking gliders not airplanes. I claim it's precisely true.
> Trade-offs you mention were made by the engineers who signed the
> airworthiness documents. Estimates made on the flight line don't even
> remotely rise to that level of expertise.
>
>> In the case of powered aircraft the MTOW is the weight used to
>> establish the published takeoff run, the distance to clear a 50'
>> obstacle, the rate of climb, the service ceiling, and probably others.
>> If you're operating out of short strips then you want to know how much
>> load you can carry. If you're operating a cessna off a 4 km runway at
>> sea level with no obstructions then it will be perfectly safe to
>> operate somewhat over MTOW, especially if the extra weight is carried
>> in the wings.
>
> Although an overweight glider could make an aero tow takeoffs
> hazardous under some conditions for the same reasons.
>
>> In the case of, for example, our club's DG1000 basic trainers, the
>> aircraft is permitted to do unlimited aerobatics with a +7/-5 G rating
>> at MTOW. If that's not a requirement on a particular flight and you're
>> happy with the +5/-3 G like most other gliders then you could operate
>> at some higher weight.
>
> Yes, you can fly an aerobatic glider at a heavier weight if flown
> within standard class G limits. But, we were not talking about
> aerobatic gliders.
>
>>> There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. The
>>> JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
>>> but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
>>> fries.
>> Seat weight is one thing, CofG is quite another. With the tail ballast
>> box full, those same DG1000's are within the published CofG limit even
>> with two pilots well over 110 kg each.
>
> We're not talking about 'CofG' we're talking about gross weight. The
> seat is primary structure just like a wing spar and is only designed
> to support 110 Kg. In many, if not most, gliders, if the seat
> structure fails, the flight controls would be jammed - just as
> catastrophic as a wing failure.
>
> Bottom line, if you fly outside the airworthiness certification
> limits, you're a fool claiming to be smarter than the engineers who
> designed the glider. Yes, I know the BGA allows over gross flights.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[bildan]

Check your POH - it will say 110KG max in each seat. The POH is part
of the airworthiness certification documents and is the legal, and
engineering, standard. The operator of an aircraft is given no
latitude in interpreting this.

To say a glider seat is designed to withstand 4400 G positive is
ridiculous. It shows the danger of trying to 'out-engineer' the
people who designed the glider.

I don't know what part of the world you live in but I know one FAA
Operations Inspector who has a bathroom scale in his car. I know he
has zero tolerance for violations of POH limits like gross weight and
seat limits.

On Mar 21, 3:16*pm, Bruce > wrote:
> Hi Bill
>
> I agree on the - fly within the limits. But I must disagree on your view
> that seats are designed for 110kg. There is no rule that says you have
> to limit it to 110kg. Read CS 22.25(a)(2)- the a minimum assumed single
> seat load is 110kg - and all the force multipliers work fomr that
> assumption. Effectively - For JAR-22/EASA CS-22 they are designed to
> withstand 110kg*40g - that's 4400kg...
>
> So - no - a fat guy sitting on one is not going to break it. Although
> some of them might deform enough to be a problem at reachable G levels.
> This is the "test pilot" part of exceeding the design limits.
>
> It's all here if you feel like reading.http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/rg_certspecs.php
>
> CS 22.625 Fitting factors - Says you have to multiply by 1.33 for seat
> loads.
> CS 22.561
> CS 22.785 Seats and safety harnesses says it has to be strong enough to
> handle the force multipliers specified for emergency landings and crash
> resistance with the designed seat load. The minimum load for calculation
> of strength required being 110kg.
>
> Practically the force multipliers are so high the they design for 110kg.
> Practically - the size of the cockpit naturally limits the amount of
> load you can put on the seat pan. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to
> manage a 200kg load on a single seat...
>
> Of more interest structurally is the total mass of non-lifting
> components. That puts bending load into the main spar - so it does
> matter. Although - again the multipliers used are very high. You are
> unlikely to exceed safe strength margins unless you are executing
> aerobatic manoeuvres.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> bildan wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 2:05 am, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> >> On Mar 21, 3:15 am, bildan > wrote:
>
> >>> The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
> >>> Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
> >>> The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.
> >> That is clearly not true. A lot of aircraft design is trading off one
> >> desirable feature against another.
>
> > We're talking gliders not airplanes. *I claim it's precisely true.
> > Trade-offs you mention were made by the engineers who signed the
> > airworthiness documents. *Estimates made on the flight line don't even
> > remotely rise to that level of expertise.
>
> >> In the case of powered aircraft the MTOW is the weight used to
> >> establish the published takeoff run, the distance to clear a 50'
> >> obstacle, the rate of climb, the service ceiling, and probably others.
> >> If you're operating out of short strips then you want to know how much
> >> load you can carry. If you're operating a cessna off a 4 km runway at
> >> sea level with no obstructions then it will be perfectly safe to
> >> operate somewhat over MTOW, especially if the extra weight is carried
> >> in the wings.
>
> > Although an overweight glider could make an aero tow takeoffs
> > hazardous under some conditions for the same reasons.
>
> >> In the case of, for example, our club's DG1000 basic trainers, the
> >> aircraft is permitted to do unlimited aerobatics with a +7/-5 G rating
> >> at MTOW. If that's not a requirement on a particular flight and you're
> >> happy with the +5/-3 G like most other gliders then you could operate
> >> at some higher weight.
>
> > Yes, you can fly an aerobatic glider at a heavier weight if flown
> > within standard class G limits. *But, we were not talking about
> > aerobatic gliders.
>
> >>> There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. *The
> >>> JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
> >>> but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
> >>> fries.
> >> Seat weight is one thing, CofG is quite another. With the tail ballast
> >> box full, those same DG1000's are within the published CofG limit even
> >> with two pilots well over 110 kg each.
>
> > We're not talking about 'CofG' we're talking about gross weight. *The
> > seat is primary structure just like a wing spar and is only designed
> > to support 110 Kg. *In many, if not most, gliders, if the seat
> > structure fails, the flight controls would be jammed - just as
> > catastrophic as a wing failure.
>
> > Bottom line, if you fly outside the airworthiness certification
> > limits, you're a fool claiming to be smarter than the engineers who
> > designed the glider. *Yes, I know the BGA allows over gross flights.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Bruce Hoult]

On Mar 22, 11:23*am, bildan > wrote:
> To say a glider seat is designed to withstand 4400 G positive is
> ridiculous. *It shows the danger of trying to 'out-engineer' the
> people who designed the glider.

That's like trying to say that people who slow below the posted speed
limit for corners on a mountain road and go a bit faster on the
straights are trying to "out engineer" the people who designed the
road.

If you think doing things precisely according to book and never
exercising any judgement will keep you safe you are likely to find
yourself in big trouble. Judgement is properly exercised in BOTH
directions -- knowing when you need to modify the book numbers
downward is no more and no less valid than knowing when and why you
can modify them upwards. Think!

> I don't know what part of the world you live in but I know one FAA
> Operations Inspector who has a bathroom scale in his car. *I know he
> has zero tolerance for violations of POH limits like gross weight and
> seat limits.

I don't doubt it. There are brainless Jobsworths everywhere.

[Derek C]

On 21 mar, 22:16, Bruce > wrote:
> Hi Bill
>
> I agree on the - fly within the limits. But I must disagree on your view
> that seats are designed for 110kg. There is no rule that says you have
> to limit it to 110kg. Read CS 22.25(a)(2)- the a minimum assumed single
> seat load is 110kg - and all the force multipliers work fomr that
> assumption. Effectively - For JAR-22/EASA CS-22 they are designed to
> withstand 110kg*40g - that's 4400kg...
>
> So - no - a fat guy sitting on one is not going to break it. Although
> some of them might deform enough to be a problem at reachable G levels.
> This is the "test pilot" part of exceeding the design limits.
>
> It's all here if you feel like reading.http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/rg_certspecs.php
>
> CS 22.625 Fitting factors - Says you have to multiply by 1.33 for seat
> loads.
> CS 22.561
> CS 22.785 Seats and safety harnesses says it has to be strong enough to
> handle the force multipliers specified for emergency landings and crash
> resistance with the designed seat load. The minimum load for calculation
> of strength required being 110kg.
>
> Practically the force multipliers are so high the they design for 110kg.
> Practically - the size of the cockpit naturally limits the amount of
> load you can put on the seat pan. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to
> manage a 200kg load on a single seat...
>
> Of more interest structurally is the total mass of non-lifting
> components. That puts bending load into the main spar - so it does
> matter. Although - again the multipliers used are very high. You are
> unlikely to exceed safe strength margins unless you are executing
> aerobatic manoeuvres.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
> bildan wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 2:05 am, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> >> On Mar 21, 3:15 am, bildan > wrote:
>
> >>> The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong.
> >>> Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity.
> >>> The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed.
> >> That is clearly not true. A lot of aircraft design is trading off one
> >> desirable feature against another.
>
> > We're talking gliders not airplanes. *I claim it's precisely true.
> > Trade-offs you mention were made by the engineers who signed the
> > airworthiness documents. *Estimates made on the flight line don't even
> > remotely rise to that level of expertise.
>
> >> In the case of powered aircraft the MTOW is the weight used to
> >> establish the published takeoff run, the distance to clear a 50'
> >> obstacle, the rate of climb, the service ceiling, and probably others.
> >> If you're operating out of short strips then you want to know how much
> >> load you can carry. If you're operating a cessna off a 4 km runway at
> >> sea level with no obstructions then it will be perfectly safe to
> >> operate somewhat over MTOW, especially if the extra weight is carried
> >> in the wings.
>
> > Although an overweight glider could make an aero tow takeoffs
> > hazardous under some conditions for the same reasons.
>
> >> In the case of, for example, our club's DG1000 basic trainers, the
> >> aircraft is permitted to do unlimited aerobatics with a +7/-5 G rating
> >> at MTOW. If that's not a requirement on a particular flight and you're
> >> happy with the +5/-3 G like most other gliders then you could operate
> >> at some higher weight.
>
> > Yes, you can fly an aerobatic glider at a heavier weight if flown
> > within standard class G limits. *But, we were not talking about
> > aerobatic gliders.
>
> >>> There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. *The
> >>> JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans
> >>> but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and
> >>> fries.
> >> Seat weight is one thing, CofG is quite another. With the tail ballast
> >> box full, those same DG1000's are within the published CofG limit even
> >> with two pilots well over 110 kg each.
>
> > We're not talking about 'CofG' we're talking about gross weight. *The
> > seat is primary structure just like a wing spar and is only designed
> > to support 110 Kg. *In many, if not most, gliders, if the seat
> > structure fails, the flight controls would be jammed - just as
> > catastrophic as a wing failure.
>
> > Bottom line, if you fly outside the airworthiness certification
> > limits, you're a fool claiming to be smarter than the engineers who
> > designed the glider. *Yes, I know the BGA allows over gross flights.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -

Apart from any structural considerations, many gliders handle and
perform like pigs if you have somebody really heavy in the front seat.
The BGA will generally permit a 10% cockpit overload, but the glider
then becomes non-aerobatic above the manufacturer´s original
recommended figure. EASA may well stop this pracice at some point in
the future.

Derek C

[jsbrake[_2_]]

I flew a L-33 with max pilot weight of 287#. The POH of my Kestrel 19
limits pilot weight through CoG limitations and MTOW (dry).

As for the BGA allowance, I thought it was 3% -- at least that's
what's I've seen on the BGA Data Certificates.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Mar 22, 11:40*am, jsbrake > wrote:
> I flew a L-33 with max pilot weight of 287#. *The POH of my Kestrel 19
> limits pilot weight through CoG limitations and MTOW (dry).
>
> As for the BGA allowance, I thought it was 3% -- at least that's
> what's I've seen on the BGA Data Certificates.

BGA allowance varies by airframe. I've never seen above 10%, which
was two seaters.

Frank Whiteley

[glider12321]

On Mar 22, 11:47*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:40*am, jsbrake > wrote:
>
> > I flew a L-33 with max pilot weight of 287#. *The POH of my Kestrel 19
> > limits pilot weight through CoG limitations and MTOW (dry).
>
> > As for the BGA allowance, I thought it was 3% -- at least that's
> > what's I've seen on the BGA Data Certificates.
>
> BGA allowance varies by airframe. *I've never seen above 10%, which
> was two seaters.
>
> Frank Whiteley

Has anyone seen the latest episode of "Pawn Stars" on the History
Channel (US)? It features an SGS 2-33 that was purchased as a wreck
and rebuilt. The last scene is a test flight with one of the "hefty"
characters of the series. Looked a little overloaded but flew. Anyone
know about the fate of that glider?

[ken]

In article
>,
jsbrake > wrote:

> I flew a L-33 with max pilot weight of 287#.

Inasmuch as the L-33 POH gives the pilot weight range as 121 to 243
pounds, is that something you really want to declare in public? Golly.

When I was 19, I rode my 500cc Yamaha about 90 mph down a 30 mph rural
Delaware dirt road to beat a freight train to an intersection so I
wouldn't have to wait for it to pass. I made it. This
flying-over-placarded-weight thread has the same feel.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do the train race today. Besides having been
immortal then, I don't think I understood the idea of error chains and
margins. Several motorcycle crashes later, I came to like margins.

--ken

[Derek C]

On 22 mar, 18:47, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:40*am, jsbrake > wrote:
>
> > I flew a L-33 with max pilot weight of 287#. *The POH of my Kestrel 19
> > limits pilot weight through CoG limitations and MTOW (dry).
>
> > As for the BGA allowance, I thought it was 3% -- at least that's
> > what's I've seen on the BGA Data Certificates.
>
> BGA allowance varies by airframe. *I've never seen above 10%, which
> was two seaters.
>
> Frank Whiteley

The 3% limit is probably on the maximum all up weight, not the cockpit
load. The increase was to allow two averagely large middle-aged gents
to legally fly two-seater trainers wearing parachutes. Aerobatics are
not permitted over the manufacturers recommended limits, and the 110Kg
(242lb) maximum seat loading still applies.

Derek C

[jsbrake[_2_]]

On Mar 22, 7:37*pm, ken > wrote:

> Inasmuch as the L-33 POH gives the pilot weight range as 121 to 243
> pounds, is that something you really want to declare in public? Golly.
>
The ship I flew was placarded for a maximum of 287# from the factory
-- I can only assume that the factory approved of that pilot weight,
regardless of what might be in the POH.
I never stated that I flew it at that weight, but I understand how one
might have inferred such.