Superslam35
Member
I have a 2002 7-gcbc with metal spars and aluminum landing gear . Is it true that with the above combination it pushes your gross weight allowed to 1950 lbs ?
Gross weight 1800 or 1950lbs
- Thread starter Superslam35
- Start date
According to the ACA FAQ, yes but you need a new AFM.
Metal Spar Wings FAQs | American Champion Aircraft
Interested in learning more about metal spar wings? Read through our list of frequently asked questions.
www.americanchampionaircraft.com
Superslam35
Member
How do I get that
Superslam35
Member
Okay thanks
Superslam35
Member
Well it doesn't matter if you have aluminum landing gear and spars according to the company it is still 1800 gw unless it is a high country with a 180 hp .
darrell whitley
Well-known member
I have a 2001 citabria, aluminum gear and metal spar... 1800 GW.. I think you could go to 1950 with a spray kit restricted category.. There is a way..
Bummer, but 1800 should be adequate for most purposes with a little planning. Could be worse. See Johan Whiteman's thread. His 1970 GCBC has MGW of 1650#. With empty weight of 1230 it is basically a one person aircraft, or an adult and child.
Nobody will say it in public, but part of the art of flying these airplanes is developing some judgement on when over gross is acceptable. Most of this series aircraft climb well, so takeoff performance is not usually a constraint. My Super D, which is the heaviest variant with the least effective wing, is off the ground in 1000 feet and passing thru 500 AGL at the end of our 4000 foot runway at best ROC and MGW. Flat bottom wings climb better, even with a smaller engine.
Likewise for CG and in-flight characteristics. Almost impossible to exceed rearward CG limit with pilots and fuel. With a lot of baggage you could do it, but you usually run out of space first. I had the baggage area of my Decathlon piled to the roof with camping gear for Oshkosh, and was nowhere near my weight or CG limits.
That leaves landing, which is where the risk comes in. The original steel landing gear were adequate for the original aircraft, but as the series progressed into bigger engines, they were not upgraded in the design. That left the gear a little flimsy for the heavier aircraft, and thus vulnerable to prop strikes and nose overs from excessive gear flexion, especially with older gear legs that have been "sprung". I believe the MGW on many of our aircraft is driven by drop test results during type certification. ACA finally rectified that issue with the heavier aluminum gear and replacement of the U bolts with bar bolts about 20 years ago. That is why the metal winged Decathlon must have aluminum gear to get the 1950 MGW.
So ... IMO only ... if you are not operating from a short field, a prudent pilot who knows his plane well might reason that taking off on an XC trip 20-30 pounds over gross is an acceptable risk when you know you will be well under gross when it comes time to land.
Acro is a whole different ball game. There is engineering and advanced math involved there. Those limits should be carefully respected, especially if you are pulling towards the limits of the aircraft, such as my avatar illustrates.
As Bob would say: Opinion.
Nobody will say it in public, but part of the art of flying these airplanes is developing some judgement on when over gross is acceptable. Most of this series aircraft climb well, so takeoff performance is not usually a constraint. My Super D, which is the heaviest variant with the least effective wing, is off the ground in 1000 feet and passing thru 500 AGL at the end of our 4000 foot runway at best ROC and MGW. Flat bottom wings climb better, even with a smaller engine.
Likewise for CG and in-flight characteristics. Almost impossible to exceed rearward CG limit with pilots and fuel. With a lot of baggage you could do it, but you usually run out of space first. I had the baggage area of my Decathlon piled to the roof with camping gear for Oshkosh, and was nowhere near my weight or CG limits.
That leaves landing, which is where the risk comes in. The original steel landing gear were adequate for the original aircraft, but as the series progressed into bigger engines, they were not upgraded in the design. That left the gear a little flimsy for the heavier aircraft, and thus vulnerable to prop strikes and nose overs from excessive gear flexion, especially with older gear legs that have been "sprung". I believe the MGW on many of our aircraft is driven by drop test results during type certification. ACA finally rectified that issue with the heavier aluminum gear and replacement of the U bolts with bar bolts about 20 years ago. That is why the metal winged Decathlon must have aluminum gear to get the 1950 MGW.
So ... IMO only ... if you are not operating from a short field, a prudent pilot who knows his plane well might reason that taking off on an XC trip 20-30 pounds over gross is an acceptable risk when you know you will be well under gross when it comes time to land.
Acro is a whole different ball game. There is engineering and advanced math involved there. Those limits should be carefully respected, especially if you are pulling towards the limits of the aircraft, such as my avatar illustrates.
As Bob would say: Opinion.
Bob Turner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2018
- Messages
- 3,998
Of course such operation is illegal and voids your insurance - but other than that I agree with Ed. My aircraft is barely legal with me at 190, the Greek at 110, and almost full fuel. Always have that computed soewhere showing exact TOW.
That said, I know a guy with a Greek brother-in-law who is a purported 300 lbs. Rumor has it that he got in the back seat of an identical Decathlon, and the 190 lb pilot noted very little change in performance at sea level.
All of these small 2PCLM airplanes seem to be like that - be careful how you compute your empty weight, and always be able to "prove" you are within limits.
That said, I know a guy with a Greek brother-in-law who is a purported 300 lbs. Rumor has it that he got in the back seat of an identical Decathlon, and the 190 lb pilot noted very little change in performance at sea level.
All of these small 2PCLM airplanes seem to be like that - be careful how you compute your empty weight, and always be able to "prove" you are within limits.