636kg for the Comanche is outstanding
Only the 210 beats it with 694kg our 459kg with 88gal on board. The 100-120kg per passenger with baggage is a realistic figure. For a two week trip (2+2) I need the complete baggage and rear bank for the luggage.
But the point is, the plane must fit to your flight profile. Rent different types and do cross country flying and or vaciantions and look fits it or not. Even the W&b can be intressting, go nogo, looks it out.
I flow 50 h a TB20 and to store the luggage into the plane was always difficult. The compartement door is small an to move every thing over the wings is hard work. I didnt liked the sitting. Check this out before you buy.
Mooney driver wrote it. Don't buy the knowing fromm the flight scool, for traveling usless (172 eg)
[edited for quote formatting]
For a two week trip (2+2) I need the complete baggage and rear bank for the luggage
happy are those who started flying after a motorcycle career ... 
Peter,
The pilots I speak to say, yes, but the runways are long enough so nobody worries about it. They are not going into Wangen-Lachen...
Well, the analogy is not all that wrong. Airliners take off on runways with the correct amount of power needed to do so depending on weight and external conditions. If the runway is longer than the required lenght they will reduce engine power to a FLEX setting to take this into account, if it is shorter, they need to offload or if it is right on the limit, they will set maximum take off power.
If we operate out of fields like Wangen Lachen, we know that the runway is limited and therefore do a maximum performance take off. That is what the airliners do when they are runway limited.
The way passenger weight is calculated however is via standard weights given by IATA and possibly increased by the airline. This passenger weight includes hand luggage, which we know is an increasing problem. I'd say, out of 100 Passengers, maybe 10 have hand luggage which corresponds to international standards, that is 10 kg and the size we can all check on those little appliances they put next to the gate. Some airlines have less, 7-8 kg. There are some airlines which enforce this strictly, others do not.
Now, last time I looked, the standard IATA Weight was 83 kgs for adults, 38 kg for children and 10 for infants. A recent survey by EASA suggests, that this should be ammended to 88 kg per adult (with 94 kgs being calculated for males and 75 kgs per female). they do calculate checked in baggage as 17 kgs, bringing the grand total to 105 kgs. This includes a 10 kg cabin bag!
This might be maybe the most recent survey in that for Europe, figures I have seen for the US say that the 170 lb (77 kg) calculation figure per adult there is way outdated.
In my experience as a 18 year load controller (a time ago but I still know the trade) overall these figures will work for most flights, however, there are flights where they are totally wrong. Cabin baggage is equally a huge unknown. Personally, I tend to think that something akin to 100 kg for adults & cabin bag is more realistic, 23 kgs should be used for hold baggage.
I expect that with the figures I know there can be as much as 1 ton more load on the planes per 100 passengers, in some cases as much as 2.5 tons. For an A320 this means 1.5 to 3.5 tons. For an A380 we are talking as much as 12 tons. For foreign worker flights you may easily double that.
That may be true but (sticking my neck out here!) anybody of average height whose weight is in the top part of that range is well into the "clinical obesity" category and ought to do something about it ASAP if they want to have some quality of life as they get older, or indeed even live to old age.
That depends hugely on the height. For a class 2 medical, a BMI of less than 35 is permissible. The optimum BMI has been found to be about 27 for longlivety (contradicting the old < 25 mantra). Yes, that weight is a risk factor if it is accompanied by other factors like high bp or cholesterol, if it is not however, it is by people other than flight surgeons and health fanatics not considered dangerous. But that is not the point anyhow. Fact is, and I do go on record here for saying EASA is right about this, that mankind has supersized in recent years and will continue to do so. Average BMI has risen in the industrial nations from 24 to 29 over the years. That is a massive increase.
If one wants to haul four people of that size, with luggage, one needs a Cessna 421 or similar, and it's going to be awfully expensive.
And that is where the aviation industry has gone wrong. The 170 lb they took to calculate their payload calcs were nd are massively obsolete. that is one reason why we get 4 seaters which can't carry more than two infants as crews when filled.As a consequence, the certification criteria do not allow for this and therefore we see a lot of GA planes which are not up to the task they were constructed for.
More than that, I would say. Taking random future dates, perhaps 50% if you fly 100% legal VFR. But it will be seasonal.
It depends on a lot of factors, I meant over the year and I think for that it is optimistic. Here, basically November to March are unflyable VFR 90-95% of all days if you include both flat lands and the Alps. In Summer, I'd think that figure goes down to maybe 80%. The Alps are the major hurdle here, which in 2013 now may well hit a new record in terms of unflyability. My own experience over the years has been that 90% of my planned trips can't be done due to weather. 2012 we had a 60% reduction of flight hours as a consequence. If 2013 is the same, it will be the end for my ownership unless EASA comes up with the new IR in time for me to profit from that.
One massively important thing I didn't know the importance of back then was RANGE.
Very true. I do hope more will be done in that regard. For me, a plane needs to have a range of 1500 NM to be sufficiently viable plus 125-150 kg available payload per seat with full tanks. To achieve this range, it would need to be able to fly fast (>200 kt) at about 7-8 GPH maximum. We'll see if someone takes the challenge.
[edited for formatting... always use a space after < ]
Björn, yes that sounds reasonable. 2+2 means somewhere around 500 kg.
The 210 is excellent in that regard as a 4 seater. With 6 seats, things go downhill fast. I know someone who has ripped his rear seats out for more baggage space.
I sometimes get the feeling that if it was for our better halfs, we'd have to rethink flying altogether and instead by a truck or one of these... and I don't mean the car in that pic...
But the point is, the plane must fit to your flight profile. Rent different types and do cross country flying and or vaciantions and look fits it or not. Even the W&b can be intressting, go nogo, looks it out.
Very true. Not many spouses or other regular passengers are as enthusiastic as Peter's or mine. One guy who tried to convince his wife of the advantages of a private aircraft had to give up as she insited on a toilet.... and some who fly into my kind of destination sold their planes and bought trucks. One of my pals got himself an AN2 cargo version, put in 2 first class seats near the front bulkhead and cargo nets behind it... his wife still managed to overload it an bitched that the toilet (behind the cargo) was not reachable without climbing over (her) baggage. If I remember right, that plane has a full fuel payload of some 3 tons.
Then again, I hear that there are some very cheap IL76's to be had.....
Well, the outcome is the O-320-H2AD, an engine, that has to run in order to get to TBO. If you don't fly this plane for at least 250 hours a year (basis of experience), you'll get problems with the bearings, cams and lifters
Indeed. In the flying club I was in back in Houston, we came to the conclusion that the "AD" in the engine designator meant "airworthiness directive". Although ours flew 500+ hours a year, we still had one engine not make TBO by quite a long margin due to cam shaft spalling.
Not many spouses or other regular passengers are as enthusiastic as Peter's or mine
Justine likes to get to the destinations we go to (which are obviously chosen to be nice places anyway) but she doesn't like long plane trips very much.
She also doesn't like IMC, because she knows too much about what could be in there But then I don't do IMC enroute anyway.
We have found day trips to be suprisingly good value. The simplest case is a day out at Le Touquet, or even a scenic UK city like Cambridge.
The toilet issue has to be addressed if you want to go anywhere. It is simply not acceptable to be forced to land if somebody needs a pee, and you can never guarantee it won't happen - even on the shortest flight.
I don´t stop for pee! http ://www.amazon.de/TRAVEL-JOHN-Wegwerf-Urinal-St%C3%BCck/dp/B0019M7VE6/ref=sr14?ie=UTF8&qid=1371472474&sr=8-4&keywords=reise+WC
I´m still looking for a nice Transall! Parachute droppper, bullet proof, good on gras strips and the car always at the runway. Never again baggage load from the cart to the plane! But no hangar aviable :-(
6 adults in at 210 fits not really, but 4 adults + 2 Kids + baggage and 3h fuel works fine!
Every singel A320/737 is "overload" not by the paper but by the weight they carry! A320 calculates a own figure at the roll an shows up to 5 tons more weight than on the "load" sheet. But so long the papers say OK, everythink is OK. The only reason why planes fly is, because the papers are good :-)
This might be maybe the most recent survey in that for Europe, figures I have seen for the US say that the 170 lb (77 kg) calculation figure per adult there is way outdated.
My wife and I have an average weight of 136 lbs (62 Kg) - when you're a pilot and motorcyclist it pays to select a spouse that is half your size. The final nail in the coffin for my many decades of single life was to see her pack in a single bag the size of a small back pack, and show up for dinner looking elegant every night!
Björn,
I know those and I'll spare you the nasty details of the last time they got used.
Peter,
The toilet issue has to be addressed if you want to go anywhere. It is simply not acceptable to be forced to land if somebody needs a pee, and you can never guarantee it won't happen - even on the shortest flight.
Well, yes, we have a bottle. But that is not what THAT lady wanted, she basically wanted a full fledged toilet, installed as in the airliners. Means basically a cabin class plane.
Silvaire,
My wife and I have an average weight of 136 lbs (62 Kg) - when you're a pilot and motorcyclist it pays to select a spouse that is half your size. The final nail in the coffin for my many decades of single life was to see her pack in a single bag the size of a small back pack, and show up for dinner looking elegant every night!
You are lucky! I never got the hang of motorcycles... was a lousy cyclist even as a kid. 4 wheels is for me... I do admit it was also a vote of confidence in my wife when I bought the Mooney, as they are not known for their lavish cabins, particularly the C model. But we manage. Last time to BG we were at MTOW... the 2 of us, my flight bag and her baggage. At least she has got admirable packing skills. I don't think that at any time in the history of the M20C has so much baggage volume found it's way to the destination in this airplane.
Most people buy their first plane with totally false pretexts. Peter is the only guy I know who actually did the calcs and ended up with a plane which will last him for most of his career.
That's an interesting point. I would very much agree, that you should always aim for your "final" aircraft when buying your own. Which of course means being clear on what kind of flying you really intend to do, realistically. There's little point in going through a lot of step-up aircraft with all the hassle of buying & selling when you could just as well train in the aircraft that you intend to fly.
New pilots are sometimes initially intimidated towards anything more powerful than the C172 or PA28 they've trained on. But confidence quickly grows with a slightly larger aircraft. For instance, I think it's perfectly fine for a newly minted PPL going straight into a SR22, perhaps flying with a CSIP for the next 50 hrs to get solid.
However, I'm just not sure it's entirely feasible in all cases. Could a low hour PPL step right into a Baron?
Even a fairly docile DA42 would be a mouthful for a newly minted PPL. Insurance alone would probably mandate at least 300-400 hrs & IR, and that's a lot of inflight training with a flight instructor before being let solo.
When you get into PA46T & TBM territory it gets even more improbable. I just don't see anyone stepping out of the flight school's C172 & into the left seat of a TBM. (though I'm sure it's been done somewhere)
Incidentally, having recently been through the aircraft ownership process myself, after spending 100s of hours looking at numbers, anecdotes, options etc, I think the whole thing really boiled down to 3 issues (by priority):
Budget (always stay within your comfort zone)
Mission capabilities (range, seats/payload, flexibility, wx capability)
Pick a plane you love to fly (don't just buy on numbers alone)
