Increase Gross Weight

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
170C
Posts: 3182
Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 11:59 am

Increase Gross Weight

Post by 170C »

A friend purchased a '61 C-172 with an AirPlanes STC'd Lycoming O-380 (180 hp). His paperwork indicates an increase of 350# (2550#). How does swapping the engine (fixed prop) do this? I "think" the engine/prop weight is about the same as the O-300 & prop.
OLE POKEY
170C
Director:
2012-2018
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10313
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Re: Increase Gross Weight

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

They got approval by proving the aircraft with the modification would meet or exceed the original certification process at the new weight.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
N2625U
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:21 pm

Re: Increase Gross Weight

Post by N2625U »

O 380? I think he means the O360. If I remember correctly the STC for the weight increase also restricts the flaps to 30 degrees.
Keep your speed up, Blackhawk on final behind you.
User avatar
170C
Posts: 3182
Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 11:59 am

Re: Increase Gross Weight

Post by 170C »

O-380, yea isn't that that bored out O-360 :oops: should have proofread my post. I'll have to ask if the stc put a limit of 30 deg's on the 172. Sure climbs good!
OLE POKEY
170C
Director:
2012-2018
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Increase Gross Weight

Post by GAHorn »

One of the limiting factors in certification is "balked-landing-climb" requirement. In plain language, this is the ability of the aircraft to be able to go-around and climb with the flaps in the landing configuration without flap retraction. (in case the flaps were stuck or in case the pilot was unable for whatever reason to reduce flap deployment.)

Many engine conversions, in an effort to avoid expense (and liability) simply adopt existing certification performance...OR... state their modification "meets or exceeds" original type cert./AFM performance.

If they went to the trouble and expense to retest the performance after the modification, they apparently discovered and documented improved performance at the higher weight.

(Cessna accomplished a similar gross wt increase in the 1981 Cessna 172-line by reducing landing flap deployment from 40 to 30 degrees. Of course, there is also a maximum stall-speed allowable and the increase in gross wt affects a higher stall speed, as does the reduced 30-degree landing-flap. Therefore there is a trade-off to consider.)

On top of all that, the door posts are where the wing stress loads are concentrated, and increased operating weights place more strain on those doorposts.
In order to maintain the necessary safety-margins either the wing attach/doorposts have to be redesigned... or the weights have to be restricted.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
Post Reply