As a nearly 30-year overall and former airline pilot with lots of varied flight experience, education, and certifications (Degrees in Aeronautics, Biology, and Automotive Technology, ATP AMEL with a couple of type ratings, Commercial ASEL, BGI, AGI, IGI, CFII MEI, and around 12,000 flight hours), I thought I’d add a little more to the posted information.

Hopefully, Tom eloquently (and yet light-heartedly) alleviated any concerns or fears expressed regarding the 150-pound max takeoff weight increase allowed via the Trolltune STC. This equates to only about a 5% increase from the aircraft’s original approval and, as has been thoroughly discussed, equals Cessna’s own increase in subsequent model production aircraft which was approved by the FAA without any structural changes, whatsoever, to the earlier models’ original design. As Tom also pointed out, “banging it on” in a hard landing at the lower weight creates FAR more stress upon the airframe and landing gear that even a “rough” landing while at the higher “over gross” landing weight that would occur in a return to airport at close to max takeoff weight in the event of some shortly-after-takeoff emergency. Another thought to consider is that while it may seem a little unusual to the average “newly-minted” light-aircraft GA pilot to have a max landing weight that is less than the max takeoff weight, I assure you it is the NORM, NOT the exception, in even slightly heavier GA aircraft and virtually ALL military and/or airline aircraft. So if nothing else, learning to factor in your fuel burn to destination and the resultant CG and landing weight considerations is GREAT practice for moving up to even slightly “bigger iron” (like even a 1976 Cessna 310R with a max takeoff of 5,500 pounds and a max landing of 5,400 pounds).

The certification weight limitations of any aircraft are actually related to expected or anticipated stress loads while in operation… not the weight itself. During development testing, static loads of the wings and other structures (engine mounts, etc.) are added and tested that FAR exceed final approval limitations. The sole purpose of this “intentional overloading” is to absolutely ensure the safety of the aircraft and its occupants in its normal ground and flight operations envelopes by building in very large “fudge factors”. For example, I’ll bet that, while simply parked in the chocks, you could carefully and gingerly “statically” load an additional two or three times its max gross takeoff weight onto and into this 182 without doing any damage to it at all, but I sure wouldn’t want to try to take off or land with it in that load configuration (*_^) !

Aircraft are routinely greatly overloaded in making one-time ferry flights to distant overwater destinations (such as flying from Van Nuys airport in southern California to deliver a GA aircraft… like a 182… to Hawaii), and this is completely approved by the FAA. Further still, in fact, if you check (the rather obscure) FAR 91.323, you will find that under certain circumstances some aircraft may even be approved by the FAA to receive a maximum certificated weight increase to “115 percent of the maximum weight listed in the FAA aircraft specifications” for regular everyday operations simply through the Administrator’s approval, more or less.

Again, has been stated in other posts, I would NEVER suggest that any pilot should “self-approve” operations which exceed ANY approved operating parameters UNLESS necessary to meet a true emergency situation (and in such a situation his or her “emergency authority” completely allows that choice). However, as Tom and others have, I hope, so clearly pointed out, this aircraft is EXTREMELY safe at its newly-certificated increased max takeoff weight. If you ever had to return to the airport to land in excess of its max landing weight, just make it a nice one!… and then get it inspected as required by the STC… even though there’s probably not a snowball’s chance in H— that there will be any problem found, whatsoever.

I always enjoy the respectful exchange of opinions and information in these posts, and I’m very glad to see that we still have a “new crop” of pilots making their way up into that great world of aviation we share despite our current economic woes. For those of you still near your aviation beginnings, welcome to what I believe the absolutely greatest club to which you’ll EVER belong… we’re glad to have y’all with us!

… but I’m sorry to inform you that N182CX is coming out to POC in sunny southern California if I have MY way (*_^)!!!

Stephen, when you wrote “I tell you what, I’ll let you fly it when I get it ok?”, a great big smile graced my face, along with a wish that you do, indeed, win the airplane ! Because, you see, I am going to hold you to that promise.

I really do understand your concerns. Aging aircraft and long term fatigue are issues not to be ignored. The Hawaiian “737 convertible” comes to mind, and that certainly got the industry’s attention. Thankfully, simple airplanes like the 182 series have suffered few, if any at all, serious failures attributed to age / fatigue – given proper inspection and maintenance. And, unless you tell me different, I suppose that Coast Guard helos (H-60 / HH-60J / MH-60T), and certainly the newer HC-144 fixed-wing, have never suffered serious related issues either. (Since this perhaps takes us off topic a little bit, you and other participants in this thread are welcome to discuss related themes with me via E-mail at: tom at trolltune dot com).

Getting back to 182 airplanes, there’s never been a question that our 182s are indeed beefy and capable of carrying very large loads. If we consider the “design margin” built into the airframes for a moment (only Cessna knows exactly what that margin actually is, but it’s probably better than 150% of these numbers): At a max gross permitted weight of 3100 pounds, the 182′s certification in the NORMAL category suggests that it can handle, flaps up, a 3.8G loading. This means 3100 X 3.8 = 11,780 pounds ! Now, under the Type Certificate I mentioned earlier, the airplane is allowed 130% of 3100, or 4030 pounds, but with a positive “G” limitation of 2.5G loading, i.e., 10,075 pounds.

Certainly, there are more issues to consider here, but I think this may bring a certain perspective. Can we go beyond 3100? Several of Cessna’s good customers for new 182T / T182T airplanes have begged for this, but I personally doubt it will happen (I could be wrong). I believe it has to do with a certification requirement regarding asymetrical wing loading. (Float equipped 182s are a special case).

Cheers,

Tom