>Hi Geof,>>And I'm sure you have found that the Baron "is not a 6 place>airplane". :-)It's a good 2 place, lots of baggage and full>fuel or 4 place, baggage and some fuel. My SUPER Viking is a>good 2 place,full fuel and baggage. But 4 adults? Only if two>of them are grossly under weight (90lbs) adults. So much for>the manufacturer sales pitches.>>But even the airliners, Boeing, Douglas and Airbus can't even>fly with full passenger loads that manufacturers advertise>sometimes due to high temperatures/altitudes. (I Left a lot of>passengers behind in Denver and Las Vegas in my day)>It's the bottom line, on gross weight, isn't it...If the aircraft can't climb to miss obstacles due to weight combined with density altitude factors, than that's where it ends. I'd say that the lack of climbing ability comes before possible structure overload, landing gear failure, etc.I've seen the remains of three different airplanes that never got far from the airport boundary due to being over gross with poor density altitude conditions. All were fatal. L.Adamson

Yes Larry your 100% correct and here's a picture of a Viking that shows it's more a limiting matter of performance than structure. :-)Ed Weber a.k.a. tallpilot

Ya'll don't forget the venerable ole C206. 1700 lb. useful load which gives you full extended fuel and six 200 pounders. Flew out of our strip on one occasion with nine souls aboard - six adults, two kids on the baggage shelf (w/approved jump seat and seat belt), and a lap held infant (yes FAA legal before second birthday). All within the weight and balance envelope.Regards,Leon

Makes you wonder, if you'd want to fly the Viking after that, doesn't it? :D L.Adamsonedit: I mean "that" particular Viking

1700 lb useful load on a 206??????Must have been a real OLD one with minimal avionics (and not much else on board), as even a Cherokee 6 260 didn't have that ability, and it was known for its load carrying capability.In fact, a new non-turbo Cessna 206 today (according to Cessna) http://stationair.cessna.com/spec_gen.chtml has a useful load of about 1380 lbs, less than an older Cherokee 6, and just 160 lbs more than my 1980 Piper Dakota (1220 lbs). The turbo 206 has a useful load of just 1266 lbs., http://turbostationair.cessna.com/spec_gen.chtml, a whopping 46 pounds more than my Dakota. So much for six seats with adults in them and full fuel. ;-)Of course, my Dakota has a greater useful load than a new, $600,000 Piper Saratoga, and not much less than a new $800,000 Piper Seneca V!Yes, older aircraft (very much older) were a different story.My 1973 Cherokee 235 had a useful load (1360 lbs), 22 lbs less than a new Piper Seneca V (1382 lbs), and just 20 lbs less than that non-turbo Cessna 206.Of course, when it came from the factory, and before we added extra avionics to it, it's useful load bettered both the new 206s and Seneca V, at about 1400 lbs.Yup, all those extra "goodies" in the new aircraft cost weight, a lot of it too.If you want to fill those seats, make sure some of your pax are children, or adults who have gone on a serious diet. ;-)Otherwise, there are few aircraft where one can fill the seats with average weight adults and fill the tanks, and LSA's are no exception to that.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

I think I know what you really mean John.I haven't read all the replies here, but....NEVER EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER fly outside of the PUBLISHED certification limits of ANY aircraft! DO NOT become a test pilot!Aside from the obvious safety reasons (especially on hot days) if you're out of CG, I think you can get nailed at ANY TIME by anyone from FSDO who happens to come by doing routine ramp checks.If you do have an accident and you did everything right, you're still in a 90% chance that any FAA/NTSB report will find some fault with the pilot.Now, you're actually talking about a couple of different things...but mainly the useful load (after fluids) or payload of the aircraft is what you're talking about. When people overload their a/c that can also be refered to as 'over grossing' the aircraft.John, please be careful when you select the aircraft you want to own or fly and make sure they can handle the mission you want. A little overkill is just fine for performance when it comes to the safety of the flight.

I'd also like to add that you're going to run into alot of people who are going to suggest their own brand of 'home made remedies' for skirting different issues, but I for one do not play around with anything outside of the published criteria for any aircraft.There's no such thing as "hundred mile an hour tape" for airplanes unless you want to increase your odds for an accident.

<<1700 lb useful load on a 206??????<> <> <>Hi Lou,Yes - 1700 lb useful load on a 206!!!!!! If I sound defensive, please forgive me, but it sounds a little like my credibility has been challenged, and my airplane has been insulted. My 206 weights 1900 lbs. empty, and has a book gross of 3600 lbs. Mine is a 1967 U-206 with a 300 hp. Continental IO-520-F, which is fuel injected but non-turbocharged. It is minimally equipped and probably lighter than original as I

As I said, Leon, a "very old one", and a '67, no offense, is almost 40 years old! Now, take those older planes and start upgrading them with Garmin and other goodies and... ;-)Don't take this stuff personally. I just don't want FS folks to think this is the norm, as it is not, and the newer aircraft often have dismal useful loads for their size, power, and price.Older aircraft are in a different league. Sometimes a better league and sometimes not.In fact, with all the mods we've done to my Dakota over 26 years, we are going to have it weighed during annual this year, in order to see exactly what the empty weight is. Our shop suggested it!You gotta remember: I often release aircraft for FS and have folks questioning the "realism" because they cannot fill the seats and the tanks and remain under gross.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

You make a good point Lou. We bought the aircraft in 1978, and to those of us now over 50, that seems almost recent...scary. And sitting beside our 1946 C120 (aviation family here), it IS relatively new (hey, it's younger than me).Now the 120 is a different story. It's had metallized wings, metal prop, electrical system, new interior, and a nice compliment of instruments/avionics installed over the years - bringing the useful load from 700'ish (don't have the POH in front of me) to just over 500 lbs.Anyway, thanks for commenting, and I'm sure we're all looking forward to your team's future projects.Regards as always,Leon

Hi Leon,It has been quite awhile since we have communicated. Have you and your family gotten through the 2004 Hurricane mess? If you ever get over to KORL, please call or visit Air Orlando, West Side by Sheltair.W. Sieffert

Greetings,Has been a while hasn't it? Yes, we finally got cleaned up from that horrible mess (though there are still plenty of blue tarps on roofs). I set some pretty good anchors to hold the hangar doors on the tracks last year, but still bailed at the first threat, and took the 206 to my Dad's place in Alabama...better safe than sorry I guess. The return home that evening was interesting. The carriers have a somewhat rigorous search policy in place for folks buying one-way tickets on short notice carrying a flight bag full of charts, portable avionics, etc. The rest of the passengers seemed to enjoy it though.Thanks for asking. I trust all is back in order with you as well, and I absolutely will get over there at some point in the future. Nice hearing from you again.Leon