DA40 Max Landing Weight

by **Tom-B** » Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:09 am

I had the same upgrade completed this summer and the all in cost was $6,600. More importantly this upgrade increased my useful load for my 2002 DA40 to 935.6 lbs.

by **Rich** » Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:41 pm

nathanda40 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:27 pm
Rich wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:40 pm Before the MTOW/MLW change the numbers were:
MTOW: 2535 lb.
Max zero Fuel weight (irrelevant, though implicit and not reasonably attainable): 2535 lb.
MLW 2407 lb. (21.3 gal fuel burnoff required.)

After:
MTOW: 2646 lb.
Max zero Fuel weight now explicitly defined: 2535 lb.
MLW 2535 lb. (18.3 gal fuel burnoff required.)

I've flown other light aircraft where there was a difference. One example that comes to mind was a Comanche 260 with a 200 lb. difference. That had a knob on the panel you could pull to dump fuel in the air.

The guidance in the POH for above-spec landing weight amounts to "touch down gently"
If I may ask, any idea what the cost would be for just the MLW increase? What about both MTOW/MLW?

The lion's share was MLW, as it required replacing the two 19mm thick main landing gear legs with the 18mm. Here's the invoice, FWIW:

by **nathanda40** » Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:27 pm

Rich wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:40 pm Before the MTOW/MLW change the numbers were:
MTOW: 2535 lb.
Max zero Fuel weight (irrelevant, though implicit and not reasonably attainable): 2535 lb.
MLW 2407 lb. (21.3 gal fuel burnoff required.)

After:
MTOW: 2646 lb.
Max zero Fuel weight now explicitly defined: 2535 lb.
MLW 2535 lb. (18.3 gal fuel burnoff required.)

I've flown other light aircraft where there was a difference. One example that comes to mind was a Comanche 260 with a 200 lb. difference. That had a knob on the panel you could pull to dump fuel in the air.

The guidance in the POH for above-spec landing weight amounts to "touch down gently"

If I may ask, any idea what the cost would be for just the MLW increase? What about both MTOW/MLW?

by **Lou** » Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:16 am

I thought the certification test actually involves dropping the aircraft from a stipulated height. It has nothing to do with flight characteristics or braking. Perhaps someone else knows for certain.

by **Colin** » Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:36 am

I agree. My first real flight in a DA40 demo plane I dropped it from six feet onto the concrete at LGB.

A month later I bought that plane.

by **Rick** » Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:47 pm

It seems to me that a half-way decent landing with 100 lbs of "extra fuel" is going to put FAR less stress on the landing gear than many of the DA40 landings I have witnessed at the local flight school.

by **Rich** » Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:40 pm

Before the MTOW/MLW change the numbers were:
MTOW: 2535 lb.
Max zero Fuel weight (irrelevant, though implicit and not reasonably attainable): 2535 lb.
MLW 2407 lb. (21.3 gal fuel burnoff required.)

After:
MTOW: 2646 lb.
Max zero Fuel weight now explicitly defined: 2535 lb.
MLW 2535 lb. (18.3 gal fuel burnoff required.)

I've flown other light aircraft where there was a difference. One example that comes to mind was a Comanche 260 with a 200 lb. difference. That had a knob on the panel you could pull to dump fuel in the air.

The guidance in the POH for above-spec landing weight amounts to "touch down gently"

by **Lance Murray** » Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:35 pm

“What airline's operations center told a pilot to land over MGLW?“

None. The decision is the Captain’s alone. He is the final authority and solely responsible.

by **Lance Murray** » Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:50 am

For a frame of reference. The 747-8 MGTOW IS 967,000# MLW is 763,000#. Burn the first hour is probably around 25,000#. You would have to jettison or burn over 200,000# of fuel. Not too hard to believe. You would have to fly 4-5 hours to get below landing weight or the fuel can be jettisoned in a relatively short amount of time.

That’s a hard call to make a high risk landing to help a single medical emergency. But....maybe the Captain thought it best. That’s his call and in an emergency he may deviate from FARs and limitations to the extent necessary. Remember that the PIC is always in command no matter what. He/she may just need to use the magic word.

by **Boatguy** » Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:49 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:17 pm I think it would only be the vertical component of V that you are worried about, as it is hard to imaging braking inducing loads on the landing gear that they cannot handle.

I remember a 747 pilot on a flight out of Moscow for NY talking about a passenger with an acute MI. He had to put it down in Helsinki with full fuel. Basically they looked at the wind conditions, figured it was smooth enough to put it down gently, and went for it rather than dump thousands of gallons of Jet A into the Baltic.

That's challenging to believe. It's at least a one hour flight from Moscow to Helsinki and burns a lot of fuel on climb out at MGTW. When I worked for an airline which flew DC-10's, pilots could not land over the plane's max gross landing weight of 525,000. Period.

What airline's operations center told a pilot to land over MGLW?

DA40 Max Landing Weight

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight

Re: DA40 Max Landing Weight