Oh, thank you master

[Rich]

... said my plane today during the flight back to home base at S39 (Prineville, OR) after dropping off passengers at KBDN (Bend, OR).

I had picked up a couple of folks I'd volunteered to pick up at Portland and bring them to Bend to support our work on a new opera we're working up for production next month. This is because Redmond airport is in the midst of a 3-week closure, which means no airline service to the region.

I figured "no big deal, I can handle myself and a couple of other adults". Then came the baggage they brought plus the, er, girth of the woman (205 lbs.). The right rear seat and the entire expanded baggage compartment was full o' stuff. As it turns out, the plane just had the MTOM mod done. Though there is some question about the actual current empty weight and CG, I've come to use the worst case numbers until I know different. I wound up with a best-estimate weight right at the new 2646 lb. limit, though nowhere near the rearward CG limit. So I took off from PDX (elev. 30 ft. MSL - essentially standard day) and headed back to Bend, via the Columbia Gorge. Initial climb-out is fine (1000 FPM) and and I wind up using a cruise climb (115 knots, 400 FPM) to altitude, but the plane just feels heavy. I drop the folks off at KBDN (elev. 3459 ft.) without incident, offload all the mass, and take off for the very short flight to S39. The plane leaps into the sky as if it had just been cured of the flu or something.

[smoss]

It is impressive the difference in feel of our plane near gross weight compared to 1 person and light fuel. I typically fly at both extremes--full with the family and loaded tanks, and alone with 20 gals of fuel or so for flights to exercise the plane when it's been sitting for a while. The former feels like a smooth, but slow off the ground Cadillac, landing at 70+, and the latter feels like a jittery Geo Metro, leaping off the runway, bouncing with every tiny air current, and landing at 60 or so (feels like barely moving on final).

[kjmeyers1]

The DA40 would be a dream machine if I could get another 200lbs useful. I'm at 800lbs on the button....

[krellis]

Seems like the DA40NG higer gross weight airframe and an IO-390 would come close...

Not going to happen, unfortunately, given the love affair Diamond has with the Austro and the general disdain for anything requiring avgas

[Rich]

My useful load right now is shown at 917 lbs. I have reason to think it should be around 935+, but for now, the lower number is what I'm using.

When I fly alone with less-than full tanks, I'll use up 300-350 lbs. of that. So we're talking a differential of somewhere around 550-600 lbs. I don't care what horsepower you have, the plane is going to be much more sprightly when it's 20-25% lighter than max. If we had a 400 HP engine in the DA40 you'd also experience this effect. Rate-of-climb is where you see it most prominently, but that's not exclusively the case.

At the heavier weight takeoff and landing rolls are longer than normal, climb rate noticeably less, etc. The plane is also just slightly slower than "normal" in cruise (a knot or two yesterday). It's not that the plane is suddenly unflyable, but you have to fly it a bit differently. Most definitely a higher approach speed on landing and let it bleed off slowly over the runway. DA at Bend yesterday, BTW, was 4800 ft. We rolled a long way after touchdown.

[rwtucker]

I don't care what horsepower you have, the plane is going to be much more sprightly when it's 20-25% lighter than max. It's not that the plane is suddenly unflyable, but you have to fly it a bit differently. Most definitely a higher approach speed on landing and let it bleed off slowly over the runway.

I agree. On the other hand, both my take-offs and landings are noticeably smoother when near max. There is something about the feel of the fully loaded DA40 that I like. For one thing, I notice that it commands my attention to fly well. It is easy to get complacent with the hyper-forgiving nature of the DA40 design and I do not assume same degree of forgiveness when I am fully loaded at the aft edge of the CG.

[Rich]

I don't care what horsepower you have, the plane is going to be much more sprightly when it's 20-25% lighter than max. It's not that the plane is suddenly unflyable, but you have to fly it a bit differently. Most definitely a higher approach speed on landing and let it bleed off slowly over the runway.

I agree. On the other hand, both my take-offs and landings are noticeably smoother when near max. There is something about the feel of the fully loaded DA40 that I like. For one thing, I notice that it commands my attention to fly well. It is easy to get complacent with the hyper-forgiving nature of the DA40 design and I do not assume same degree of forgiveness when I am fully loaded at the aft edge of the CG.

I would agree that it's worth understanding the behavior of the plane at the various corners of the operating envelope. To the point that one should create an opportunity (should one not present itself) to load it up and go flying. For some this is an every-day occurrence, I know.

There was a time when I lived in higher DA areas where every flight was closer to the edge of the envelope than I have routinely dealt with in recent years. This was especially true in summer, where you had better have your procedures nailed. 8,000-9000 ft. is no joke in a C-150 or Cherokee 140. But then I'd have occasion to fly out of some lower-level field and I would actually get behind the plane because it was ready to fly and would shoot to assigned altitude before I was used to seeing. This amounts to a different flavor of complacency.

All DA40's are not the same. Mine is one of the lightest around. And its empty CG is far enough forward that even with all the weight I had loaded in the back, the CG was just at 100 inches. While loading the plane I reached a point where the back seats (passenger and bag) and luggage had all been loaded and we hadn't yet gotten into the front seats. I half-expected the plane to sit on its tail, but it didn't happen.

[rwtucker]

While loading the plane I reached a point where the back seats (passenger and bag) and luggage had all been loaded and we hadn't yet gotten into the front seats. I half-expected the plane to sit on its tail, but it didn't happen.

Mine drops on its tail sometimes when I am pre-loading the baggage compartment!

[Star57]

While loading the plane I reached a point where the back seats (passenger and bag) and luggage had all been loaded and we hadn't yet gotten into the front seats. I half-expected the plane to sit on its tail, but it didn't happen.

Mine drops on its tail sometimes when I am pre-loading the baggage compartment!

My sick mind reminded of my Dad's old donkey in Portugal, when I was a kid, we loaded her too much she would drop on her hind legs .

[gtmize]

I've been using a W&B spreadsheet ( don't see a way to attach it here) but I'm sure many of you have a version in Excel.

I've been using mine to check loading for my 100# Lab who travels with me on a dog platform I put over the back seats.

I'd like to get another Lab but can't seem to get the Aft loading to work with 2 100# dogs in back, despite being under gross ..

I see another post here with a 200# woman in back w/ luggage and wonder if the spreadsheet I'm using may be in error. Obviously I need to go thru and do the manual moment arm calc but the real question I have is what the heaviest loading you've been comfortable with and how much fuel was onboard .. let's assume sea level.

thanks,
Gary