- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Messages
- 2,612
- Reaction score
- 2,737
Last year I decided I needed to get a "daily driver" to make those incidental runs back and forth between Palmer and McGrath, a 400NM RT with the AK range in the middle. Seems there is always something that needs to go out that doesn't warrant getting one of the bigger planes lined up for, beer for the troops, food for the dog, parts for the trucks, you name it a remote location always seems to need something. I had been using a C206 and my Twin Comanche but the 206 liked to collect ice with the fixed gear and struts and the Comanche couldn't swallow things like a new refrigerator or insulation blower.
After due consideration I decided on a Piper Lance, preferably a turbo with the much needed Lopresti cowing in place of the Piper fish mouth. As luck would have it I came across an old check hauler from back in the day that had gone back to the lender as the business of hauling checks went the way of the travel agent. No turbo, but it was a straight tail and it was already configured for cargo. Sweet!
Now this plane had been in 135 service its entire life, all 15,000 hours of it, and the logs reflected that. Reams of paperwork and documentation as only the FAA's "Paperwork Reduction Act" can produce. In all quite nice, a list of all the 337's, STC's, component times, serial numbers, and so on and all arranged in a couple massive binders in logical order. Even the aircraft log, the "can" had a plastic laminated W&B card, current actual weight within the last 5-years on course, dispatch forms and so on.
Now to the point of all this, I had never even sat in a Piper Lance before picking this one up, and one of the things that impressed me the most was the huge CG range (76-98), it is virtually impossible to load this plane out of CG, at least so I thought... After updating the W&B after the avionics refit and loading the applicable data, from those wonderfully detailed and current part 135 W&B records into my iPad I was amazed that even with the back stuffed to the ceiling, like the picture with the propane bottles, I was still well within the envelope. At least until I was bored droning along on the AP and was reading thru the AFM and noticed that at least according to Piper the rear limit was actually 95! A quick look as the TCDS confirmed this and nowhere in the highly detailed and organized logs was there any documentation that would have authorized the change, at least if there is I havent found it.
So how would this happen? I bet it was a simple typo for years past that simply was carried forward. Either that or somebody decided to simply expand the envelop to alleviate pilots bitching about loading issues. I truly hope it was the former.
If there is a morel to this story it would be to never trust information until you verify it from a couple different sources, no matter how official and professional it may appear. That, and dont believe for one second that the more has got to be better mentality that permeates the world of 135 ops is one lick better, or safer, than pt91. I can also report that a Lance flies quite well even when loaded a couple inched out of aft CG!
Great airplane, I am quite impressed with the load carrying ability and handling.
Jeff
After due consideration I decided on a Piper Lance, preferably a turbo with the much needed Lopresti cowing in place of the Piper fish mouth. As luck would have it I came across an old check hauler from back in the day that had gone back to the lender as the business of hauling checks went the way of the travel agent. No turbo, but it was a straight tail and it was already configured for cargo. Sweet!
Now this plane had been in 135 service its entire life, all 15,000 hours of it, and the logs reflected that. Reams of paperwork and documentation as only the FAA's "Paperwork Reduction Act" can produce. In all quite nice, a list of all the 337's, STC's, component times, serial numbers, and so on and all arranged in a couple massive binders in logical order. Even the aircraft log, the "can" had a plastic laminated W&B card, current actual weight within the last 5-years on course, dispatch forms and so on.
Now to the point of all this, I had never even sat in a Piper Lance before picking this one up, and one of the things that impressed me the most was the huge CG range (76-98), it is virtually impossible to load this plane out of CG, at least so I thought... After updating the W&B after the avionics refit and loading the applicable data, from those wonderfully detailed and current part 135 W&B records into my iPad I was amazed that even with the back stuffed to the ceiling, like the picture with the propane bottles, I was still well within the envelope. At least until I was bored droning along on the AP and was reading thru the AFM and noticed that at least according to Piper the rear limit was actually 95! A quick look as the TCDS confirmed this and nowhere in the highly detailed and organized logs was there any documentation that would have authorized the change, at least if there is I havent found it.
So how would this happen? I bet it was a simple typo for years past that simply was carried forward. Either that or somebody decided to simply expand the envelop to alleviate pilots bitching about loading issues. I truly hope it was the former.
If there is a morel to this story it would be to never trust information until you verify it from a couple different sources, no matter how official and professional it may appear. That, and dont believe for one second that the more has got to be better mentality that permeates the world of 135 ops is one lick better, or safer, than pt91. I can also report that a Lance flies quite well even when loaded a couple inched out of aft CG!
Great airplane, I am quite impressed with the load carrying ability and handling.
Jeff
