AMT-200S weight

[urban]

I am looking one used AMT-200S and what I found very strange is its weight; it is almost 660 kg, while technical data says 620 kg. It is well equiped, but when I check weights of individual parts installed, I can't explain 40kg difference, not even close to.

Could generous instrumentation (clasical and dynon glass cockpit, transponder, elt and a few other things) still be a reason for 40 kg added weight? Was there high variation in weight during manufacturing process, so this airframe was 'unlucky' and is overweight? Or that aircraft is likely to be damaged and repaired?

The problem is that 660 kg empty weight means 190kg payload and only 30 kg is left for fuel if me and my wife board the plane 😞

[Thermalseeker]

I ran a composite repair shop for 18 years. We had several X's come through during that time, mostly for gear up repairs. I also own #135. I doubt the extra weight is from a repair unless they glassed in a half dozen cement blocks. What year is this one? Repaired areas can often be seen by the color differences in the paint/gel coat.  Do you have access to scales? Do a weight and balance and see what the scale says. You will need to level the airplane when it's on the scales. Make sure you do it with the wings unfolded. The procedure is in the manual. Paperwork is often wrong. It's possible that the 40 kg(88lbs) could be instrumentation, but it would be a real stretch. Weighing the airplane will also help you track down where the extra weight is (if it's there at all). I've seen A&P's use bathroom scales to do W&B. Don't do that. Find some electronic car scales with tare function. Race car enthusiasts will have them. FWIW, the 1850 lb gross limit is for USA operations in the self-launch category. The Ximango is routinely flown at 2500 lb gross in other parts of the world. The Ximango is an extremely strong, well built airplane. If you ever see one with the wings off you'll see what I'm talking about. The spars are MASSIVE. If you're running close to or at gross I wouldn't worry about it, structurally speaking. 

[urban]

Thank you for quick replay. The plane is from 2007. Was there big variation in the weight of the Ximango planes? I would suppose that in manual production of composite planes weight is not very consistent. But I have no idea what is actual variation in weight from plane to plane, which all should be the same.

[Thermalseeker]

I've been to the Aeromot factory in Porto Allegre. The airframe components are molded using specifically sized and shaped pieces of cloth and specific amounts of resin, then post cured. The parts are assembled using flox (a mixture of flocked cotton and epoxy resin) The metal components are CNC'd. So, they're all very consistent. I would be surprised if there was more than 5 pounds variation airframe to airframe. This is a type certified airplane, not a collection of random parts. Changing parts on a TC'd airplane means a mountain of paperwork, and, in the case of the Ximango, 28 times because it's Type Certified in 28 countries. Weight differences would more likely be because of something like the battery being moved aft or an older, heavy avionics suite. Things like avionics, leather, an ELT, or other equipment could add a significant amount of weight. I would be highly suspect of the paperwork. I'd do a weight and balance and see if it matches. I can't imagine any sort of repair adding 80+ lbs to the airframe. BTW, that vintage has a urethane finish. Highly desirable. 

[urban]

Thanks for the info!

[HiFlite]

My 2005 Ximango (leather trim, but no lights) shows similar weight on what I believe to be the original documents: 657 kg (1450 lb) basic, printed as a document 6/24/2006 and using metric units. Then, unsigned and handwritten in SAE units: plus 18 lb (8 kg) of avionics [2x 10a's, Garmin 430, 106a, GTX-327], giving a final weight of 1467 lb (667 kg). Useful load is then 183 kg (403 lb). It's not a big problem for me since I'm fairly light and my imaginary girlfriend even lighter, but does remain a mystery. No repairs in the logs and no evidence of them visible on the airframe that I can see. Some small part of the unexpected weight may come from my observation that the surface finish of the last few model years seems to be better than earlier ones. But the extra 50 lb remains hard to explain.

BTW, I think that the 850 kg limit comes the EU, not the FAA. The FAA considers them either gliders or airplanes and has no special designation for motorglider or self-launcher, but the US type certificate is based on reciprocal agreements with the EU and thus retains the 850 kg.

Do you have any printed reference to the ~2,500 lb weight used in Brazil and some other countries?

 

[Thermalseeker]

An older gel coat finish (S/N before 121 or so) would definitely be heavier, but not 50 lbs heavier. However, little things do add up rapidly. As an old EAA councilor once told me "Son, take care of the ounces and the pounds will take care of themselves". What you probably should do is weigh the airplane and verify the numbers. It's a very simple procedure. Look for it in the manual. That much of a discrepancy would concern me.

WRT the designation for a "motorglider", the FAA refers to them as "Powered Gliders" in an Advisory Circular entitled “Powered Glider,” (AC) 21.17-2a. This AC states three requirements to be certificated as a “Powered Glider” under FAA regulations: First, it may be either Single or two place (no two place back seats). Second, the maximum gross weight is limited to 850kg (1874 lbs), and third, the wing loading (weight/span) loading must be no more than .62 lbs/sqft. In addition to AC 21.17-2a, FAR 91.205 lists the requirements for engine monitoring. The requirements laid out in AC 21.17 were adopted by the FAA in 1984, nine years before the EU was even formed. These requirements come directly from the FAA, not the EU. FWIW, many authorizing agencies around the world reciprocate with the FAA regs. In the case of Brazil, ANAC, the Brazilian FAA, adopted our FAR's verbatim with little deviation, with one of those deviations being the gross operating weight of the Ximango (depending on how it is registered). The 2500 lb weight limit comes directly from Claudio Vianna, the owner and Chief Engineer of Aeromot, as well as several of his junior Engineers and the factory test pilot. You will find this designation on the various Type Certificates. The Ximango has been used for a variety of missions, not just as a  motorglider. These include coastal patrols, wildlife patrols, police surveillance, primary trainers for the USAFA, and for oil/gas/mineral exploration. The Ximango platform (fuselage and inboard wing sections) were used in the Guri (AMT-600), a primary aerobatic trainer used by the Brazilian Air Force, 28 of which were manufactured. Equipped with an IO-360 and constant speed prop, the Guri is a 180 knot aerobatic airplane. The Guri was also manufactured with an 0-200, fixed pitch prop and fixed gear for a domestic basic trainer. I saw seven of these when I visited Brazil and the Aeromot factory in 2010. Here's a photo of the civilian version of the Guri:

[HiFlite]

Thanks! I'm familiar with that vintage 1993 AC. I'll point out however, that the oft-quoted section on span loading and gross weight is a sub-subsection of the whole thing. Item 1 of the AC states in part "This advisory circular (AC) provides information and guidance concerning acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing compliance ...". Two in production glider-category aircraft fail this test. The Pipistrel Sinus SW fails it with span loading, and the Stemme S-12 fails with a gross weight of 900 kg. With zero certificated gliders made in the USA, the FAA normally punts certification to JAR-22, hinting that there's some flexibility there too. However, the workings of such bureaucracies are beyond the understanding of mere mortals ...

Not that I'm disagreeing with your post, but I'd still like to see a copy of a real TC for a Super Ximango with a higher listed gross weight. Call it curiosity ...

 

[UH60Mike]

Attached you will find the TCDC for the AMT-100,200,200SO,and 300.  It does show a MTOGW for the 200SO as 1050KG (2315 lbs ) EP-8602-15i.pdfEP-8602-15i.pdf )  I don't know how this will apply to each of your airframes as it states 850 kgs for the 200 and 800 kgs for the 100

 

Aeronautical Products Certificated in Brazil - TC Details / EP (anac.gov.br) 

TC no 8602

 

Mike

 

Yes, I am bored and looked it up.