Just ran across this C-185 on Wip 3000 amphibs, couldn't help but notice the tail ballast. Panel is placarded something to the effect of "tail ballast must be installed". I am told that the ballast is required per the STC. I have several friends operating the same aircraft without the huge ballast mounted on the stinger.
Is there a question in there?Originally Posted by rv6ator
Just ran across this C-185 on Wip 3000 amphibs, couldn't help but notice the tail ballast. Panel is placarded something to the effect of "tail ballast must be installed". I am told that the ballast is required per the STC. I have several friends operating the same aircraft w
MTV
I had to get a field approval for something a lot like that for a Helio. Pulled it out when they put the aircraft on wheels, and now use it for a giant bucking bar.
That one was a piglet on floats.
OK then, the question is "why do most C-185's on Wip 3000's NOT have this ballast installed"?
Because they add weight as cargo? CG doesn’t know the difference.
DENNY liked this post
If the ballast is a required component of the Wipline STC, it may be that, when the plane goes from wheels back to floats some spring, the mechanic “forgets” to re-install that ballast, which would have been removed when the plane went to wheels. Oops!
I’ve seen stuff like that stuck on a shelf in a hangar, and nobody knows what it is…….
Now, again, IF the ballast is required by the STC, the airplane on those floats without the ballast would not be in an “airworthy condition”. If in an accident, especially a landing accident, that could turn ugly pretty fast, assuming the FAA Inspectors who investigated were knowledgeable enough to recognize the absence of the ballast. Insurance company might not be happy. Both the mechanic who installed the floats and the pilot would be culpable.
If the STC doesn’t specifically require the ballast, then it’s strictly up to the pilot to ensure that the plane is loaded within its CG envelope for every flight. An empty airplane does not necessarily need to be within its legal CG range to be “airworthy”.
I flew a 206 that went to floats in summer. On floats that airplane was limited to max 30 flaps, and the float STC specified that. The mechanics didn’t want to re-adjust the flap limits spring and fall, so I talked them into installing a small bar on the flap selector switch that limited flaps to 30 for floats. After the first winter on wheels, the mechanics installed the floats and forgot to re-install the bar. I never brought it up. I love 40 flaps, used judiciously, of course.
MTV
Bill Rusk thanked for this post
This was on an early 180 used for racing at Reno.
Lots of other interesting mods on the plane.
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
If the folks operating those airplanes on Wipaire 3000As fly with 2 people in the front seats and no people, moose meat, or about 50 pounds of ballast in the aft baggage area, they will be operating the airplane with the C.G. beyond the forward limit without the tailwheel strut ballast.
The required placard is actually to the effect of “it is possible to exceed the forward CG limit if tail ballast is not installed….”
Which is the same as Mike stated, it’s the pilot’s responsibility to fly within CG.
But, it is Wip’s approval that that requires the placard.
If you’re not hauling a load, I highly recommend adding tail weight to move the CG into the middle. And I’m not even a 185 driver.
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
How does the empty CG differ from 2870s and 2960s? I flew both on my Wagon without ballast. Heavy, light, never any issues. No flap restrictions, either, unlike my previous electric flap airplane. That 40° flap restriction was a placard only and was quickly disregarded, as instructed by my DPE during my float check ride. I figured the restriction applied to full flaps-full power go-arounds. Floats made it harder to push the nose down.
2870s and 2960s are straight floats. Most amphibs with the heavy nose gear way up front are nose heavy. That 185 in post #1 is likely one of the few which is within limits under most all conditions. It is difficult to meet or exceed the aft limit on a 185 amphib.
NX1PA
[QUOTE=Bill.Brine;851655]
This was on an early 180 used for racing at Reno.
Lots of other interesting mods on the plane.
What other mods did you catch on Warrens wagon other than the lead and Acmes?
[QUOTE=KevinJ;851660]Did I say it was Warren’s plane?
This was on an early 180 used for racing at Reno.
Lots of other interesting mods on the plane.
What other mods did you catch on Warrens wagon other than the lead and Acmes?
The year of the gear legs do not match the direct read fuel gauge..(not sure the legs matched the gauge- newer legs with an old gauge).
Also had an 83” MT.
The plane was old, well loved build.
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
The installation drawing allows the ballast weight to be installed as “an alternate for aircraft loading to obtain weight and balance limits.” In other words, you can load up your airplane with gear and beer, or you can install the ballast weight, or some combination of the above. You can trim the ballast weight to get to the proper weight for your aircraft CG.Just ran across this C-185 on Wip 3000 amphibs, couldn't help but notice the tail ballast. Panel is placarded something to the effect of "tail ballast must be installed". I am told that the ballast is required per the STC. I have several friends operating the same aircraft w
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
YEP, just plain common sense right in the the instructions!! Much better to use the cargo to adjust CG than adding useless weight.
DENNY
Posting Permissions
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks