# Good numbers ?

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
How is he correct ?
Sir, in post one you posted the apparent mistakes from wiki. If you look at the gross weight of the C-123 on wiki and subtract the empty weight it is 16210 pounds. That is "useful load". The numbers posted for "cargo" on wiki are incorrect.
The C-123 cannot lift it's empty weight. Fairchild C-123 Provider - Wikipedia

#### akwrencher

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
The Cherokee sixes that used to fly out here to Gustavus would give you a 1000 lbs, for a charter. Did not include pilot or fuel, safety gear, etc. That's payload, I suspect, by definition.

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Sir, in post one you posted the apparent mistakes from wiki. If you look at the gross weight of the C-123 on wiki and subtract the empty weight it is 16210 pounds. That is "useful load". The numbers posted for "cargo" on wiki are incorrect.
The C-123 cannot lift it's empty weight. Fairchild C-123 Provider - Wikipedia
I don’t recall saying it could.
But the statistics I posted were from the YC-124 .
In more detail;
Specifications (YC-134A)
Data from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1958–59[1]

General characteristics

• Length: 82 ft 0 3⁄4 in (25.013 m)
• Wingspan: 110 ft 0 in (33.53 m)
• Height: 34 ft 8 1⁄2 in (10.579 m)
• Wing area: 1,234.9 sq ft (114.73 m2)
• Aspect ratio: 9.8:1
• Airfoil: MS8-016.64
• Empty weight: 40,391 lb (18,321 kg) (equipped)
• Gross weight: 74,700 lb (33,883 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 1,032 US gal (859 imp gal; 3,910 L) internal fuel + 1,000 US gal (830 imp gal; 3,800 L) in underwing float tanks
• Powerplant: 2 × Wright R-3350-89A Turbo Compound 18-cylinder 2-row air-cooled radial engines, 3,500 hp (2,600 kW) each
• Propellers: 4-bladed Aeroproducts Model A644FN-C2 fully-feathering constant-speed propellers
Performance

• Cruise speed: 250 mph (400 km/h, 220 kn) at 10,000 ft (3,000 m)
• Range: 1,610 mi (2,590 km, 1,400 nmi) with 24,000 lb (11,000 kg) payload
• Takeoff distance on land: 740 ft (230 m)
• Takeoff distance on water: 1,250 ft (380 m)
• Landing distance on land: 550 ft (170 m)
• Landing distance on water: 750 ft (230 m)

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
The YC-124 Impressed me with the ability to land in 750 feet, to land and takeoff in the water and its ability to lift 3/4 of it empty weight
that last is not absolutely correct since it can fly with a gross weight of 74,000 pounds it has a empty weight of 40,000 pounds
Those numbers are not exact but they’re close enough for me.

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
The Cherokee sixes that used to fly out here to Gustavus would give you a 1000 lbs, for a charter. Did not include pilot or fuel, safety gear, etc. That's payload, I suspect, by definition.
I think that sounds right. I said it would lift its empty weight.
Dan is the one that started talking about its payload he likes to defeat those straw men.

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
The YC-124 Impressed me with the ability to land in 750 feet, to land and takeoff in the water and its ability to lift 3/4 of it empty weight
that last is not absolutely correct since it can fly with a gross weight of 74,000 pounds it has a empty weight of 40,000 pounds
Those numbers are not exact but they’re close enough for me.
Add the 12,192 pounds of fuel and the empty weight goes to 52,583. Leaves you with 22117 lb capacity.

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
I think that sounds right. I said it would lift its empty weight.
Dan is the one that started talking about its payload he likes to defeat those straw men.
Some real-world aviation experience would be invaluable, you know.

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
Power-to-weight ratio is what matters, mostly. That YC has a ratio of 10.67:1 pounds per horse. One would expect some good takoeff performance from it. A Cessna 150 has a ratio of 16:1. A 172 is 15.33:1. A 185 is 11.17:1. An old 65-hp Champ 7AC is 18.77. The Cherokee Six, with 300 HP, is 11.33:1. And a Harmon Rocket is at 5:1 with the 400-hp Lycoming. And that Rocket will outperform them all.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
The YC-124 Impressed me with the ability to land in 750 feet, to land and takeoff in the water ...
The YC-124 was a cool airplane, but it never did those things. It did pave the way for "Ol' Shakey", which is remembered fondly by many oldtimers.

But, the YC-134 might have done those things.

There's official MTOW, and there's what planes have actually done.
Last C-130 Out of Vietnam

The On April 29, 1975, tail number 56-0518 flew the last mission out of Vietnam before the fall of Saigon. ... On the 29th, the day before Saigon fell, North Vietnamese forces destroyed virtually all aircraft – more than 100 planes – on the flightline at Tan Son Nhut Air Base. 0-5-1-8 was the only C-130 to avoid ruin. In a panicked state, hundreds of refugees rushed to get aboard this last flyable C-130, the aircraft representing their final ticket to freedom. In all, 452 people were on board, including 32 in the cockpit alone. The aircraft was overloaded by at least 10,000 pounds and required every foot of runway to become airborne. . . the aircraft was retired to Little Rock AFB and has been on display at the main gate since 1989.
Aboard the airplane, Maj Phuong (Rep of Vietnam AF) had his hands full.

The multitude forced themselves on top of each other and into every crevice, to the point that the rear ramp would not close for the bodies standing on it.

After being notified by the loadmaster, and with few options available, Phoung slowly taxied the aircraft forward and then hit the brakes forcing the people forward. The ramp closed.
A C-130 is darn crowded with its stated max load of 92 troops. 452 folks (of any size) is hard to imagine. People do what they need to do, and take tremendous risks, under dire circumstances.

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Some real-world aviation experience would be invaluable, you know.
I totally agree and I hope that someday you’ll get some

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Add the 12,192 pounds of fuel and the empty weight goes to 52,583. Leaves you with 22117 lb capacity.
Lol Could you quote me the FAA regulation that requires all planes depart with full fuel tanks?
In the real world it is Fairly common for airplanes to Fly with reduceD fuel load to increase payload.

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
Does anyone want to bring up max zero fuel weight?

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Lol tiger you must have a very long spoon!

##### Member
I'll Play..
Empty weight 2200 lbs.
Max Gross. 3800 lbs.
Cruise speed. 295 mph
Stall Speed. 71 mph
Power. 350 hp
Climb Rate. 2600 fpm
Range. 2700 miles
Seats 6
Homebuilt...

##### Member
Sorry, List was wrong..
Cruise is 200 knots.
Climb. 1600 fpm
Power. 300 hp.

Still a pretty amazing homebuilt with phenomenal range...

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Sometimes when a thread has been particularly contentious stirring the pot is more like throwing a hand grenade in witches cauldron!

ya might wanna stand way back!

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
ya might wanna stand way back!
I think ZFW is a legitimate concept to bring up. For those unfamiliar, the concept is that beyond a certain weight any additional load carried can only be fuel. This I believe has to do with maximum bending moments at the wing root when the fuselage has a given load where fuel in wing tanks is distributed (maybe not evenly but still distributed) along the wing so doesn’t cause the same kind of stresses.

This can have a major effect on the most literal definition of payload; that being load that is paying to be carried. As such it should be factored in when considering the ‘usefulness’ of a plane to haul stuff.

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Isn’t that usually related to but not the same as max landing weight ?

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
Isn’t that usually related to but not the same as max landing weight ?
Not necessarily, they ought to have different driving factors.