On 15 Dec, 15:42, Andy wrote:
On Dec 15, 6:52*am, wrote:

Gives adequate pitch authority to pull to max lift coefficient, thus
tightest turn. From my experience, this is usually about 75-80% aft in
manufacturer's approved range.
UH

It's not quite that simple though is it?

For the ASW-28, and probably other modern gliders, the "manufacturer's
approved CG range" is dependent on the glider mass. * Again for the
28, a cg position of 75-80 of approved range at min weight (315-321 mm
aft of root leading edge) will be behind the approved aft CG limit at
max gross wt (306mm).

I used to think that the change in aft cg limit with increasing mass
was to protect for the case where the tail tank fails to dump. *If
that is true then ASW 28 built without the optional tail tank would
not have the variable aft limit. *Do they?

Comments or other explanations of the variable aft limit?

Hank - Where is your 28 CG at max gross or at the max weight you fly
at if lower?

Andy (GY)

Are you sure you are reading the manual right? I own a 27 and the aft
limit remains the same. Waibel argued that it was by design that the
CofG moves forward when adding ballast and that this automatically
made for more efficient high speed flight when flying with high wing
loading. He even stated that the fin ballast tank was unnecessary. It
is possible that the practical aft limit for CofG position when
ballasted is well forward of the position and aft limit when empty for
this reason.

Also, if you have a tail tank then it might be wise to ensure that
filling the tail tank only keeps the C of G within limits if there is
any possibility of it not emptying when you dump ballast.

I don't have a 28 manual to look at, have you got one in electronic
form?

On the subject generally. I would recommend flying the glider (within
manufacturers limits) with a CofG that you find best suits your style
and ability. This can be achieved by experimentation. As I understand
it, moving the CofG back improves efficiency at low speeds and in
thermals by reducing the necessity for the tailplane to produce
downwards lift (and drag) in those phases of flight. In extremis it
allows sufficient elevator authority to fly near the stall in this
configuration. The downside is the reduced stability in pitch which
could lead to less efficient handling and pilot induced losses.

Jim