A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aft CG limit(s)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 26th 03, 05:08 AM
Andy Durbin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Andy Durbin) wrote in message . com...
Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
I believe the explanation for this lies in the
text preceding the table:

"The C.G. position shift due to water ballast load have been included.
This is to make sure that the ASH 26 E remains within the approved
limits after the water ballast has been jettisoned."


snip


Unfortunately it doesn't work this way for a 28 or, if it does, it
gives way too much protection.

It still doesn't explain why the mass/cg limit envelope is the shape
it is.

Andy (GY)




Ok, I did some experimenting with different pilot mass using my weight
and balance spread sheet. It includes a plot of calculated mass and
cg overlaid on the factory flight mass vs cg envelope.

I found that if I increased pilot mass to 225 pounds, and forced the
525kg solution to the aft limit with fixed tail ballast, then the dry
cg pretty much hit the aft limit also. The 9 psf cg is a little
forward of the limit.

Eric was right, the flight mass and cg envelope is intended to ensure
that an “in limit” ballasted sailplane does not go aft of
the limit on dumping. The dumping cg line only lies parallel to the
envelope limit for a specific pilot weight. This may be because the
moment of the 28 ballast changes significantly as the wing tanks are
filled. (Higher pilot mass then less ballast for max GW and the less
the ballast drives the total cg).

I am much lighter than 255 pounds with parachute and use the optional
tail tank. For this combination the max GW aft limit is too
conservative.

Thanks for the feedback.


Andy (GY)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
sounds barrier speed limits Roger Halstead Piloting 2 August 10th 04 02:09 PM
Buying an L-2 Robert M. Gary Piloting 13 May 25th 04 04:03 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 May 1st 04 08:27 AM
Cirrus Airframe Life Limits Dave Owning 16 April 27th 04 05:58 PM
Cirrus Airframe Life Limits Dave Piloting 16 April 27th 04 05:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.