Optimum CG Range

On Dec 15, 10:56*am, jimboffin wrote:
Are you sure you are reading the manual right?

Don't need to read it. The allowable mass/cg envelope is depicted
graphically on page 5.10 of the flight handbook. I only have the
German version on hand, the English translation is in the glider. The
graph shows an aft limit of 345mm from 300Kg to 380kg, then reducing
linearly to 322 mm at about 460 kg then linearly to about 306 mm at
525 kg max gross.

The envelope also shows that the forward limit moves forward above
380kg but the shift is much smaller than for the aft limit. It also
clearly shows that the aft end of the recommended cg range of
300-310mm falls outside the aft cg limit at max gross.

Hank - what is on page 5.10 of your 28 flight handbook? If it is a
mass/cg envelope what is the allowable CG at 525kg? I'm surprised
that 2 28's both with tail tanks would have different limits. Mine is
serial 28048.


Andy (GY)

On Dec 15, 11:14*pm, Andy wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:56*am, jimboffin wrote:

Are you sure you are reading the manual right?

Don't need to read it. *The allowable mass/cg envelope is depicted
graphically on page 5.10 of the flight handbook. *I only have the
German version on hand, the English translation is in the glider. The
graph shows an aft limit of 345mm from 300Kg to 380kg, then reducing
linearly to 322 mm at about 460 kg then linearly to about 306 mm at
525 kg max gross.

The envelope also shows that the forward limit moves forward above
380kg but the shift is much smaller than for the aft limit. *It also
clearly shows that the aft end of the recommended cg range of
300-310mm falls outside the aft cg limit at max gross.

Hank - what is on page 5.10 of your 28 flight handbook? *If it is a
mass/cg envelope what is the allowable CG at 525kg? *I'm surprised
that 2 28's both with tail tanks would have different limits. *Mine is
serial 28048.

Andy (GY)

OK oops- I have to admit not paying large amount of attention to
variable CG since I don't remember the last time I flew above about
480kg. Easterner ya know. I suspect this limitation relates to Waibel
trying to ensure not going out the back if mains dump and tail
doesn't. Gotta admit it doesn't interest me enough to do the math.
Review does show that empirically through flight experience, I've
pretty much confirmed that the factory suggested range works well.
UH

One more little tid-bid. I have found when flying a flapped ship and
my CG was in the correct position for best performance, I never
touched the trim knob! I'm flying a standard class bird now, so this
doesn't apply, but in the H-301, ASW-20, Nimbus-3, LS-6 and ASH-25 it
did. Moving the flaps did all the speed changes and moving the trim
was not necessary. How's that check with you flapped guys?
JJ

On Dec 16, 9:31*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
One more little tid-bid. I have found when flying a flapped ship and
my CG was in the correct position for best performance, I never
touched the trim knob! *I'm flying a standard class bird now, so this
doesn't apply, but in the H-301, ASW-20, Nimbus-3, LS-6 and ASH-25 it
did. Moving the flaps did all the speed changes and moving the *trim
was not necessary. How's that check with you flapped guys?
JJ

Dissabled the trimmer completely on '20 (tape around trigger). Nice to
feel elevator feedback. '27 doesn't seem to like this as much though
have reduced trimming force. When CG is far enough back on '27 to "fly
the flaps" , it doesn't seem to fly as nice, at least for me. That
said, in CG position I like, the stick doesn't move much.
'28- always trim-trim trim- good reason not to circle.
UH

My old LS-3 was set up so the stick position was about the same at min
sink (straight ahead, not turning), best L/D, and--from memory--80
kts. Took a tape measure with me a few times and measured the distance
between the stick and instrument panel. That's probably a better
indication of drag caused by control deflection (if that's what you're
worried about) than trim position. I flew it mostly using the flaps,
with a little elevator to initiate the pull up and push over if I was
in a hurry. The push over at the top of a steep zoomie by going full
negative flaps, then popping them down into thermaling position as I
turned was a wonderfully smooth feeling. Thermaling itself was
whatever combination of stick and flap that worked. The end result was
the CG on the aft limit (dry). Performed really well but was pitch
sensitive in gusty thermals. I was told that was an issue with that
airfoild, shared by other gliders that used it (PIK, Nimbus II, et
al.).

I followed UH's (and Herr Waibel's) advice when I got my ASW 24 and
set the CG about 2/3 to 3/4 back in the range. Flies and performs
great. Which is good because I don't have nearly as much time to
fiddle with gliders as I did in earlier times.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On Dec 16, 6:48*am, wrote:

OK oops- I have to admit not paying large amount of attention to
variable CG since I don't remember the last time I flew above about
480kg.

Glad to know we have the same limits. Even out West I have never
filled the glider. My typical ballast load puts me at 497kg. (9.7 psf
loading)

So back to the point that got me interested in this discussion:


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?

The statement about optimum cg should perhaps be:

"Optimum cg is usually about 75-80% of the manufacturer's approved
range at minimum flight mass, but no further aft than the aft limit at
the actual flight mass."

BTW I manage my cg to be about 320mm dry and 305mm ballasted. I want
the cg to go aft for better climb performance if I dump because of
weak conditions. I have to change that at Parowan (strong conditions
and no ballast) so I add a nose trim disc to bring the dry cg to about
310 so I don't run out of trim in the fast glides. (For those that
want that in percent of limits the minimum flight mass range is
227-345mm).

Andy