![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 21, 2:05*am, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:15*am, bildan wrote: The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong. Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity. The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed. That is clearly not true. A lot of aircraft design is trading off one desirable feature against another. We're talking gliders not airplanes. I claim it's precisely true. Trade-offs you mention were made by the engineers who signed the airworthiness documents. Estimates made on the flight line don't even remotely rise to that level of expertise. In the case of powered aircraft the MTOW is the weight used to establish the published takeoff run, the distance to clear a 50' obstacle, the rate of climb, the service ceiling, and probably others. If you're operating out of short strips then you want to know how much load you can carry. If you're operating a cessna off a 4 km runway at sea level with no obstructions then it will be perfectly safe to operate somewhat over MTOW, especially if the extra weight is carried in the wings. Although an overweight glider could make an aero tow takeoffs hazardous under some conditions for the same reasons. In the case of, for example, our club's DG1000 basic trainers, the aircraft is permitted to do unlimited aerobatics with a +7/-5 G rating at MTOW. If that's not a requirement on a particular flight and you're happy with the +5/-3 G like most other gliders then you could operate at some higher weight. Yes, you can fly an aerobatic glider at a heavier weight if flown within standard class G limits. But, we were not talking about aerobatic gliders. There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. *The JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and fries. Seat weight is one thing, CofG is quite another. With the tail ballast box full, those same DG1000's are within the published CofG limit even with two pilots well over 110 kg each. We're not talking about 'CofG' we're talking about gross weight. The seat is primary structure just like a wing spar and is only designed to support 110 Kg. In many, if not most, gliders, if the seat structure fails, the flight controls would be jammed - just as catastrophic as a wing failure. Bottom line, if you fly outside the airworthiness certification limits, you're a fool claiming to be smarter than the engineers who designed the glider. Yes, I know the BGA allows over gross flights. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Bill
I agree on the - fly within the limits. But I must disagree on your view that seats are designed for 110kg. There is no rule that says you have to limit it to 110kg. Read CS 22.25(a)(2)- the a minimum assumed single seat load is 110kg - and all the force multipliers work fomr that assumption. Effectively - For JAR-22/EASA CS-22 they are designed to withstand 110kg*40g - that's 4400kg... So - no - a fat guy sitting on one is not going to break it. Although some of them might deform enough to be a problem at reachable G levels. This is the "test pilot" part of exceeding the design limits. It's all here if you feel like reading. http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/rg_certspecs.php CS 22.625 Fitting factors - Says you have to multiply by 1.33 for seat loads. CS 22.561 CS 22.785 Seats and safety harnesses says it has to be strong enough to handle the force multipliers specified for emergency landings and crash resistance with the designed seat load. The minimum load for calculation of strength required being 110kg. Practically the force multipliers are so high the they design for 110kg. Practically - the size of the cockpit naturally limits the amount of load you can put on the seat pan. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to manage a 200kg load on a single seat... Of more interest structurally is the total mass of non-lifting components. That puts bending load into the main spar - so it does matter. Although - again the multipliers used are very high. You are unlikely to exceed safe strength margins unless you are executing aerobatic manoeuvres. Bruce bildan wrote: On Mar 21, 2:05 am, Bruce Hoult wrote: On Mar 21, 3:15 am, bildan wrote: The idea that the gross weight limit isn't a hard rule is just wrong. Aircraft manufacturers gain nothing by understating load capacity. The certificated max weight is as high as can be safely allowed. That is clearly not true. A lot of aircraft design is trading off one desirable feature against another. We're talking gliders not airplanes. I claim it's precisely true. Trade-offs you mention were made by the engineers who signed the airworthiness documents. Estimates made on the flight line don't even remotely rise to that level of expertise. In the case of powered aircraft the MTOW is the weight used to establish the published takeoff run, the distance to clear a 50' obstacle, the rate of climb, the service ceiling, and probably others. If you're operating out of short strips then you want to know how much load you can carry. If you're operating a cessna off a 4 km runway at sea level with no obstructions then it will be perfectly safe to operate somewhat over MTOW, especially if the extra weight is carried in the wings. Although an overweight glider could make an aero tow takeoffs hazardous under some conditions for the same reasons. In the case of, for example, our club's DG1000 basic trainers, the aircraft is permitted to do unlimited aerobatics with a +7/-5 G rating at MTOW. If that's not a requirement on a particular flight and you're happy with the +5/-3 G like most other gliders then you could operate at some higher weight. Yes, you can fly an aerobatic glider at a heavier weight if flown within standard class G limits. But, we were not talking about aerobatic gliders. There is really no excuse for operating outside the CG envelope. The JAR 110 Kg seat limit is a little restrictive for us chubby Americans but, hey, it's an incentive to cut back on the bacon burgers and fries. Seat weight is one thing, CofG is quite another. With the tail ballast box full, those same DG1000's are within the published CofG limit even with two pilots well over 110 kg each. We're not talking about 'CofG' we're talking about gross weight. The seat is primary structure just like a wing spar and is only designed to support 110 Kg. In many, if not most, gliders, if the seat structure fails, the flight controls would be jammed - just as catastrophic as a wing failure. Bottom line, if you fly outside the airworthiness certification limits, you're a fool claiming to be smarter than the engineers who designed the glider. Yes, I know the BGA allows over gross flights. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Horney to Soar! | GARY BOGGS | Soaring | 5 | January 9th 10 04:15 PM |
XC-Soar | [email protected] | Soaring | 4 | January 26th 09 04:06 PM |
Get out of the Cold and SOAR! | Mike Schumann | Soaring | 4 | January 22nd 09 06:03 AM |
XC Soar and iPaq 310? | Brad[_2_] | Soaring | 4 | November 19th 08 12:30 PM |
why do you soar? | Mark James Boyd | Soaring | 27 | October 21st 03 07:48 PM |