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
|
|||
|
|||
Common error in center of gravity calculation
I thought I should highlight an error that is being made in
calculating CG that appears to be widespread, and that can lead to a miscalculation in center of gravity by up to 10% (or possibly more) of the allowable CG range. The problem arises from a difference in the way Europeans and Americans calculate the CG. In the US, we commonly use the formula: Center of gravity = total moments / Total mass. So for an empty glider CG calculation, that would be (datum to main wheel * main wheel weight) + (Datum to tail wheel * tail wheel weight) / Total weight. This is the method taught in the FAA “Glider Flying Handbook” (Sec 5-13) In many European glider manuals (ASW20B and ASG29E, for example), the formula given for the glider CG = ((Horizontal distance between the wheels * tail wheel weight) / Total weight) + (datum to main wheel). BOTH formulas are correct, but the problem arises when the tail wheel datum is confused with the distance between the tail wheel and main wheel. So far I have seen three or four examples of this. Once the error was even made on a written weight and balance sheet done by a repair facility. I noticed the pattern when users of the weight and balance calculator “SeeG” would inquire as to why the program did not yield the same results as their own calculations, only to discover that they had made this error in their own calculations long ago, and the SeeG result was the correct one. The resulting error is not obvious because it is not wildly off of expectations, and therefore often goes undetected. For a Ventus C, using the “main to tail” distance rather than the “datum to tail” distance for an empty glider weighing results in the CG being placed too far forward by 5%. For a Discus B, the same error places the CG too far forward by 9% of the allowable range. Whatever method is used; the SeeG program, a spreadsheet, or a pencil, it might be worth double checking that the tail wheel distance being used is appropriate for the CG formula being employed. If you think your CG is at 80% aft, you might actually be flying at 90% aft or more. Thanks, Matt Herron (Jr) http://www.glideplan.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Common error in center of gravity calculation
On May 24, 10:53*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
The problem arises from a difference in the way Europeans and Americans calculate the CG. The formula provided by Schleicher for the ASW 28 recognizes that the position of the main gear relative to the leading edge datum changes with the mass of the glider. An accurate CG determination for this glider, and any other with sprung main gear, requires that the position of the main wheel is measured at the mass used for CG determination and with the glider at the specified pitch attitude. Andy (GY) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Common error in center of gravity calculation
On May 25, 1:53*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
I thought I should highlight an error that is being made in calculating CG that appears to be widespread, and that can lead to a miscalculation in center of gravity by up to 10% (or possibly more) of the allowable CG range. The problem arises from a difference in the way Europeans and Americans calculate the CG. In the US, we commonly use the formula: *Center of gravity = total moments / Total mass. *So for an empty glider CG calculation, that would be (datum to main wheel * main wheel weight) + (Datum to tail wheel * tail wheel weight) / Total weight. *This is the method taught in the FAA “Glider Flying Handbook” (Sec 5-13) In many European glider manuals (ASW20B and ASG29E, for example), the formula given for the glider CG = *((Horizontal distance between the wheels * tail wheel weight) / *Total weight) + (datum to main wheel). BOTH formulas are correct, but the problem arises when the *tail wheel datum is confused with the distance between the tail wheel and main wheel. *So far I have seen three or four examples of this. Once the error was even made on a written weight and balance sheet done by a repair facility. I noticed the pattern when users of the weight and balance calculator “SeeG” would inquire as to why the program did not yield the same results as their own calculations, only to discover that they had made this error in their own calculations long ago, and the SeeG result was the correct one. The resulting error is not obvious because it is not wildly off of expectations, and therefore often goes undetected. *For a Ventus C, using the “main to tail” distance rather than the “datum to tail” distance for an empty glider weighing results in the *CG being placed too far forward by 5%. *For a Discus B, the same error places the CG too far forward by 9% of the allowable range. Whatever method is used; the SeeG program, a spreadsheet, or a pencil, it might be worth double checking that the tail wheel distance being used is appropriate for the CG formula being employed. *If you think your CG is at 80% aft, you might actually be flying at 90% aft or more. Thanks, Matt Herron (Jr)http://www.glideplan.com If one follows the diagram provided in flight manual, this should not be a problem. Almost every error I see in W&B info on ships I look at is because someone did not apply the info from the original diagram when doing home made spread sheet for calculation. One of these guys is an FAA examiner- amazing. FWIW UH FWIW |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Common error in center of gravity calculation
On May 24, 10:53*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
I thought I should highlight an error that is being made in calculating CG that appears to be widespread, and that can lead to a miscalculation in center of gravity by up to 10% (or possibly more) of the allowable CG range. The problem arises from a difference in the way Europeans and Americans calculate the CG. In the US, we commonly use the formula: *Center of gravity = total moments / Total mass. *So for an empty glider CG calculation, that would be (datum to main wheel * main wheel weight) + (Datum to tail wheel * tail wheel weight) / Total weight. *This is the method taught in the FAA “Glider Flying Handbook” (Sec 5-13) In many European glider manuals (ASW20B and ASG29E, for example), the formula given for the glider CG = *((Horizontal distance between the wheels * tail wheel weight) / *Total weight) + (datum to main wheel). BOTH formulas are correct, but the problem arises when the *tail wheel datum is confused with the distance between the tail wheel and main wheel. *So far I have seen three or four examples of this. Once the error was even made on a written weight and balance sheet done by a repair facility. I noticed the pattern when users of the weight and balance calculator “SeeG” would inquire as to why the program did not yield the same results as their own calculations, only to discover that they had made this error in their own calculations long ago, and the SeeG result was the correct one. The resulting error is not obvious because it is not wildly off of expectations, and therefore often goes undetected. *For a Ventus C, using the “main to tail” distance rather than the “datum to tail” distance for an empty glider weighing results in the *CG being placed too far forward by 5%. *For a Discus B, the same error places the CG too far forward by 9% of the allowable range. Whatever method is used; the SeeG program, a spreadsheet, or a pencil, it might be worth double checking that the tail wheel distance being used is appropriate for the CG formula being employed. *If you think your CG is at 80% aft, you might actually be flying at 90% aft or more. Thanks, Matt Herron (Jr)http://www.glideplan.com Matt, I was helping a friend do a GC on a ASW 20 he purchased recently and saw this common error. The error was made by a repair shop. Your program helped identifing the problem, we were scratching our head for a while. It actually could have been serious as the previous owner was not a light weight and was putting 20 lbs in the tail to compensate. This 20 lbs with the erronious CG calc looked OK. When run with the correct caclulation the pilot was flying with a CG of 128% aft. Thanks for your program. Richard www.craggyaero.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Longest X/C Using Gravity Launch? | sisu1a | Soaring | 2 | November 13th 09 06:28 PM |
Center: Say type aircraft... Me: Citabria 7GCBC, Center: Ahhhhh??? | Nik | Piloting | 13 | October 4th 06 05:13 AM |
Sub-gravity sensation | Rod | Soaring | 4 | March 7th 04 03:20 PM |
Gravity Waves | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | December 10th 03 06:13 AM |
Gravity launch | Mark James Boyd | Soaring | 9 | October 8th 03 03:32 AM |