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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Max Weight of Non Lift Producing Components
On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 1:45:06 PM UTC-8, James Thomson wrote:
At 01:59 08 December 2017, Dan Daly wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:27:02 PM UTC-5, Jim wrote: I admit I am baffled by "max weight of non-lifting parts". I understand = the issue of spar bending moment limits, and I think I understand that weig= hing a glider without its wings will give the current non-lifting (i.e., no= n-wing) weight, but I have a feeling there are subtle things here that I do= not understand. I've rigged an ASK-21 and its wings are HEAVY! I haven't weighed them so= I don't know just how heavy they are though. Certainly felt like more tha= n 100 lbs each. Ask me how I know. I'll guess (I know, don't guess) each = wing weighs 150 lbs. Likely more. If I subtract 300 lbs from 780 and then= subtract that result from 1320 I'm still short of 902 - which I suppose is= a good thing. =20 Glider cockpit load limits are set by the lowest value determined by: Max AUW Seat strength limits Max wt of non-lifting parts Forward CG limit For a ASK21 for which I have the actual weighing results: Max AUW 1320 lbs Empty weight, fully equipped, 884 lbs Therefore disposable load is 436 lbs Seat strength limit is 242 lbs, so with a max weight pilot the other pilot cannot exceed 194 lbs Each wing weighs 219 lbs, max weight of non-lifting parts is 904 lbs. Fuselage, tailplane, etc wt is 884 - 438 = 446 lbs. Hence max load considering only non-lifting parts limit is 904 - 446 = 458 lbs. The AUW limit takes precedence. On this aircraft forward CG limit did not determine max cockpit load. Min cockpit load is set by aft CG limit. This whole issue has to do with the design limits of the airfoil design. The non-lifting parts impart a bending moment at the wing root. This is, of course, anticipated by the designer, but has a design limit imposed upon it. Hence, the limit on the non-lifting components. Tom |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Max Weight of Non Lift Producing Components
On Monday, 11 December 2017 at 15:45:27 UTC+13, 2G wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 1:45:06 PM UTC-8, James Thomson wrote: At 01:59 08 December 2017, Dan Daly wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:27:02 PM UTC-5, Jim wrote: I admit I am baffled by "max weight of non-lifting parts". I understand = the issue of spar bending moment limits, and I think I understand that weig= hing a glider without its wings will give the current non-lifting (i.e.., no= n-wing) weight, but I have a feeling there are subtle things here that I do= not understand. I've rigged an ASK-21 and its wings are HEAVY! I haven't weighed them so= I don't know just how heavy they are though. Certainly felt like more tha= n 100 lbs each. Ask me how I know. I'll guess (I know, don't guess) each = wing weighs 150 lbs. Likely more. If I subtract 300 lbs from 780 and then= subtract that result from 1320 I'm still short of 902 - which I suppose is= a good thing. =20 Glider cockpit load limits are set by the lowest value determined by: Max AUW Seat strength limits Max wt of non-lifting parts Forward CG limit For a ASK21 for which I have the actual weighing results: Max AUW 1320 lbs Empty weight, fully equipped, 884 lbs Therefore disposable load is 436 lbs Seat strength limit is 242 lbs, so with a max weight pilot the other pilot cannot exceed 194 lbs Each wing weighs 219 lbs, max weight of non-lifting parts is 904 lbs. Fuselage, tailplane, etc wt is 884 - 438 = 446 lbs. Hence max load considering only non-lifting parts limit is 904 - 446 = 458 lbs. The AUW limit takes precedence. On this aircraft forward CG limit did not determine max cockpit load. Min cockpit load is set by aft CG limit. This whole issue has to do with the design limits of the airfoil design. The non-lifting parts impart a bending moment at the wing root. This is, of course, anticipated by the designer, but has a design limit imposed upon it. Hence, the limit on the non-lifting components. Tom Food for thought: I cannot find a definitive answer to the question of why certain manufacturers state both a maximum all up weight (MAUW) and maximum non-lifting load. It seems more prevalent with German designs to state these two limitations and even the design book I have (Design of the Aeroplane by Darrol Stinton) has no reference to this. The only explanation I can come up with is that the designer has to have a maximum load figure for designing the fittings that take the shear loads from the wings to the fuselage in flight and in heavy landing loads. On fibreglass gliders these are usually four metal pins that are either part of the wings or the fuselage that automatically fit into the applicable mating receptacles on the other component. The big rigging pin you put into place usually only holds the wings together to stop them coming apart and does not take the flight shear loads of wing to fuselage. In the case of older gliders such as the Schleicher Ka6, two big main pins are inserted that join the two wings and carry the wing bending loads from the upper and lower spar caps and there are still fixed shear pins that take the wing to fuselage loads in flight as well as forward drag-spar pins for each wing. My rationale for the two limits is that from a design point of view, the fittings are capable of taking the maximum non-lifting load figure multiplied by the G load design requirements multiplied by the normal design safety factor of 1.5 (which could be what the BGA 3% is eating into for their overweight allowance for aging gliders unless limiting the max G loading - prohibiting aerobatics is one way but only goes part way to satisfying the Vn load factors associated with gust loads to airspeed) but during certification the gliders were only tested up to a MAUW figure determined to be sufficient at the time, hence when we reweigh a glider, we are limited to the certificated AUW first and foremost, but must not exceed the non-lifting figure which includes the payload (pilot etc). The dilemma we have is that the wings on a glider represent a major part of the structure and seem to get heavier with age for whatever reason, that is sometimes hard to understand, yet the wings alone do not essentially impart any detrimental bending loads to the spars or fittings in flight but technically speaking we are bound to adhere to the MAUW even when the maximum non-lifting figure says we could carry a heavier pilot from a structural standpoint. DB |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Max Weight of Non Lift Producing Components
Derry Belcher wrote on 3/9/2021 3:14 PM:
On Monday, 11 December 2017 at 15:45:27 UTC+13, 2G wrote: On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 1:45:06 PM UTC-8, James Thomson wrote: At 01:59 08 December 2017, Dan Daly wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:27:02 PM UTC-5, Jim wrote: I admit I am baffled by "max weight of non-lifting parts". I understand = the issue of spar bending moment limits, and I think I understand that weig= hing a glider without its wings will give the current non-lifting (i.e.., no= n-wing) weight, but I have a feeling there are subtle things here that I do= not understand. I've rigged an ASK-21 and its wings are HEAVY! I haven't weighed them so= I don't know just how heavy they are though. Certainly felt like more tha= n 100 lbs each. Ask me how I know. I'll guess (I know, don't guess) each = wing weighs 150 lbs. Likely more. If I subtract 300 lbs from 780 and then= subtract that result from 1320 I'm still short of 902 - which I suppose is= a good thing. =20 Glider cockpit load limits are set by the lowest value determined by: Max AUW Seat strength limits Max wt of non-lifting parts Forward CG limit For a ASK21 for which I have the actual weighing results: Max AUW 1320 lbs Empty weight, fully equipped, 884 lbs Therefore disposable load is 436 lbs Seat strength limit is 242 lbs, so with a max weight pilot the other pilot cannot exceed 194 lbs Each wing weighs 219 lbs, max weight of non-lifting parts is 904 lbs. Fuselage, tailplane, etc wt is 884 - 438 = 446 lbs. Hence max load considering only non-lifting parts limit is 904 - 446 = 458 lbs. The AUW limit takes precedence. On this aircraft forward CG limit did not determine max cockpit load. Min cockpit load is set by aft CG limit. This whole issue has to do with the design limits of the airfoil design. The non-lifting parts impart a bending moment at the wing root. This is, of course, anticipated by the designer, but has a design limit imposed upon it. Hence, the limit on the non-lifting components. Tom Food for thought: I cannot find a definitive answer to the question of why certain manufacturers state both a maximum all up weight (MAUW) and maximum non-lifting load. It seems more prevalent with German designs to state these two limitations and even the design book I have (Design of the Aeroplane by Darrol Stinton) has no reference to this. The only explanation I can come up with is that the designer has to have a maximum load figure for designing the fittings that take the shear loads from the wings to the fuselage in flight and in heavy landing loads. On fibreglass gliders these are usually four metal pins that are either part of the wings or the fuselage that automatically fit into the applicable mating receptacles on the other component. The big rigging pin you put into place usually only holds the wings together to stop them coming apart and does not take the flight shear loads of wing to fuselage. In the case of older gliders such as the Schleicher Ka6, two big main pins are inserted that join the two wings and carry the wing bending loads from the upper and lower spar caps and there are still fixed shear pins that take the wing to fuselage loads in flight as well as forward drag-spar pins for each wing. My rationale for the two limits is that from a design point of view, the fittings are capable of taking the maximum non-lifting load figure multiplied by the G load design requirements multiplied by the normal design safety factor of 1.5 (which could be what the BGA 3% is eating into for their overweight allowance for aging gliders unless limiting the max G loading - prohibiting aerobatics is one way but only goes part way to satisfying the Vn load factors associated with gust loads to airspeed) but during certification the gliders were only tested up to a MAUW figure determined to be sufficient at the time, hence when we reweigh a glider, we are limited to the certificated AUW first and foremost, but must not exceed the non-lifting figure which includes the payload (pilot etc). The dilemma we have is that the wings on a glider represent a major part of the structure and seem to get heavier with age for whatever reason, that is sometimes hard to understand, yet the wings alone do not essentially impart any detrimental bending loads to the spars or fittings in flight but technically speaking we are bound to adhere to the MAUW even when the maximum non-lifting figure says we could carry a heavier pilot from a structural standpoint. DB The MAUW affects landing gear design (strength, tire size, brakes, etc), and the various aerodynamic numbers like stall and landing speed. It's not just a flight loads issue. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Max Weight of Non Lift Producing Components
On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 3:14:10 PM UTC-8, Derry Belcher wrote:
Food for thought: I cannot find a definitive answer to the question of why certain manufacturers state both a maximum all up weight (MAUW) and maximum non-lifting load. It seems more prevalent with German designs to state these two limitations and even the design book I have (Design of the Aeroplane by Darrol Stinton) has no reference to this... From a sailplane designer's perspective: I cannot speak for my European colleagues, but I specify a maximum mass of non-lifting components (which most certainly _does_ include the horizontal tail) because it drives the most critical structural metric in my glider--the wing bending moment. That in turn drives the tensile and compressive stresses in the wing main spar upper and lower caps, and also the shear developed in the main spar shear web. A simplified way of looking at it is to understand that the wing basically carries itself. So if you make the wing uniformly heavier, it does not increase the bending moment incurred under high-g maneuvering. Let's say for whatever reason you add 100 kg of paint and filler to the wings. Because the mass distribution follows the area distribution, and the area distribution is about elliptical, the stresses in the wing spar are not increased. Except of course for the landing case where the wings are supported by the fuselage and landing gear. But those are areas where adding extra margin has a much more modest cost than adding extra bending strength and stiffness to the wing spar. For this reason, I am fairly open to increasing the maximum gross weight of my gliders by adding batteries and water ballast inside the wings, but there are definite limits to increasing the mass of the non-lifting parts, and there I hold the line. --Bob K. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fiberglass cloth weight vs 'finished' weight | Fred the Red Shirt | Home Built | 12 | April 5th 08 04:24 PM |
Glider Weight/Wing Loading and determing speed for best L/D for a given weight | 65E | Soaring | 3 | January 26th 06 09:26 PM |
How much weight will 15 ft.³ of helium lift? | John Doe | Home Built | 1 | December 3rd 04 04:07 PM |
Crosswind components | James L. Freeman | Piloting | 25 | February 29th 04 01:21 AM |
Empty/Gross weight Vs. Max. Pilot weight | Flyhighdave | Soaring | 13 | January 14th 04 04:20 AM |