Jump to content

SINNERS COME TO CHURCH AGAIN - "WHO HAS NEVER FLOWN OVERWEIGHT" - THESE ARE MY EXAMPLES IN REAL LIFE.


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Yenn said:

The most dangerous loading was max weight with min fuel, which would put you out of safe C of G quite easily.

Not being silly, but isn't that a condition that you could reach at the end of a long flight?  But by then the weight  would have reduced due to fuel burn, so the CofG might have moved, but still be within the envelope, wouldn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And the reason people do not openly talk about overweight flight in RAAus aircraft is ... the heft of the bricks that can be thrown at you if you admit to it and who can throw those bricks.  

In the operating handbooks I have written I put in worked examples of several weight and balance conditions. For the RV 4 I had Max weight with max luggage at rear posn, Max wt with max fuel and

This phenomenon has been the cause of many prangs since planes first got into the sky. Lack of pitch control is  usually fatal. That's been known since before powered flight. E/C and F/E/C should cove

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Not being silly, but isn't that a condition that you could reach at the end of a long flight?  But by then the weight  would have reduced due to fuel burn, so the CofG might have moved, but still be within the envelope, wouldn't it?

I had to tell an acquaintance that I couldn't take him for a fly. I could have been under MTOW if I took a light fuel load and had a short flight, but would have exceeded my aft CoG limit even before I took off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Not being silly, but isn't that a condition that you could reach at the end of a long flight?  But by then the weight  would have reduced due to fuel burn, so the CofG might have moved, but still be within the envelope, wouldn't it?

Correct, hence the importance of confirming the ZFW C of G is within limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RFguy said:

Hi Yenn. seems to be a pretty common thing for the low wing LSA (minimum fuel CoG hazard) . 

Low wing LSA - (Min fuel CoG hazard) , as fuel tanks are often in wing  forward of the wing spar, and a long way forward of the seats and baggage.

High wing MAY have  a different issue at min fuel - MAY be nose heavy IF  the wing(+fuel) is behind the front seats.....and only pax no bags. (J230)

 

GA low wing normal and utility  aircraft I see the wing is often further back to promote better baggage +  load capability I guess. spar under the seat..

 

Where's the fuel in the RV4 wing ?

 

 

Cant comment on all or even most low wing aircraft but the few that I have encountered place the fuel (in wing or fuselage) so as to have minimal trim change with fuel load and those minimal changes (if any) are from a slightly forward (max fuel) condition to a neutral trim condition as consumption/flight progresses.

The little high wing Jabs, I did my GA/RAA conversion in, had the tank behind the seats, so depending on max fuel load trim, it is conceivable that they go from neutral to slightly nose down as the flight progresses.

Irrespective of the aircraft, its wing location high/low, I would expect the wing to be placed in the position that gives the aircraft the greatest stability over it design load/location (including fuel).

In RAA aircraft, where the crew weight make up the largest single weight variable,  I speculate it is their location which probably most influences the location fore/aft of the wing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...