REFLECTOR: Weight & Balance

[Brian Michalk]

Agree!
Through careful testing I found that I could go .5 inches forward of the 
factory limit.

I think the point here is that all of these planes are different. To use 
factory numbers in lieu of flight testing is a bad idea. If you test at 
the factory numbers, fine.  And if you have a pitot tube that you 
measured from as your reference, then your moment locations will be 
about six inches different than everyone elses.

On 3/23/2014 7:47 PM, John Dibble wrote:
> Through careful testing I determined that I could go a bit behind the 
> recommended aft cg limit and still have the canard stall.
>
> John
>
> On 3/23/2014 3:55 PM, nmflyer1 at aol.com wrote:
>> What would be really nice is if there was something in print that 
>> stated what the real CG envelope is for the 173 FGE. Like I said, I 
>> could find no W&B info at all in the on line builder's manuals. All 
>> my manuals have examples/figures from the Standard. I think they are 
>> different. I do trust that Larry got the correct info from Scott, and 
>> would like to have it.
>> I did notice that Larry's numbers and mine are really not very far 
>> off, Except: His shows an arm of the sump as 135" (which is in the 
>> book as an example of the standard. I noticed he subtracted it out of 
>> his empty CG numbers.)
>> I weighed mine empty, then with just the sump tank full. It is 5 
>> Gallons with a CG of 126.19. It is in the stock location. Pretty big 
>> difference there.
>> One other wrench for my set-up is that My Pitot Tube sticks straight 
>> out of the nose. so the tip of the nose is no longer there. I kind of 
>> wagged on where it used to be, but I could be off by a bit. If this 
>> is so, my numbers get even closer to Larry's except for the sump. 
>> This would "buy" me back about 1/2" of CG to the good side.
>> I already have 2 Batteries in the nose, but they are pretty 
>> lightweight. No room for another, but I am pretty sure I can get some 
>> more weight up there if I need to. How much does beer weigh?
>> Wim is right on the fuel load effect on CG. I did a detailed fill & 
>> weigh process on mine and the basic arm of the fuel was within an 
>> inch the whole way, but that arm averaged about 123". This is 
>> important if the 173 numbers were really revised from 120.75" to 123.
>> Would be nice to know what I am aiming for:0
>> Thanks for the input all!  This is getting so close!
>> Kurt
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://www.avast.com/> 	
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
> <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
> Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
> user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
> Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
> Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20140324/b10ce628/attachment.html>