B

bryanrene

Active Member
OK, I know that both are important in handling qualities. RV4 (and all rv's?)with o360 w/ hartzell cs have been called nose heavy and have a higher empty weight. Many report best flying qualities in lightest weight plane so question is:

Is it better to add some weight in luggage area to help w/ cg at the expense of more total weight?

or

try to keep weight as light as possible and fly the cg where it ends up?
 
Interesting question...

There are a couple questions in there. There is a boundary question. Are we in legal CG? And there is the optimization question. The answer to question one should be yes, the answer to question two probably depends somewhat on your mission. For instance, are you flying a cross country trying to get as far and fast as you can on a given amount of fuel? In simple terms I think about it such. If you are going x-country and seeking efficiency, getting rearward would make sense so you don't fly across the country with your elevator pushing down, adding force that your wing then needs to fly.

Fortunately, there are a few parts on an airplane that can perform from many different locations (ARMS). We use that fact to our advantage. For Hartzell side by side's that likely means putting the battery aft. However, it isn't that simple for tandem aircraft. I've thought a battery with quick connects would be ideal. Battery goes near the tail for solo, when 2 up, battery is removed and goes forward. Sign in the back seat " please ask me, where the battery is located". :D to help me not do anything stupid.... it would need to be part of the checklist. These quick connects or version like it have been around at least 20 years. http://www.ballisticparts.com/products/accessories/quickDis.php

Conventional versus trike? I find trikes to be fairly forgiving of CG during landing (as long as it is in the envelope) but for the tail wheel aircraft, RV-3 in my case, I think the sweet spot CG location is where ever it 3 points well at your chosen touch down speed. I found at rear CG, when trying to 3 point a low speeds, tail wheel comes down first which I didn't like. Could be my low time in type, but even with more skill to come down softer and minimize the main gear bounce, it would still be nicer to have better visibility and have it naturally touch down on all wheels together. Forward CG can be unpleasant as well. IMHO, I think at least a one of the pilots that strongly favors wheel landing over 3 point, does so because the airplane has less than ideal CG. I suspect an effort to optimize CG might make 3 pointing a lot more pleasant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.