Weight/balance question

[Bob Martin]

Is a statement such as the following acceptable for weight and balance
calculations for flying?

"As long as the maximum baggage weight of XX lbs and gross weight of
xxxx lbs is not exceeded, the aircraft will be in balance"

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 8 Jun 2004 06:16:09 -0700, (Bob Martin) wrote:

>Is a statement such as the following acceptable for weight and balance
>calculations for flying?
>
>"As long as the maximum baggage weight of XX lbs and gross weight of
>xxxx lbs is not exceeded, the aircraft will be in balance"

IIRC, that's exactly what my Stinson 108-3 manual said....

Ron Wanttaja

[Carl Ellis]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:

> On 8 Jun 2004 06:16:09 -0700, (Bob Martin) wrote:
>
>>Is a statement such as the following acceptable for weight and balance
>>calculations for flying?
>>
>>"As long as the maximum baggage weight of XX lbs and gross weight of
>>xxxx lbs is not exceeded, the aircraft will be in balance"

Taylorcraft too.

- Carl -

[Jan Carlsson]

Aeronca too, but don't use that on all aircrafts! :-)

Jan Carlsson
www.jcpropellerdesign.com

"Carl Ellis" > skrev i meddelandet
. 97.136...
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 8 Jun 2004 06:16:09 -0700, (Bob Martin) wrote:
> >
> >>Is a statement such as the following acceptable for weight and balance
> >>calculations for flying?
> >>
> >>"As long as the maximum baggage weight of XX lbs and gross weight of
> >>xxxx lbs is not exceeded, the aircraft will be in balance"
>
> Taylorcraft too.
>
> - Carl -

[Corrie]

Carl Ellis > wrote in message 6>...
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 8 Jun 2004 06:16:09 -0700, (Bob Martin) wrote:
> >
> >>Is a statement such as the following acceptable for weight and balance
> >>calculations for flying?
> >>
> >>"As long as the maximum baggage weight of XX lbs and gross weight of
> >>xxxx lbs is not exceeded, the aircraft will be in balance"
>
> Taylorcraft too.
>
> - Carl -

With the Cessna 150/152s I flew in training, W/B was a mere formality
with normal-sized people in the seats no baggage, regardless of fuel
level.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Bob Martin) wrote:

> Is a statement such as the following acceptable for weight and balance
> calculations for flying?
>
> "As long as the maximum baggage weight of XX lbs and gross weight of
> xxxx lbs is not exceeded, the aircraft will be in balance"

NO! You need the CG of the airplane to be within a certain range of
distances of Mean Aerodynamic Chord. The above statement gives no
quantitave information as to where that CG is.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:16:29 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (Bob Martin) wrote:
>
>> Is a statement such as the following acceptable for weight and balance
>> calculations for flying?
>>
>> "As long as the maximum baggage weight of XX lbs and gross weight of
>> xxxx lbs is not exceeded, the aircraft will be in balance"
>
>NO! You need the CG of the airplane to be within a certain range of
>distances of Mean Aerodynamic Chord. The above statement gives no
>quantitave information as to where that CG is.

But if it's impossible for a given airplane to be outside its CG range as
long as placarded limits are obeyed, seems to me that verifying that the
limits are not exceeded would be sufficient for the pilot to be assured
that CG is within the allowed range. There have been thousands of planes
sold where the CG check is done on that basis.

Ron Wanttaja

[Wright1902Glider]

Hmmm... would I be correct in assuming that on aircraft placarded this way, it
would be physically improbable to load baggage in an area of the airframe that
would cause an out-of-limit CG issue if the weight limit was not exceeded?

Just wondering... CG is a VERY big issue with pioneer-era airframes, and
simply leaning back could/did cause stalls 100 years ago.

Harry

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Richard Riley > wrote:
>On 16 Jun 2004 14:11:32 GMT,
>(Wright1902Glider) wrote:
>
>:Hmmm... would I be correct in assuming that on aircraft placarded this way, it
>:would be physically improbable to load baggage in an area of the airframe that
>:would cause an out-of-limit CG issue if the weight limit was not exceeded?
>
>I wouldn't think so. Imagine a (generic) airplane with a placarded
>baggage area weight max of 25 lbs. Say it's big enough for 4 sleeping
>bags. It's fine if it's loaded with 4 sleeping bags, but not if it's
>loaded with 4 full kegs of beer.

OK, I'll bite on this one. *HOW* do you get 4 full kegs of beer in there,
and still keep under the placarded baggage weight limit of 25 lbs?

And, if you _are_ under the weight limit, with those 4 kegs, _why_ is that
different than the _same_ weight in sleeping bags?

"Inquiring minds want to know." <grin>

>
>In the EZ airplanes the back seat, fuel and baggage are all close to
>CG. If the pilot meets the *minimum* weight and the plane is under
>gross, it's in CG. (It's not quite true in the Cozy and Velocity - 2
>very large people in front can put you too far forward CG)
>

[Wright1902Glider]

hmmm... wondering that myself... I did say "within placarded weight limit",
right?

What I was asking was if is possible to seriously affect the CG by loading the
max. cargo limit into the designated space in the airframe. Obviously, CG is
effected by where one places a load in an airframe, as well as the weight of
the load. My question was how much effect does a 100% placarded load effect CG
versus say a 23% load. Is there a noticable diference in handling, or can this
be trimmed out? Just wondering. Most of my airtime is in weight-shift
gliders, where CG is absolutely critical.

BTW, 4 kegs? Might be time to switch to muzzleloader...

Harry