Wing engineering?

[Lou]

Ok, a question or 2 about the wings. I'm building a wooden aircraft
that could go either fixed tri-gear or retract. I choose fixed seeing
how this is my first plane to build and I wanted to keep it simple. The
fuel was supposed to go behind the firewall but I choose to build tanks
in each wing where the wheels where to go.
What will this do to the loading of the aircraft? Does this effect
the useful load and how? Does it raise my useful load or lower it or
niether? Since the wings create lift, and the fuel was in the fuselage
and now in the wing should it screw up the center of gravity? Anybody,
Anybody, Anybody????

[john smith]

Lou wrote:
> Ok, a question or 2 about the wings. I'm building a wooden aircraft
> that could go either fixed tri-gear or retract. I choose fixed seeing
> how this is my first plane to build and I wanted to keep it simple. The
> fuel was supposed to go behind the firewall but I choose to build tanks
> in each wing where the wheels where to go.
> What will this do to the loading of the aircraft? Does this effect
> the useful load and how? Does it raise my useful load or lower it or
> niether? Since the wings create lift, and the fuel was in the fuselage
> and now in the wing should it screw up the center of gravity? Anybody,
> Anybody, Anybody????

Depends upon the wing and where in the wing the tanks are located. Fuel
burn will affect center of gravity. Tank shape and location will
determine the affect.

[Bob Martin]

Lou wrote:
> Ok, a question or 2 about the wings. I'm building a wooden aircraft
> that could go either fixed tri-gear or retract. I choose fixed seeing
> how this is my first plane to build and I wanted to keep it simple. The
> fuel was supposed to go behind the firewall but I choose to build tanks
> in each wing where the wheels where to go.
> What will this do to the loading of the aircraft? Does this effect
> the useful load and how? Does it raise my useful load or lower it or
> niether? Since the wings create lift, and the fuel was in the fuselage
> and now in the wing should it screw up the center of gravity? Anybody,
> Anybody, Anybody????
>


Well, I'm not really an expert... but by moving the tank(s) from behind
the firewall to the wings, you create two main issues:

First, center-of-gravity changes. Moving them further aft will cause an
aft shift in CG. You will have to move other components forward to
compensate (or add ballast), and be VERY, VERY sure you analyze all of
the load conditions possible to make sure the CG is not out-of-limits.

Second, moving the tanks to the wings (assuming a low-wing aircraft)
means you will need an engine-driven fuel pump and an electric boost
pump. You can't simply use a gravity feed like you could with high-wing
tanks or (I'm assuming) a fuselage-mounted tank.

As far as changes in lift, assuming you don't change the outer mold line
of the wing, you won't generate more or less lift by putting the tanks
in the wing. However, putting them out there means the load
distribution will change; you have to make sure your wing structure can
support the tank. However, moving the tanks to the wings should reduce
the bending moment a bit.

[Ernest Christley]

Lou wrote:
> Ok, a question or 2 about the wings. I'm building a wooden aircraft
> that could go either fixed tri-gear or retract. I choose fixed seeing
> how this is my first plane to build and I wanted to keep it simple. The
> fuel was supposed to go behind the firewall but I choose to build tanks
> in each wing where the wheels where to go.
> What will this do to the loading of the aircraft? Does this effect
> the useful load and how? Does it raise my useful load or lower it or
> niether? Since the wings create lift, and the fuel was in the fuselage
> and now in the wing should it screw up the center of gravity? Anybody,
> Anybody, Anybody????
>

You have to worry about 3 axis. With now knowledge of the airplane, it
is possible that the fuels position may not have not changed fore or
aft. If that it true then your CG is safe. If not, then you will have
to be very careful in your weight and balance calculations. The nice
thing about wing tanks is that the fuel tends to sit on the center of
lift. When this is the case, the draining fuel doesn't cause your trim
to creep.

Next is the vertical axis. If you move a lot of weight from up high to
down load, but leave the center of thrust untouched, then you've created
a situation where adding thrust will cause the plane to tend to nose
over. You're trying to move a filing cabinet by pushing the top. So,
you're on short final, just before the flair, all trimmed out and
smooth. A deer jumps on the runway. You firewall the throttle. Do you
have enough elevator to keep from eating a mouthful of dirt.

The other issue is lateral loading. Move all that weight to the wings
and you've modified your roll response. Just like an ice skater that
changes her spin by extending her arms or retracting her arms (moving
weight in and out.) When you try to start a roll, you have to have
enough differential lift in the ailerons to get everything moving...and
THEN get everything stopped. Moving the tanks could make the plane
difficult to control.


The upshot is that the wing ROOT doesn't have to carry the bending
moment of the fuel load. If the wing root was the limiting factor in
your load allowance, then this move very well could increase your
plane's usefull load. Airplanes have to be light, though. It's
doubtful that the designer cut the wing root to the bare minimum and
then beefed up everthing else, like landing gear, tail surface area,
elevator surface area, etc. I wouldn't bet MY life on an increased load
allowance from moving the fuel tank.


--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Lou]

Very nice analogie's, they put good pictures in my head. If I kept the
fuel tank in the fuselage behind the firewall, wouldn't that have
created trim problems as the fuel got used up?

[Jean-Paul Roy]

Lou, have you asked tjis question to the designer of your craft?
His comments could be very interesting and informative.

Jean-Paul
"Lou" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Very nice analogie's, they put good pictures in my head. If I kept the
> fuel tank in the fuselage behind the firewall, wouldn't that have
> created trim problems as the fuel got used up?
>
>

[Lou]

As a matter of fact I finally found a way to communicate with him. He
is an Italian resident who doesn't speak english and I could so much as
insult someone in Italian. I did get a fax number for him (I will find
out about email soon) and am starting to translate a bunch of questions
to fax him. This will be interesting.

[Gordon Arnaut]

Bending loads on the spar will be less if tanks are wing mounted, because
the lift from the wings acts directly on the mass of the fuel.

It has to do with the concept of load path -- when a laod is applied to the
airplane at any point other than the CG, the load must get to the CG through
the structure of the airplane.

That's why the Questair Venture has its nosegear attached to the engine
instead of the airplane, because it is always advantageous to feed loads
directly into a major mass.

Regards,

Gordon.

PS: What design are we talking about?


"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
. com...
> Lou wrote:
>> Ok, a question or 2 about the wings. I'm building a wooden aircraft
>> that could go either fixed tri-gear or retract. I choose fixed seeing
>> how this is my first plane to build and I wanted to keep it simple. The
>> fuel was supposed to go behind the firewall but I choose to build tanks
>> in each wing where the wheels where to go.
>> What will this do to the loading of the aircraft? Does this effect
>> the useful load and how? Does it raise my useful load or lower it or
>> niether? Since the wings create lift, and the fuel was in the fuselage
>> and now in the wing should it screw up the center of gravity? Anybody,
>> Anybody, Anybody????
>>
>
> You have to worry about 3 axis. With now knowledge of the airplane, it is
> possible that the fuels position may not have not changed fore or aft. If
> that it true then your CG is safe. If not, then you will have to be very
> careful in your weight and balance calculations. The nice thing about
> wing tanks is that the fuel tends to sit on the center of lift. When this
> is the case, the draining fuel doesn't cause your trim to creep.
>
> Next is the vertical axis. If you move a lot of weight from up high to
> down load, but leave the center of thrust untouched, then you've created a
> situation where adding thrust will cause the plane to tend to nose over.
> You're trying to move a filing cabinet by pushing the top. So, you're on
> short final, just before the flair, all trimmed out and smooth. A deer
> jumps on the runway. You firewall the throttle. Do you have enough
> elevator to keep from eating a mouthful of dirt.
>
> The other issue is lateral loading. Move all that weight to the wings and
> you've modified your roll response. Just like an ice skater that changes
> her spin by extending her arms or retracting her arms (moving weight in
> and out.) When you try to start a roll, you have to have enough
> differential lift in the ailerons to get everything moving...and THEN get
> everything stopped. Moving the tanks could make the plane difficult to
> control.
>
>
> The upshot is that the wing ROOT doesn't have to carry the bending moment
> of the fuel load. If the wing root was the limiting factor in your load
> allowance, then this move very well could increase your plane's usefull
> load. Airplanes have to be light, though. It's doubtful that the
> designer cut the wing root to the bare minimum and then beefed up
> everthing else, like landing gear, tail surface area, elevator surface
> area, etc. I wouldn't bet MY life on an increased load allowance from
> moving the fuel tank.
>
>
> --
> This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
> instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
> mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
> decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

Lou wrote:
> Very nice analogie's, they put good pictures in my head. If I kept the
> fuel tank in the fuselage behind the firewall, wouldn't that have
> created trim problems as the fuel got used up?
>

If you move any loads, including the fuel, you've changed the trim
point. You're always chasing the trim to some small extent anyway
(unless you have an autopilot which is doing the chasing for you). I
don't know if it can be described as a problem. You, as the pilot, will
have to decide that.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Lou]

Ok I've started it, I have built the 2 wing ribs the way it called for
in the plans if I were installing the retract gear. The only differnce
is that I will not be cutting the bottom of the ribs out for the gear
that won't be there. They seem to be extreemly strong, sorry I didn't
think of this for luggage.
Lou

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
"Lou" > wrote:

> Ok I've started it, I have built the 2 wing ribs the way it called for
> in the plans if I were installing the retract gear. The only differnce
> is that I will not be cutting the bottom of the ribs out for the gear
> that won't be there. They seem to be extreemly strong, sorry I didn't
> think of this for luggage.
> Lou

What kind of plane is it?

[Lou]

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/champion.html plans

http://www.airplane4sale.com/Pioneer%20300%20Spec%20Sheet.html Almost
built

[L.D.]

Lou wrote:
> Ok, a question or 2 about the wings. I'm building a wooden aircraft
> that could go either fixed tri-gear or retract. I choose fixed seeing
> how this is my first plane to build and I wanted to keep it simple. The
> fuel was supposed to go behind the firewall but I choose to build tanks
> in each wing where the wheels where to go.
> What will this do to the loading of the aircraft? Does this effect
> the useful load and how? Does it raise my useful load or lower it or
> niether? Since the wings create lift, and the fuel was in the fuselage
> and now in the wing should it screw up the center of gravity? Anybody,
> Anybody, Anybody????
>


Run a weight and balance

[Juan Jimenez]

Lou wrote:
>> What will this do to the loading of the aircraft?

Fuel weighs more than air and wood. At full fuel your wing loading will
increase, with all that that entails.

>> Does this effect the useful load and how? Does it raise my useful load or
>> lower it or niether?

Neither. Your aircraft has a gross weight, does it not? Useful load remains
the same, difference between empty weight and gross weight.

>> Since the wings create lift, and the fuel was in the fuselage and now in
>> the wing should it screw up the center of gravity?

Come on, you're not telling me you're building an aircraft and don't know
how to do a CG calculation? What L.D. said, do a weight and balance
calculation!

[John Ammeter]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
>>> What will this do to the loading of the aircraft?
>
>
> Fuel weighs more than air and wood. At full fuel your wing loading will
> increase, with all that that entails.
>
True, fuel is heavier than air or wood however there's a lot more to
this than weight of fuel. Assume you've got a fuel load of 120 pounds.
If that fuel was in the fuselage that weight is supported by the
wing attachment bolts. If that fuel was IN the wings, then the wing
attachment bolts are not supporting that extra 120 pounds in the
fuselage. This is the reason most larger aircraft are designed to carry
most of their fuel in the wing structure. Less stress on the wing
attachment bolts. The WING LOADING is the same assuming the weight of
the fuel remains the same. Wing Loading is simply the weight of the
aircraft divided by the area of the wing.


>
>>>Does this effect the useful load and how? Does it raise my useful load or
>>>lower it or niether?
>
>
> Neither. Your aircraft has a gross weight, does it not? Useful load remains
> the same, difference between empty weight and gross weight.
>


>>>Since the wings create lift, and the fuel was in the fuselage and now in
>>>the wing should it screw up the center of gravity?
>
>
> Come on, you're not telling me you're building an aircraft and don't know
> how to do a CG calculation? What L.D. said, do a weight and balance
> calculation!
>
>

[Juan Jimenez]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> Lou wrote:
>>
>>>> What will this do to the loading of the aircraft?
>>
>>
>> Fuel weighs more than air and wood. At full fuel your wing loading will
>> increase, with all that that entails.
>>
> True, fuel is heavier than air or wood however there's a lot more to this
> than weight of fuel. Assume you've got a fuel load of 120 pounds. If that
> fuel was in the fuselage that weight is supported by the wing attachment
> bolts. If that fuel was IN the wings, then the wing attachment bolts are
> not supporting that extra 120 pounds in the fuselage. This is the reason
> most larger aircraft are designed to carry most of their fuel in the wing
> structure. Less stress on the wing attachment bolts. The WING LOADING is
> the same assuming the weight of the fuel remains the same. Wing Loading
> is simply the weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing.

All true, except I thought he said he wanted to add fuel in the wings, not
remove the fuselage tank and put tanks in the wings...

[Lou]

Yes, I want to add fuel to the wings and remove the fuselage tank..

[Juan Jimenez]

Then you need to consider whether or not the wing and wing attach design are
up to the task.

"Lou" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Yes, I want to add fuel to the wings and remove the fuselage tank..
>