Procedure for calculating weight and balance

[Mxsmanic]

The manual for my aircraft gives figures for MOM and ARM at various
stations, but it doesn't actually explain how to use these to
calculate weight and balance. I want to place the load so that the
aircraft neither pitches down nor pitches up. Can someone provide me
with a pointer to an explanation of the procedure on the Web
somewhere?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> The manual for my aircraft gives figures for MOM and ARM at various
> stations, but it doesn't actually explain how to use these to
> calculate weight and balance. I want to place the load so that the
> aircraft neither pitches down nor pitches up. Can someone provide me
> with a pointer to an explanation of the procedure on the Web
> somewhere?
>
The calculations are simple math. Why would you need a pointer to anything
but an elementary math book?

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> The calculations are simple math. Why would you need a pointer to anything
> but an elementary math book?

I'm sure the calculations are simple, but I still need an explanation
of which calculations to perform.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Andrew Sarangan]

No one places the loads to exactly so as to balance the airplane. The
elevator downward force is increased or decreased during flight to
balance the airplane for varying load conditions. For example, when a
passenger walks forward, the elevator downward force must be increased
to counteract that. The CG is calculated using the moments and arms to
make sure that it falls within the approved limits. If the CG falls too
far forward or too far backward, the elevator may not be able to
provide the force necessary to balance the airplane.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_gravity_%28aircraft%29


Mxsmanic wrote:
> The manual for my aircraft gives figures for MOM and ARM at various
> stations, but it doesn't actually explain how to use these to
> calculate weight and balance. I want to place the load so that the
> aircraft neither pitches down nor pitches up. Can someone provide me
> with a pointer to an explanation of the procedure on the Web
> somewhere?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> The calculations are simple math. Why would you need a pointer to
>> anything
>> but an elementary math book?
>
> I'm sure the calculations are simple, but I still need an explanation
> of which calculations to perform.
>

An Example should be in the POH that explains everything

BT

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> No one places the loads to exactly so as to balance the airplane. The
> elevator downward force is increased or decreased during flight to
> balance the airplane for varying load conditions. For example, when a
> passenger walks forward, the elevator downward force must be increased
> to counteract that. The CG is calculated using the moments and arms to
> make sure that it falls within the approved limits. If the CG falls too
> far forward or too far backward, the elevator may not be able to
> provide the force necessary to balance the airplane.
> See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_gravity_%28aircraft%29

I didn't realize Wikipedia had an article on this. I'll take a look.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> An Example should be in the POH that explains everything

I looked, and there are charts, but nothing specific on how to
actually calculate things. The Wikipedia article helped, although I
still don't know how to find the center of gravity in the aircraft, as
apparently manufacturers don't set their reference point at the actual
center of gravity (the point that would keep the aircraft level).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stubby]

also check faa.gov AC-61-238 "Pilots' Handbook of Aeronautical
Knowledge" will answer all your questions (I hope).


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan writes:
>
>> No one places the loads to exactly so as to balance the airplane. The
>> elevator downward force is increased or decreased during flight to
>> balance the airplane for varying load conditions. For example, when a
>> passenger walks forward, the elevator downward force must be increased
>> to counteract that. The CG is calculated using the moments and arms to
>> make sure that it falls within the approved limits. If the CG falls too
>> far forward or too far backward, the elevator may not be able to
>> provide the force necessary to balance the airplane.
>> See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_gravity_%28aircraft%29
>
> I didn't realize Wikipedia had an article on this. I'll take a look.
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
> > The calculations are simple math. Why would you need a pointer to anything
> > but an elementary math book?
>
> I'm sure the calculations are simple, but I still need an explanation
> of which calculations to perform.


All W & B calculations result from taking the sum of all moments and
dividing by the sum of the associated weights.

Sum (arm*weight) / sum (weight) = CG

The arms are referenced to the datum -- an arbitrary point -- sometimes
the LE of the wing, sometimes a point ahead of the nose; but nonetheless
it is THE reference point for a given aircraft.

The POH will list the arms for each seat, fuel, oil, baggage, etc.

[Ash Wyllie]

Mxsmanic opined

>Neil Gould writes:

>> The calculations are simple math. Why would you need a pointer to anything
>> but an elementary math book?

>I'm sure the calculations are simple, but I still need an explanation
>of which calculations to perform.
__
\
\
arm * weight = >(arm * weight )
aircraft aircraft / components components
/__





-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[Scott Skylane]

Mxsmanic wrote:
/snip/ Can someone provide me
> with a pointer to an explanation of the procedure on the Web
> somewhere?
>

This site has good information:

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> All W & B calculations result from taking the sum of all moments and
> dividing by the sum of the associated weights.
>
> Sum (arm*weight) / sum (weight) = CG
>
> The arms are referenced to the datum -- an arbitrary point -- sometimes
> the LE of the wing, sometimes a point ahead of the nose; but nonetheless
> it is THE reference point for a given aircraft.
>
> The POH will list the arms for each seat, fuel, oil, baggage, etc.

OK, thanks. That doesn't seem too difficult. Apparently "moment" and
"arm" are synonyms (?).

I guess the manufacturer doesn't say exactly what point constitutes
neutral trim.

I've been experimenting with changing the payload in flight (one of
the advantages of a sim) and that helps a bit with figuring out how to
get the most neutral load distribution possible.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Stubby writes:

> also check faa.gov AC-61-238 "Pilots' Handbook of Aeronautical
> Knowledge" will answer all your questions (I hope).

Section 12 explains the principles behind it, but it didn't actually
say how to calculate the center of gravity, or how to achieve neutral
trim (which nobody seems to care about except me).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Apparently "moment" and
> "arm" are synonyms (?).

Dammit, learn to google and wikipedia, if you don't remember this
elementary stuff from school (you did go?). Moment is arm times weight.

>
> I guess the manufacturer doesn't say exactly what point constitutes
> neutral trim.

The manufacturer gives a range of allowed arm.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> which nobody seems to care about except me)
>

Ah, time to take a clue, isn't it?

Why would "neutral trim" be important? For that matter, what would it
be?

What you get is a range of allowable CGs, which often depends on total
weight. This all has to do mostly with elevator authority. Trim (as in
the trim wheel) is not really important, trim is just a tool to relieve
the pilot. Trim as in weight distribution, well, see above.

Once you've figured this out, ponder why an aircraft will be faster or
consume less fuel if the CG is as aft as possible.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Why would "neutral trim" be important?

It allows for maximum control movement in both directions.

> For that matter, what would it be?

Neutral trim in cruise, usually.

> What you get is a range of allowable CGs, which often depends on total
> weight. This all has to do mostly with elevator authority. Trim (as in
> the trim wheel) is not really important, trim is just a tool to relieve
> the pilot.

Any trim adjustment has an effect on the remaining elevator authority
beyond the trimmed position.

> Once you've figured this out, ponder why an aircraft will be faster or
> consume less fuel if the CG is as aft as possible.

I'm not worried about speed or fuel consumption. I'm not in a rush,
and I generally take off with full tanks, at least in the Baron.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It allows for maximum control movement in both directions.

Maximum relative to what? What do you think the CG limits set forth by the
manufacturer are made for? Why would they matter in certification? Why would
a manufacturer and a certification authority consider them sufficient? How
much control movement do you "lose" when fully trimming to one side?

> I'm not worried about speed or fuel consumption.

I know. You're playing MSFS, a game.

But if you where truly interested in these questions, then you'd find the
answer very educational. But again you show that you're not. You're an
imposter, bending the limits of your interest to maximize insult to the
pilots here. That's how you derive an "ego increase" from your visits to
this group. Pathetic! But interesting.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[new_CFI]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Stubby writes:
>
>> also check faa.gov AC-61-238 "Pilots' Handbook of Aeronautical
>> Knowledge" will answer all your questions (I hope).
>
> Section 12 explains the principles behind it, but it didn't actually
> say how to calculate the center of gravity, or how to achieve neutral
> trim (which nobody seems to care about except me).
>

as you burn fuel your CG changes. Your 'neutral trim' wont last. read
about the benifits of forward/aft CG's.

Now if your doing areobatics I believe the placement of the CG becomes even
more importent (all I have done is spins) and my guess is that a 'neutral
cg' is not the best place?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> The POH will list the arms for each seat, fuel, oil, baggage, etc.

Are you sure you want to be answering this putz? I beg of you; reconsider.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Maximum relative to what?

Relative to its default position.

> How much control movement do you "lose" when fully trimming to one side?

It depends on the aircraft, but you always lose something.

> I know. You're playing MSFS, a game.

In the simulation, I have lots of money and time, so speed and fuel
costs are not important.

> But if you where truly interested in these questions, then you'd find the
> answer very educational.

I will be interested in them if and when they are imposed upon me.
For example, if I were flying an actual aircraft, I would not be able
to buy infinite amounts of fuel or take vast amounts of time to get
somewhere (probably).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

New_CFI writes:

> as you burn fuel your CG changes. Your 'neutral trim' wont last. read
> about the benifits of forward/aft CG's.

I did, but neither is clearly superior to the other, so why not just
stay neutral?

> Now if your doing areobatics I believe the placement of the CG becomes even
> more importent (all I have done is spins) and my guess is that a 'neutral
> cg' is not the best place?

Maybe. The Baron and the 737 aren't suitable for aerobatics, though,
and I'm not a great fan of aerobatics myself (except perhaps to watch
from the grandstands).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[new_CFI]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Why would "neutral trim" be important?
>
> It allows for maximum control movement in both directions.
>
hehehe....are you trying to avoid a building? small controll movements
are key to a smooth flight.

>> For that matter, what would it be?
>
> Neutral trim in cruise, usually.
>
Neutral trim in cruse is not neccisarly good. read about it.

>> What you get is a range of allowable CGs, which often depends on
>> total weight. This all has to do mostly with elevator authority. Trim
>> (as in the trim wheel) is not really important, trim is just a tool
>> to relieve the pilot.
>
> Any trim adjustment has an effect on the remaining elevator authority
> beyond the trimmed position.
>
again, how much elevator do you need? small controll inputs... save up
some money and go take a discovory flight at least. It will give you an
idea of the fine cotrol one needs...and perhaps answer questions like
this.

>> Once you've figured this out, ponder why an aircraft will be faster
>> or consume less fuel if the CG is as aft as possible.
>
> I'm not worried about speed or fuel consumption. I'm not in a rush,
> and I generally take off with full tanks, at least in the Baron.
>

ok, then drive. or if your just intrested in seeing the world from
above, fly a balloon.

[Mxsmanic]

New_CFI writes:

> hehehe....are you trying to avoid a building? small controll movements
> are key to a smooth flight.

No, but if I put in a lot of trim to stay level, and then I need more
control movement for an emergency, I might not have it. The trim can
create the false impression that there is full movement in both
directions.

> Neutral trim in cruse is not neccisarly good. read about it.

I've read about advantages and disadvantages, but there doesn't seem
to be any great danger in neutral trim.

> again, how much elevator do you need?

I don't know ... so I like to have as much as possible in both
directions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Relative to its default position.

Default position? You have absolutely no idea what trim
does in a real airplane. Only in a stupid flight sim.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Default position?

Yes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> No, but if I put in a lot of trim to stay level, and then I need
> more control movement for an emergency, I might not have it.

For real airplanes, FAR Parts 23 and 25 contain detailed
requirements to provide for "emergency" maneuvers at all
trim settings. If you have a problem here, it's solely MSFS.
The idea that you would be concerned about such an
emergency in a flight sim is really weird. Does MSFS really
consume your life like this? Jeesh.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TxSrv writes:
>
>> Default position?
>
> Yes.

What's the default position in my 1972 American AA-5
Traveler? No mention of it in the Pilot Operating Handbook.
If relevant to safety of flight, FAR Part 21 says the POH
must tell me so.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> What's the default position in my 1972 American AA-5
> Traveler? No mention of it in the Pilot Operating Handbook.

I know.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TxSrv writes:
>
>> What's the default position in my 1972 American AA-5
>> Traveler? No mention of it in the Pilot Operating Handbook.
>
> I know.

You know what? It's "default position," or that this odd
and irrelevant piece of information is not in the POH?

F--

[Casey Wilson]

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..

> What's the default position in my 1972 American AA-5 Traveler? No mention
> of it in the Pilot Operating Handbook. If relevant to safety of flight,
> FAR Part 21 says the POH must tell me so.
>
> F--

In MSFS, if the gamer does not enter inputs for trim and/or W&B the
aircraft data revert to defaults. No such thing exists for our real
aircraft. Likewise, DA defaults to runway altitude regardless of local
meteorology. These are some of the errors in the game.

MSFS was originally developed by a company called subLOGIC and is
supported today by Microsoft Game Studios which develops and publishes video
games for Windows-based PCs and the Xbox and Xbox 360 video game consoles.
To some naive people the word simulator elevates the game's status far
beyond its reality -- it is a game, nothing more.
In the US, the FAA does not recognize any time spent on the game as
valid time for anything.
I loaded MSFS onto my computer and spent several hours with it using
yoke, rudder pedals, and throttle controls. I did a serious comparison of it
to the Cessna 172SP that I was flying at the time and as a legitimate
simulation I rated it poorly.
On the other hand, as a game for which it was intended, it was mildly
enjoyable. I still have it on my computer although the only use it gets is
when my grandson comes for a visit. Since he has many hours in the right
seat of 172s with both his dad and me, including lots of stick time, I once
asked him what he thought about flying the 172 in MSFS. Using the cliche --
out of the mouth of babes -- came the quote: "It's bogus."

So, don't look for any defaults in your airplane's POH it is a term used
in games, not real life.

[Mxsmanic]

Casey Wilson writes:

> In MSFS, if the gamer does not enter inputs for trim and/or W&B the
> aircraft data revert to defaults.

Actually, both can be saved and then reloaded later when loading a
flight or aircraft.

That's not what I meant, though.

> To some naive people the word simulator elevates the game's status far
> beyond its reality -- it is a game, nothing more.

It's a simulator. If it were a game, it would be making a lot more
money.

> In the US, the FAA does not recognize any time spent on the game as
> valid time for anything.

There are a lot of things the FAA doesn't recognize, but the FAA isn't
any kind of final authority on aviation.

> I loaded MSFS onto my computer and spent several hours with it using
> yoke, rudder pedals, and throttle controls. I did a serious comparison of it
> to the Cessna 172SP that I was flying at the time and as a legitimate
> simulation I rated it poorly.

Other people report just the opposite.

> I still have it on my computer although the only use it gets is
> when my grandson comes for a visit.

Of course.

> Since he has many hours in the right
> seat of 172s with both his dad and me, including lots of stick time, I once
> asked him what he thought about flying the 172 in MSFS. Using the cliche --
> out of the mouth of babes -- came the quote: "It's bogus."

You're clearly both far, far above this mere game.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> You know what? It's "default position," or that this odd
> and irrelevant piece of information is not in the POH?

I know that it's not in the POH.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> I know that it's not in the POH.

Then you may have read my plane's POH, but certainly have
never flown one. Else you'd know how trim works and why
there's no "default position."

F--

[BT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Why would "neutral trim" be important?
>
> It allows for maximum control movement in both directions.
>

It Does??? well... that is news to me

Changing the trim setting does not change the set screws (Stop bolts) that
limit the amount of Rudder, Aileron or Elevator travel.

BT

[Jim Macklin]

see
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/FAA-S-8083-1.pdf
W&B handbook
and
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/
and
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/ac90-89a.pdf
am. flight testing


"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| >
| > I know that it's not in the POH.
|
| Then you may have read my plane's POH, but certainly have
| never flown one. Else you'd know how trim works and why
| there's no "default position."
|
| F--

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> Changing the trim setting does not change the set screws (Stop bolts) that
> limit the amount of Rudder, Aileron or Elevator travel.

But it does control how far you are from each stop.

If you trim to pitch the aircraft upwards, for example, in order to
eliminate the pesky need to hold the yoke way back, you may only be a
short distance from the limit of your elevator travel. If you then
become complacent and forget how much you've trimmed, and you suddenly
need more elevator travel, you're out of luck. With a more neutral
trim, you have plenty of travel in both directions if you need it.

You can adjust your throttle so that you can remain level with zero
trim. Or you can adjust your trim so that you remain level, pitching
upwards as necessary. In the first case, you have plenty of safety
margin on both sides; in the second case, you have very little margin
to pitch up further, and if you suddenly need to climb and cannot, bad
things can happen.

This is why I prefer to stay near neutral trim. If I'm not in a rush,
for example, I'll maintain altitude by adjusting the throttle until I
can trim to zero. That way I have full elevator travel in both
directions if I need it. And since this usually results in a lower
throttle setting and slower speed as long as I'm not close to my
ceiling, I have a good margin for thrust and speed as well.

I will make an exception sometimes and trim down for high speeds,
since that isn't as risky as the inverse.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

weight * arm = moment
they are not synonymous

total moments, divided my total weight = the current CG location
it has nothing to do with "zero trim"
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>
>> All W & B calculations result from taking the sum of all moments and
>> dividing by the sum of the associated weights.
>>
>> Sum (arm*weight) / sum (weight) = CG
>>
>> The arms are referenced to the datum -- an arbitrary point -- sometimes
>> the LE of the wing, sometimes a point ahead of the nose; but nonetheless
>> it is THE reference point for a given aircraft.
>>
>> The POH will list the arms for each seat, fuel, oil, baggage, etc.
>
> OK, thanks. That doesn't seem too difficult. Apparently "moment" and
> "arm" are synonyms (?).
>
> I guess the manufacturer doesn't say exactly what point constitutes
> neutral trim.
>
> I've been experimenting with changing the payload in flight (one of
> the advantages of a sim) and that helps a bit with figuring out how to
> get the most neutral load distribution possible.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> But it does control how far you are from each stop.

In all horizontal tailplane designs? Guess again.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> In all horizontal tailplane designs?

No, not in all designs.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[new_CFI]

TxSrv > wrote in news:aKGdnQ8INMXJoT3YnZ2dnUVZ_u-
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> No, but if I put in a lot of trim to stay level, and then I need
>> more control movement for an emergency, I might not have it.
>
> For real airplanes, FAR Parts 23 and 25 contain detailed
> requirements to provide for "emergency" maneuvers at all
> trim settings. If you have a problem here, it's solely MSFS.
> The idea that you would be concerned about such an
> emergency in a flight sim is really weird. Does MSFS really
> consume your life like this? Jeesh.
>
> F--
>

full controll movement in cruse flight will most likely cause an
accelerated stall anyway thus adding to the emergency...

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TxSrv writes:
>
>> In all horizontal tailplane designs?
>
> No, not in all designs.

Then you definitive statement about "how far you are from
each stop" was flat wrong. Good we cleared that up.

F--

[BT]

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> TxSrv writes:
>>
>>> In all horizontal tailplane designs?
>>
>> No, not in all designs.
>
> Then you definitive statement about "how far you are from each stop" was
> flat wrong. Good we cleared that up.
>
> F--

TxSrv.... now you see why no one pays attention to Mx

[BT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BT writes:
>
>> Changing the trim setting does not change the set screws (Stop bolts)
>> that
>> limit the amount of Rudder, Aileron or Elevator travel.
>
> But it does control how far you are from each stop.
>
only in your own mind

how far from each stop when?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote
>
> > The POH will list the arms for each seat, fuel, oil, baggage, etc.
>
> Are you sure you want to be answering this putz? I beg of you; reconsider.

He sounds like a precocious 12-year-old, so I can cut him some slack. He
DOES ask some pertinent questions, like this one.

An ATP friend of mine almost had W&B taught him the HARD way a couple of
years ago. We calculated his CG to be about 6 inches aft of allowable,
after he had a near incident.

I showed him how to set up a general program and opened his eyes. He
became a very strong advocate after that.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> He sounds like a precocious 12-year-old, so I can cut him some slack.

Sorry to hear that. You have been drawn in by the fact that some of his
questions are reasonable, while his reactions are entirely unreasonable.

Let someone else ask reasonable questions. His presence here is only
detrimental.
--
Jim in NC

[Anno v. Heimburg]

TxSrv wrote:

> Then you may have read my plane's POH, but certainly have
> never flown one. Else you'd know how trim works and why
> there's no "default position."

Okay, now that I've made the mistake of reading this discussion, you've got
me curious: How does your plane's trim work? It's obviously not a trim tab.
And how can there be no neutral/default position of the elevator or the
trim device?

[Mxsmanic]

Anno v. Heimburg writes:

> Okay, now that I've made the mistake of reading this discussion, you've got
> me curious: How does your plane's trim work? It's obviously not a trim tab.
> And how can there be no neutral/default position of the elevator or the
> trim device?

The neutral position of a trim tab is the position in which it does
not intefere with the flow of air over the control surface, and thus
does not deflect the control surface in either direction.

There is no default position of a trim tab, as it is set as
appropriate for circumstances, which vary widely. In my use of the
term, I was thinking of trim positions that compensate for specific
power and pitch configurations and the like, excluding those that
compensate solely for a poorly balanced payload or fuel load.

In other words, I make a distinction between trim used to maintain the
aircraft in a specific, normal flight configuration, and trim used to
keep the nose from pitching violently upward because there's so much
junk loaded in the back of the aircraft (or violently forward because
the pilot and copilot are heavy and there's no ballast behind them).

As I understand it, the manufacturer's CG envelope is designed to
ensure adequate remaining control authority for any CG within the
envelope. I'm not sure how they determine what is adequate, however,
so I still worry. Which is why I'd like the most neutral CG possible,
that is, the one that has the least tendency to induce pitch or roll
movements.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Relative to its default position.
>

There is one?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Anno,

> And how can there be no neutral/default position of the elevator or the
> trim device?
>

Ok, you got me curious. No default position in all Cessnas I have flown.
Not in the Bo. Nor in the Tobago. Not in the Cirrus nor the DA-40 or the
-20. Nor any other plane I can remember INCLUDING the big airliners in
MSFS. WTF are you talking about?

There's a marking for take-off, alright. But that'S not what we're
talking about.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> This is why I prefer to stay near neutral trim.
>

So you go ahead and do that in your little game. Jeeze, you elaborately
construct a problem that simply doesn't exist in real life. Get over
it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I did, but neither is clearly superior to the other, so why not just
> stay neutral?
>

Ok, make up your mind. DId you ask the question about W&B to learn or
to be obnoxious again? If the former, accept the fact that your idea of
"neutral trim" is bogus and stupid, STFU and take notes from the people
here that know. If the latter, well, take a hike.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Ok, you got me curious. No default position in all Cessnas I have flown.
> Not in the Bo. Nor in the Tobago. Not in the Cirrus nor the DA-40 or the
> -20. Nor any other plane I can remember INCLUDING the big airliners in
> MSFS.

The position where the control surfaces align with the stabilizer, that is,
no deflection upwards or downwards. At least that's what I interpreted the
expression to mean. I freely admit I'm clueless, though.

NB that I'm not saying that this position is necessarily marked anywhere,
nor that it is relevant to actually flying the plane.

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Then you definitive statement about "how far you are from
> each stop" was flat wrong.

No, there are simply some aircraft designs to which it does not apply.
There are a lot of ways to design control surfaces.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Ok, you got me curious. No default position in all Cessnas I have flown.

Both neutral and default positions were mentioned. While there is no
default position, there is most definitely a neutral position, wherein
the trim tab is aligned with the control surface, so that it creates
no deflecting force.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Anno v. Heimburg writes:

> NB that I'm not saying that this position is necessarily marked anywhere,
> nor that it is relevant to actually flying the plane.

It is slightly relevant. If you have a substantial amount of trim set
for a control surface, the distance remaining to the limits of its
travel are substantially modified, and you may forget about the trim
and mistakenly believe that you have more remaining control authority
than actually exists.

Also, if you have trim set but you think it's neutral, you may be be
actively compensating for changes induced by the trim. In some
aircraft, you can see the position of the controls and deduce that
some trim must be in effect, but in other aircraft you cannot.

Both of these potential problems can be avoided by keeping a strong
awareness of the trim state of the aircraft. As long as you keep in
mind that you've applied x trim while flying, you should be fine.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> how far from each stop when?

Trim tabs deflect control surfaces towards one of the limits of their
travel. The greater the trim applied, the greater the deviation, and
the less the amount of travel remaining.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Anno v. Heimburg wrote:
>
> Okay, now that I've made the mistake of reading this discussion, you've got
> me curious: How does your plane's trim work? It's obviously not a trim tab.
> And how can there be no neutral/default position of the elevator or the
> trim device?

It's the common anti-servo tab across entire trailing edge
of the elevator. The trim tab position indicator is marked
only as to a "takeoff" setting, which is roughly in the
center. There is a sweet spot for aerodynamicists where all
three horiz flying surfaces are in trail, not marked on the
indicator, and it is forward of "takeoff," well toward nose
down. A logical way to set tail incidence is so everything
is in trail at 75% cruise velocity in std atmosphere at the
alt where you can have the best cruise book number
(marketing, really). As long as you still comply with Part
23 re trim effects.

In MSFS, the indicator has a center mark, an apparent
"default". In a typical real airplane, this ain't cruise.
Where MX is getting all screwed up besides not understanding
the the lift/drag effects of trim (it's almost a whole
chapter in Dr. S. Hoerner's classic text, Fluid Dynamic
Lift), is assuming MSFS knows when all surfaces are in
trail. Such a tiny flight model tweak would be bizarre for a
game sim which doesn't even fully understand air density.

All trim essentially does in MSFS is tweak the same variable
as elevator to allow for centering springs in joysticks.
I've removed the springs from some of my joysticks, because
then one fiddles less if at all with trim, and it can make
hand flying even the jets easier. Much less unrealistic
phugoid chasing.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> The neutral position of a trim tab is the position in which it does
> not intefere with the flow of air over the control surface....

A trim tab does not necessarily "interfere" with the flow of
air over a control surface. You need to read Hoerner's books.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> BT writes:
>
>> how far from each stop when?
>
> Trim tabs deflect control surfaces towards one of the limits of their
> travel. The greater the trim applied, the greater the deviation, and
> the less the amount of travel remaining.

False. Except possibly in MSFS.

F--

[Tony]

The following comments are really intended for new pilots -- Mx is
beyond help.

Real pilots in real airplanes set trim so they do not need to maintain
pressure on the yoke during norrmal cruise operations. That may not be
a consideration for sim games.

The aft cg position is most ofter determined so that the airplane still
pitches nosedown when the wings stall. If the weight is too far forward
elevator authority is a serious limit -- the pilot may not be able to
get the nose up during low speed operations, like take-offs.

The physics of flight (Mx had already demonstrated he does not accept
Newton's approximations of motion in other threads <the careful reader
will smile at my use of the word 'approximations' since he or she will
understand their limitations>) would suggest airplanes are more
efficient with cg close to center of lift since when loaded that way
the airplane is not made artificially heavy because the elevator is not
exerting negative (downward) lift. One could argue that 'neutral'
aircraft loading would be such that the elevator would not have to add
either upward or downward force.

If you're close to either limit, airspeed is your friend.




On Jan 7, 7:45 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BT writes:
> > how far from each stop when?Trim tabs deflect control surfaces towards one of the limits of their
> travel. The greater the trim applied, the greater the deviation, and
> the less the amount of travel remaining.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> A trim tab does not necessarily "interfere" with the flow of
> air over a control surface.

It can't work unless it does so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Anno v. Heimburg writes:
>
>> NB that I'm not saying that this position is necessarily marked
>> anywhere, nor that it is relevant to actually flying the plane.
>
> It is slightly relevant. If you have a substantial amount of trim set
> for a control surface, the distance remaining to the limits of its
> travel are substantially modified, and you may forget about the trim
> and mistakenly believe that you have more remaining control authority
> than actually exists.
>
You are presenting yet another absurd scenario that has no relation to the
reality of flying. Nobody flying a real plane will "forget" about trim set
near the limits of it's travel, because the control forces are a constant
reminder.

Neil

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Anno v. Heimburg" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Ok, you got me curious. No default position in all Cessnas I have flown.
>> Not in the Bo. Nor in the Tobago. Not in the Cirrus nor the DA-40 or the
>> -20. Nor any other plane I can remember INCLUDING the big airliners in
>> MSFS.
>
> The position where the control surfaces align with the stabilizer, that
> is,
> no deflection upwards or downwards. At least that's what I interpreted the
> expression to mean. I freely admit I'm clueless, though.

Which, depending on how the airplane is designed, may or may not result in
the desired force from the elevator to keep the aircraft in level flight
with the Cg somewhere within range.

I would suspect that on a lot of aircraft with flying tails (e.g. T-18 which
is one example that I have flown) , some deflection between the elevator and
the trim would be necessary to trim properly during all normal cruise when
the Cg is within the limits. And I would further suspect that whoever
designed the aircraft was aware of that fact, and would have set the limits
of the elevator travel with that in mind.

>
> NB that I'm not saying that this position is necessarily marked anywhere,
> nor that it is relevant to actually flying the plane.
>

I'll agree with that.

On the other hand, Captian Kirk frequently took the Enterprise into the
Neutral Zone when he suspected that the Romulans were threating the
Federation.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You are presenting yet another absurd scenario that has no relation to the
> reality of flying. Nobody flying a real plane will "forget" about trim set
> near the limits of it's travel, because the control forces are a constant
> reminder.

When the aircraft is correctly trimmed, there are no control forces to
serve as a reminder. And some aircraft don't have control forces.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Tony, great explanation!

To add a little to this fun little conversation, what strikes me is
what it reveals about the result of someone teaching himself to "fly"
via a PC "simulation". I work in the aviation simulation industry, and
MSFS could conceivably be describes as a "training device", OK for
procedures and avionics training, but not for primary flight training.
As a result of his self training, MXS has been completely misled by the
way his "game" flies, and is drawing some wrong (if somewhat
interesting) conclusions!

The whole concept of the trim limiting the control authority is a
classic example of this. In a real aircraft, as previously stated, the
trim is used to relieve control pressures. It does not limit control
authority (except for the very limited effect of a trim tab fully
deflected, which is allowed for in the design of the control surface),
since the control authority is required to be sufficient to cope with
any conceivable need. I think the worse case is usually full gross (or
max landing) weight landing at full forward CG - that will drive the
size and power of the elevator. Any bigger, and pitch becomes too
sensitive at higher speed and adds useless drag.

Also, MXS does not seem to appreciate that the control position (of the
elevator) is a function of the speed (or AOA) of the aircraft, not the
trim position. I can slow down and crank in full nose down trim and
fly just fine with the stick almost fully aft - and get a good workout
in the process! And as the pilot, I know I'm slow since the stick will
be in my lap. As I then crank the trim in, the control surface will
not change position (especially on aircraft with no trim tabs), but the
stick forces will go away (without the stick moving). But I will not
add or remove any control authority - the stick is still way aft! As
a pilot, you are taught this from the beginning - the relationship
between stick position, speed, angle of attack, CG, etc. Their
interrelation is what makes flying so interesting - and where low level
PC "simulations" fail the most.

Oh, by the way, many aircraft do not have any trim tabs at all - most
gliders use springs in the control circuit, J-3 Cubs move the
horizontal stabilizer, the F-4 I used to fly changed the neutral
position of the whole flying tail, etc...

Oddly enough, the F-15 is an exception that actually acts the way MXS
thinks - the flight control system is always resetting itself to 1g
(always in trim), so when you slow down, the stick doesn't move. On
takeoff, if you add a forward trim input, you will extend your takeoff
distance since you will get less angular deflection when you pull full
aft stick to rotate. So maybe MXS should get an F-15 addon to MSFS!

MXS, if you really want to learn about changing CG to affect flying
performance, try a gliding sim like Condor (it is supposedly much
better than MSFS anyway). In high performance gliding, we carefully
adjust our CG for minimum trim drag (usually set to 30 - 40 % forward
of the aft CG limit), carry water ballast to go faster, don't have any
trim tabs (springs instead) and in flapped gliders, control speed with
the flaps. That concept should keep you busy for a while!

Finally - MXS, if you want to have enough control authority "just in
case", then set your speed to just under Va (maneuvering speed). That
way, by design, you can pull back on the stick all you want and not
break the plane - faster and you can over-G and bend things; slower and
you will just enter an accelerated stall a bit earlier. And you can
set your trim wherever you want....

Cheers!

Kirk
Ls6-b "66"

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> And some aircraft don't have control forces.
>

Just curious. Which aircraft type-certificated by FAA would
they be? I'm thinking here of what FAR 23.155, et al. says
about this.

F--

[john smith]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>Trim tabs deflect control surfaces towards one of the limits of their
>travel. The greater the trim applied, the greater the deviation, and
>the less the amount of travel remaining.
>

For Mxsmanic only:

Please define "servo tab" and "anti-servo tab" and how they relate to
the horizontal stabilizer.

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Just curious. Which aircraft type-certificated by FAA would
> they be? I'm thinking here of what FAR 23.155, et al. says
> about this.

23.155 only applies to certain types of aircraft. Additionally,
23.155 doesn't explain exactly what the control forces must represent,
only their minimum magnitude.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The whole concept of the trim limiting the control authority is a
> classic example of this. In a real aircraft, as previously stated, the
> trim is used to relieve control pressures.

In a real aircraft, trim is used to deflect a larger control surface,
so that control pressures are not required to deflect it. The control
surface moves, which means it moves closer to one stop and further
from the other. This reduces remaining control authority in the
direction of the former, and extends it in the direction of the
latter.

> MXS, if you really want to learn about changing CG to affect flying
> performance, try a gliding sim like Condor (it is supposedly much
> better than MSFS anyway).

Unfortunately, I'm only interested in powered flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> 23.155 only applies to certain types of aircraft. Additionally,
> 23.155 doesn't explain exactly what the control forces must represent,
> only their minimum magnitude.

And if we add a similar provision in Part 25, we now have
100% of all U.S. civil aircraft with fixed wings. Does
"minimum magnitude" allow for zero control force like you
said? Only in MSFS with a joystick with no springs, or
controlled with mouse or keyboard.

F--

[601XL Builder]

New_CFI wrote:
>
> ok, then drive. or if your just intrested in seeing the world from
> above, fly a balloon.


Save yourself the headache. He has no interest in seeing the world in
any way other than in simulation.

[Aluckyguess]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote
>
>> The POH will list the arms for each seat, fuel, oil, baggage, etc.
>
> Are you sure you want to be answering this putz? I beg of you;
> reconsider.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
I think its you who should not get answers.
This is a good thread

[Aluckyguess]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote
>
>> He sounds like a precocious 12-year-old, so I can cut him some slack.
>
> Sorry to hear that. You have been drawn in by the fact that some of his
> questions are reasonable, while his reactions are entirely unreasonable.
>
> Let someone else ask reasonable questions. His presence here is only
> detrimental.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
His questions are better than any thing you have asked.
Let it be. What are you like 105.

[Jon Kraus]

STFU and take notes from the people here that know. If the latter, well,
take a hike.
>
Heh Heh good one.. I refuse to even respond to MXidiot but I am sure
that he prefers neutral trim for two reasons:

1. Because his game has no way of imposing or relieving control wheel
pressures...
2. Because he has already shown that he really doesn't know WTF the trim
does in real airplanes...

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> In a real aircraft, trim is used to deflect a larger control surface,
> so that control pressures are not required to deflect it. The control
> surface moves, which means it moves closer to one stop and further
> from the other. This reduces remaining control authority in the
> direction of the former, and extends it in the direction of the
> latter.

Sigh... No, they are not. By definition, trim systems (tabs, springs,
all-moving surfaces, moving horizontal tails, etc.) are used BY ALL
AIRCRAFT to relieve control pressures at the trim airspeed, and
contribute to stability by establishing the speed that the aircraft
will attempt to return to after a deviation from that trim airspeed.
Trim for 90 knots, and the plane will stay at 90 knots hands off as
long as it isn't disturbed in roll. Pull the nose up and slow to 60
knots, then let go of the stick, the plane will gently nose down,
accelerate past 90, then slowly pitch back up, repeating the process
until it's back at the trim speed. Same thing happens in reverse if
you accelerate by pushing then letting go of the stick. You do have to
keep the wings level on most planes, however, since roll stability is
usually the weakest axis (yaw is usually the strongest).

What you thinking about are servo tabs, spring tabs, spades, etc.
These are aerodynamic devices for reducing the force needed to move the
control surface away from the trim position, especially at high
airspeeds. Replaced on modern heavy/fast aircraft with irreversible
power controls (which still need a trim system, by the way, in order to
set the trim speed). Not uncommon to see seperate spring tabs and trim
tabs on the ailerons of older, large airplanes.

The problem with "simulated" flying using a spring-centered joystick
(or wheel, like the nice CH ones) is that they are always fighting
their centering springs. Therefore, in order to simulate how a real
trim works, they actually move the control surface "neutral point".
And yes, that may decrease the remaining control authority available.
BUT THIS IS NOT HOW A REAL AIRCRAFT WORKS! For MSFS to replicate how
trim really works on your Baron, it would have to move the stick/wheel
while you move the trim in the simulation (not the phyical trim wheels
some joysticks (like CH) have).

> Unfortunately, I'm only interested in powered flight.

Who says sailplanes aren't powered? Mine is primarily solar powered,
with occasional hydrocarbon assist for takeoffs only.

Kirk
66

[Morgans[_2_]]

"TxSrv" > wrote

> A trim tab does not necessarily "interfere" with the flow of air over a
> control surface. You need to read Hoerner's books.

I would be satisfied with ANY books.

Really everyone; it is time to stop making suggestions to MX to read this,
take a lesson, google for that, or just to jump his **** for being a
ignorant, immature, argumentative, (add several more of your favorite
adjectives <_ _ _ _ _ here> ), trolling dork.

Let's take it to the next level, now. The only suggestion that should be
made is to warn a newcomer of MX's unique status, and suggest to them and
others that no response is the best response.

In other words, no hitting "reply to group," in any circumstances.

E-Mail him off list, if you must, but I think even that is
counter-productive.

Agreed?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Sigh... No, they are not. By definition, trim systems (tabs, springs,
> all-moving surfaces, moving horizontal tails, etc.) are used BY ALL
> AIRCRAFT to relieve control pressures at the trim airspeed ...

And they generally do that by moving the control surface.

> What you thinking about are servo tabs, spring tabs, spades, etc.
> These are aerodynamic devices for reducing the force needed to move the
> control surface away from the trim position, especially at high
> airspeeds.

No, I'm thinking of the trim tabs themselves. When you adjust trim,
the tabs move, and deflect the control surface in the opposite
direction of their movement--thus relieving you of the effort required
to move those control surfaces. They relieve control pressures by
moving the control surfaces for you, but the control surfaces _do_
move.

> The problem with "simulated" flying using a spring-centered joystick
> (or wheel, like the nice CH ones) is that they are always fighting
> their centering springs. Therefore, in order to simulate how a real
> trim works, they actually move the control surface "neutral point".
> And yes, that may decrease the remaining control authority available.
> BUT THIS IS NOT HOW A REAL AIRCRAFT WORKS! For MSFS to replicate how
> trim really works on your Baron, it would have to move the stick/wheel
> while you move the trim in the simulation (not the phyical trim wheels
> some joysticks (like CH) have).

The simulation is close enough for most purposes, given that this
doesn't even work the same way on all real aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Dohm]

> Oh, by the way, many aircraft do not have any trim tabs at all - most
> gliders use springs in the control circuit, J-3 Cubs move the
> horizontal stabilizer, the F-4 I used to fly changed the neutral
> position of the whole flying tail, etc...
>
Thanks, presumably on behalf of many, for an excellent overview.

BTW, in the case of the fully trimming stab on the J-3 Cub, DC-9, and some
others; as well as the fully trimming tail of the F-4, Mooney M20, and
others; it does seem hypothetically possible that the control authority
could be influenced--but that would be a side effect of obtaining a design
goal, rather than a feature in itself, and certainly outside of any area of
expertise which I might have.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> No, I'm thinking of the trim tabs themselves. When you adjust trim,
> the tabs move, and deflect the control surface in the opposite
> direction of their movement--thus relieving you of the effort required
> to move those control surfaces. They relieve control pressures by
> moving the control surfaces for you, but the control surfaces _do_
> move.
>
Than is the reverse of the manner in which trim is used--and a guaranteed
way to determine the full extent of foul language which your instructor may
have learned during his lifetime!

The accepted standard procedure is to fly the airplan with its primary
flight controls, and use the trim to reduce/eliminate the required control
pressure. Therefore, any movement of the control surfaces is ignored--there
will be none when the primary controls are simply biased with springs, very
little when there are trim tabs, and more when there is a fully trimming
stabilizer. However, if the amount is signifcand, you were badly out of
trim in the first place--which is another great way to keep your instructor
excited and talkative...

BTW, in calm air, it is possible to fly by use of the trim--although not
very well. Several crews have survived primary control failures on aircraft
which they could not abandon in flight, and the aircraft was saved as well
on at least one occasion. However, there is NO reason for a sane person to
practice that, even in a simulator, unless he has reason to suppose that he
might be the victim of such a failure.

Peter

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>
>>Why would "neutral trim" be important?
>
>
> It allows for maximum control movement in both directions.



The trim doesn't affect the total control movements one iota.

>
> Any trim adjustment has an effect on the remaining elevator authority
> beyond the trimmed position.

It does no such thing.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> BT writes:
>
>
>>Changing the trim setting does not change the set screws (Stop bolts) that
>>limit the amount of Rudder, Aileron or Elevator travel.
>
>
> But it does control how far you are from each stop.

It does no such thing.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Dohm > posted:

>> Oh, by the way, many aircraft do not have any trim tabs at all - most
>> gliders use springs in the control circuit, J-3 Cubs move the
>> horizontal stabilizer, the F-4 I used to fly changed the neutral
>> position of the whole flying tail, etc...
>>
> Thanks, presumably on behalf of many, for an excellent overview.
>
> BTW, in the case of the fully trimming stab on the J-3 Cub, DC-9, and
> some others; as well as the fully trimming tail of the F-4, Mooney
> M20, and others; it does seem hypothetically possible that the
> control authority could be influenced--but that would be a side
> effect of obtaining a design goal, rather than a feature in itself,
> and certainly outside of any area of expertise which I might have.
>
The question isn't whether the control surfaces would be closer to one
stop or another, it's whether you have still full control authority, a
concept that totally escapes Mxsmanic. What he fails to see is that you
don't need more "up" than it takes to get the plane into a stall or more
"down" than it takes to get the nose pointed at the Earth, and no amount
of trim will remove that control authority. If he was capable of
understanding that when trimmed fully "up", it takes much less "up" to go
past critical AOA than the elevator can still provide, or if trimmed fully
"down" the plane could still be taken into a dive that can exceed Vne, he
wouldn't persist with such nonsensical notions as this one that he's been
flagging around for months, now. Every pilot that has responded to him has
explained these facts to him, but he refuses to learn. Anything.

Neil

[Kev]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Peter Dohm > posted:
> > BTW, in the case of the fully trimming stab on the J-3 Cub, DC-9, and
> > some others; as well as the fully trimming tail of the F-4, Mooney
> > M20, and others; it does seem hypothetically possible that the
> > control authority could be influenced--but that would be a side
> > effect of obtaining a design goal, rather than a feature in itself,
> > and certainly outside of any area of expertise which I might have.
> >
> The question isn't whether the control surfaces would be closer to one
> stop or another, it's whether you have still full control authority, a
> concept that totally escapes Mxsmanic. [...]

Well, I suspect the concept would escape most non-pilots, because it is
a logical conclusion if you've never felt the actual pressures.

In any case, a lot of us have, I'm sure, enjoyed the in-depth responses
from a talented few, and perhaps learned a bit here and there. So
thank you!

But a big No Thanks for the totally non-informative responses from the
usual group of suspects. I guess the people who can't clearly explain
a concept will always feel the need to resort to frustrated insults and
one-liner non-answers.

Kev

[Newps]

Kev wrote:


>
> Well, I suspect the concept would escape most non-pilots, because it is
> a logical conclusion if you've never felt the actual pressures.

All it does is relieve the pressure. If there were no trim at all the
elevator would be in the exact same position, it would just suck to have
to hold it there.

[Kev]

Newps wrote:
> Kev wrote:
> > Well, I suspect the concept would escape most non-pilots, because it is
> > a logical conclusion if you've never felt the actual pressures.
>
> All it does is relieve the pressure. If there were no trim at all the
> elevator would be in the exact same position, it would just suck to have
> to hold it there.

Yes. And that's the kind of good, clear, short description which is
sorely needed in this thread.

Much better than all the other responders that answered: "No it
doesn't work that way." And then threw in an insult to show how
superior they are. Gee, they were really informative. Not. ;-)

Trim is, I think, the single hardest concept to get across to someone
using MSFS. You can argue until you're blue in the face to most users
(not just Mx), and they'll not be convinced of the major difference in
sim and real life.

I just don't understand why CH Products or anyone else has not come out
with a force feedback yoke and a good driver. They'd sell a ton to
pilots.

Btw, a while back, I ran across a website with instructions to add
electric trim to a CH yoke. The trim used a servo motor to physically
move the center point. I wish I could find it again. Oh wait. Google
to the rescue:

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/howto/chtrim.htm

Kev

[Kev]

Neil Gould wrote:
> You are presenting yet another absurd scenario that has no relation to the
> reality of flying. Nobody flying a real plane will "forget" about trim set
> near the limits of it's travel, because the control forces are a constant
> reminder.

Umm. Nobody *hand* flying should in theory forget about trim setting.
(We all know the problems that can be caused by autopilots or FBW
systems mucking with the trim behind a pilot's back ;-)

Of course, sometimes pilots *do* forget... thus the number of take-off
accidents caused by the trim being in the wrong place. Yes, at the
last second they feel the extra control force coming in, but it's too
late.

Kev

[Newps]

Kev wrote:

>>All it does is relieve the pressure. If there were no trim at all the
>>elevator would be in the exact same position, it would just suck to have
>>to hold it there.
>
>
> Yes. And that's the kind of good, clear, short description which is
> sorely needed in this thread.
>
> Much better than all the other responders that answered: "No it
> doesn't work that way." And then threw in an insult to show how
> superior they are. Gee, they were really informative. Not. ;-)




MxIdiot is a complete and utter moron and deserves everything he gets.
Plus it's fun.

[Newps]

Kev wrote:


> Umm. Nobody *hand* flying should in theory forget about trim setting.


> (We all know the problems that can be caused by autopilots or FBW
> systems mucking with the trim behind a pilot's back ;-)

In the types of planes we're talking about here the autopilot doesn't
actuate the trim. The STEC's will even tell you that you need to trim
and in which direction.


>
> Of course, sometimes pilots *do* forget... thus the number of take-off
> accidents caused by the trim being in the wrong place. Yes, at the
> last second they feel the extra control force coming in, but it's too
> late.

Maybe in jets or King Air's but not spam cans.

[Jose[_1_]]

> All it does is relieve the pressure. If there were no trim at all the elevator would be in the exact same position, it would just suck to have to hold it there.

Well, not exactly, not on all aircraft. Consider a trim system which
uses a trim tab. The tab projects (say) up, causing the elevator to
trail down as its neutral position, pushing the tail up and thus the
nose down. Once equilbrium has been reached (no pressure), clamp the
elevator in that position, and trim in such a manner that the tab no
longer projects up. Now, the elevator is (slightly) more effective at
pushing the tail up, because the trim tab is no longer in the airflow in
the opposite direction. The nose will be pushed (slightly) further
down, and the clamp will be resisting pressure. If you release the
clamp, going to a new "no pressure" condition, the elevator =will= move.

Looked at another way, if you come from an untrimmed position (with this
same aircraft), and position the yoke wherever it needs to be in order
to maintain the condition you want (say, straight and level, FSOA), and
then clamp the yoke in that position, you will be at the chosen
condition. But if you trim, the movement of the trim tab =will= have a
(slight) aerodynamic effect. When you actually achieve "no pressure",
you will be (slightly) out of trim for the effect you want.

1: I understand the effect is slight, perhaps even not noticable, but
I'll bet it can be measured.

2: I understand that when a real pilot actually trims for "no
pressure", there is a feedback loop where "no change in flight
condition" also feeds into it, so the above discussion is academic.

3: I understand that this will not be true, or will not be true for the
same reasons, for other trim systems.

However, the quoted statement above is not true, and if Mx made that
statement, he would have been jumped on, just because it's Mx making
that statement.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> In the types of planes we're talking about here the autopilot doesn't
> actuate the trim.

I'm talking about all types of planes. Not everyone flies a tin can.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> All it does is relieve the pressure. If there were no trim at all the
> elevator would be in the exact same position, it would just suck to have
> to hold it there.

That's just it: If there were no trim at all, the elevator wouldn't
be there. It would be in its neutral position. Of course you can
_push_ it there, but with trim set, it goes there and stays there
without being pushed (by you).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> I just don't understand why CH Products or anyone else has not come out
> with a force feedback yoke and a good driver. They'd sell a ton to
> pilots.

It's already overpriced; I shudder to think what it would cost with
force feedback.

And several sources I've read say that incorrect feedback is worse
than none at all. And since different aircraft "feel" different, it
would be hard to calibrate the yoke for each aircraft (MSFS wouldn't
do it).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Anno,

> NB that I'm not saying that this position is necessarily marked anywhere,
> nor that it is relevant to actually flying the plane.
>

Ok, we're on the same page then.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It is slightly relevant.
>
> Both of these potential problems can be avoided by keeping a strong
> awareness of the trim state of the aircraft. As long as you keep in
> mind that you've applied x trim while flying, you should be fine.
>

How would you know? You're ridiculous!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Newps writes:
>
>> In the types of planes we're talking about here the autopilot doesn't
>> actuate the trim.
>
> I'm talking about all types of planes. Not everyone flies a tin can.
>
You only refer to exceptions to justify your errors in understanding. For
example, if you were genuinely concerned about "control authority", you
would have studied weight & balance long ago, as that *will* affect your
control authority in *any airplane*, whereas trim *will not* affect your
control authority *in any airplane*.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Kev > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> You are presenting yet another absurd scenario that has no relation
>> to the reality of flying. Nobody flying a real plane will "forget"
>> about trim set near the limits of it's travel, because the control
>> forces are a constant reminder.
>
> Umm. Nobody *hand* flying should in theory forget about trim setting.
> (We all know the problems that can be caused by autopilots or FBW
> systems mucking with the trim behind a pilot's back ;-)
>
When trim is changed, the flight condition changes. There are many clues
about trim settings that the conscious pilot can note, especially when the
trim is set near the limits of its travel. It really doesn't matter
whether the aircraft is FBW, autopilot, or hand-flown.

> Of course, sometimes pilots *do* forget... thus the number of take-off
> accidents caused by the trim being in the wrong place.
>
This is a matter of making an error in the pre-flight checklist. It has
nothing to do with the mechanics of trim.

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It would be in its neutral position.
>

Jeeze, you really don't want to understand, do you? There is no
"neutral position".

The position that keeps the plane flying at a certain speed is
depending on load, cg and a lot of other factors. It varies with all
those - and with the speed you want to fly. The position desired by the
pilot can be held by the pilot - OR he can use trim to have the
elevator stay in the desired position, to relieve himself of the
control force otherwise required. If you fly a cruise speed of 150
knots in a Baron, you'd still have different elevator positions
depending on CG location. In fact, the position would change during the
flight with fuel burn. Which would be "neutral"? "Neutral" doesn't make
any sense.

Where the elevator actually is in a desired attitude, is completely
irrelevant with regard to control of the airplane - once you've adhered
to the limits of all contributing factors with regard to certification.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kev]

Newps wrote:
> Kev wrote:
> > Of course, sometimes pilots *do* forget... thus the number of take-off
> > accidents caused by the trim being in the wrong place. Yes, at the
> > last second they feel the extra control force coming in, but it's too
> > late.
>
> Maybe in jets or King Air's but not spam cans.

Unclear. What are you claiming doesn't happen in small planes? No
out-of-trim takeoff accidents? Obviously that's incorrect. That
pilots notice the mistake in time to prevent the accident? Also
obviously not the case. That jets can't feel control forces?

Heck, think of all the times a pilot tries to take off with the
control-locks in place. If they realized what was happening in time
(and took action), there'd be no such accidents.

Kev

[Kev]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Kev > posted:
> > Neil Gould wrote:
> When trim is changed, the flight condition changes. There are many clues
> about trim settings that the conscious pilot can note, especially when the
> trim is set near the limits of its travel. It really doesn't matter
> whether the aircraft is FBW, autopilot, or hand-flown.

Total agreement that it's noticeable when hand-flying. As for
autopilot, conditions such as tail-plane icing have caused famous
accidents because the pilots didn't realize where the trim had moved
to. But okay, perhaps they weren't concious enough.

> > Of course, sometimes pilots *do* forget... thus the number of take-off
> > accidents caused by the trim being in the wrong place.
> >
> This is a matter of making an error in the pre-flight checklist. It has
> nothing to do with the mechanics of trim.

Agreed, but my point is that it's difficult to make a one-size-fits-all
statement that pilots would never forget, or not notice an out-of-trim
condition.

Regards, Kev

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> Are you sure you want to be answering this putz? I beg of you; reconsider.

Jim, some friends were reading this thread, and brought up a question.

If you really believe that not answering Mx is a Good Thing, then why
aren't you trying to get the prolific writers like TxSrv, BT, and
Thomas to stop answering him? Without their dozens of responses,
there'd be a lot fewer postings in his threads. I mean, a LOT. All
they do is give him more to reply to.

Is it because you think it's okay to waste everyone's time bashing him?
That seems pretty counter-productive. It doesn't make him go away.

Thanks,
Kev

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
> > All it does is relieve the pressure. If there were no trim at all the
> > elevator would be in the exact same position, it would just suck to have
> > to hold it there.
>
> That's just it: If there were no trim at all, the elevator wouldn't
> be there. It would be in its neutral position. Of course you can
> _push_ it there, but with trim set, it goes there and stays there
> without being pushed (by you).

In this case, you really need to listen to what Thomas and others are
saying. There is no neutral position. There is just a natural
position for a certain flight regime.

Therefore, if you are hand-flying, and you move the trim, the airplane
will react. The pilot will notice this (it's impossible not to).

I'm trying to think of a relevant example using a car or roller coaster
or other easy to understand situation, but I don't have enough coffee
in me yet :-) Perhaps someone else can some up with something.

Kev

[Kev]

Newps wrote:
> MxIdiot is a complete and utter moron and deserves everything he gets.

Careful. Glass houses and all that.

> Plus it's fun.

Dude, do more flying. I can think of a lot more fun things, than
constantly bashing one teenage boy on the net :-)

Kev

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
> > I just don't understand why CH Products or anyone else has not come out
> > with a force feedback yoke and a good driver. They'd sell a ton to
> > pilots.
>
> It's already overpriced; I shudder to think what it would cost with
> force feedback.

It is overpriced, so a decent cost with FF should be possible. Before
my recent illness chewed up a ton of savings, I had done some
prototyping and was considering starting a side business making such
yokes, although my first aim was selling a relatively inexpensive sim
avionics setup. (The latter also being overpriced.)

I'm a big believer that having sim avionics hardware allows pilots to
realistically practice setting up radios, nav, etc. In my area
(Northeast) you can change freqs fairly often.

> And several sources I've read say that incorrect feedback is worse
> than none at all. And since different aircraft "feel" different, it
> would be hard to calibrate the yoke for each aircraft (MSFS wouldn't
> do it).

Incorrect feedback is indeed worse than none at all. But none at all
is really bad.

It should not be difficult to allow for calibrating feedback for each
aircraft.

Kev

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Kev > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Kev > posted:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>> When trim is changed, the flight condition changes. There are many
>> clues about trim settings that the conscious pilot can note,
>> especially when the trim is set near the limits of its travel. It
>> really doesn't matter whether the aircraft is FBW, autopilot, or
>> hand-flown.
>
> Total agreement that it's noticeable when hand-flying. As for
> autopilot, conditions such as tail-plane icing have caused famous
> accidents because the pilots didn't realize where the trim had moved
> to. But okay, perhaps they weren't concious enough.
>
Yes, I would say that such pilots are ignoring a lot of information about
the changing flight condition.

>>> Of course, sometimes pilots *do* forget... thus the number of
>>> take-off accidents caused by the trim being in the wrong place.
>>>
>> This is a matter of making an error in the pre-flight checklist. It
>> has nothing to do with the mechanics of trim.
>
> Agreed, but my point is that it's difficult to make a
> one-size-fits-all statement that pilots would never forget, or not
> notice an out-of-trim condition.
>
The examples that you gave have to do with personal habits. Bad habits --
which is at the heart of your scenarios -- are a separate issue, and
shouldn't be confused with trim or any other aeronautic function.

Regards,

Neil

[BDS[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
> > Newps writes:
> >
> >> In the types of planes we're talking about here the autopilot doesn't
> >> actuate the trim.
> >
> > I'm talking about all types of planes. Not everyone flies a tin can.

My "tin can" has both pitch and trim servos.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>In the types of planes we're talking about here the autopilot doesn't
>>actuate the trim.
>
>
> I'm talking about all types of planes. Not everyone flies a tin can.

No you're not. You were talking about a Baron and the rest of us are
talking about the types we specifically fly. You only bring up
everything else when you've been proven wrong. As usual.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>All it does is relieve the pressure. If there were no trim at all the
>>elevator would be in the exact same position, it would just suck to have
>>to hold it there.
>
>
> That's just it: If there were no trim at all, the elevator wouldn't
> be there.

Yes it would.


It would be in its neutral position.

No such thing.



Of course you can
> _push_ it there, but with trim set, it goes there and stays there
> without being pushed (by you).

Pure drivel.

[Newps]

Kev wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>Kev wrote:
>>
>>>Of course, sometimes pilots *do* forget... thus the number of take-off
>>>accidents caused by the trim being in the wrong place. Yes, at the
>>>last second they feel the extra control force coming in, but it's too
>>>late.
>>
>>Maybe in jets or King Air's but not spam cans.
>
>
> Unclear. What are you claiming doesn't happen in small planes?

I can set the trim fully up or down in my Bonanza and the 182 I had
before that and take off or land just fine. It's no fun but the plane
is not out of control.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, BDS > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>>
>>> Newps writes:
>>>
>>>> In the types of planes we're talking about here the autopilot
>>>> doesn't actuate the trim.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about all types of planes. Not everyone flies a tin
>>> can.
>
> My "tin can" has both pitch and trim servos.
>
Please be careful about attributions... I'm not involved in this part of
your discussion!

Thanks!

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> It is overpriced, so a decent cost with FF should be possible.

But if they are already gouging on the price for the normal controls,
I'm sure they'd want an even more absurd margin on the force-feedback
version.

> I'm a big believer that having sim avionics hardware allows pilots to
> realistically practice setting up radios, nav, etc. In my area
> (Northeast) you can change freqs fairly often.

The problem with special hardware is that it makes the simulator more
and more specific to a given aircraft, and less and less applicable to
other aircraft. If you try to come up with something generic, it
becomes inaccurate with _all_ aircraft.

For example, you can use a generic joystick, throttle, and rudder
pedals with almost any aircraft, but if you start building custom
autopilot control panels, you have to decide _which_ control panel you
want to simulate. And if you don't have a specific one in mind, there
isn't much to be gained by building a panel, as it won't be any closer
to reality than images on a screen.

> It should not be difficult to allow for calibrating feedback for each
> aircraft.

I don't think MSFS allows this, which is one problem with force
feedback in MSFS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> If you fly a cruise speed of 150
> knots in a Baron, you'd still have different elevator positions
> depending on CG location. In fact, the position would change during the
> flight with fuel burn. Which would be "neutral"?

The one that aligns the trim tabs with the control surfaces.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> In this case, you really need to listen to what Thomas and others are
> saying. There is no neutral position. There is just a natural
> position for a certain flight regime.

The neutral position for trim tabs is the position in which the trim
tabs are aligned with the control surface. The neutral position for
control surfaces is the position in which they are aligned with the
surfaces to which they are attached (wings or stabilizers).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
>
>> In this case, you really need to listen to what Thomas and others are
>> saying. There is no neutral position. There is just a natural
>> position for a certain flight regime.
>
> The neutral position for trim tabs is the position in which the trim
> tabs are aligned with the control surface. The neutral position for
> control surfaces is the position in which they are aligned with the
> surfaces to which they are attached (wings or stabilizers).

Ok Anthony, you have perfectly loaded your aircraft so the that it trims out
to what you like to call nuetra or default. What are you going to do once
you have burned off fuel and the CG changes?

[Newps]

Kev wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>MxIdiot is a complete and utter moron and deserves everything he gets.
>
>
> Careful. Glass houses and all that.


Fire away.



>
>
>>Plus it's fun.
>
>
> Dude, do more flying. I can think of a lot more fun things, than
> constantly bashing one teenage boy on the net :-)

Wind 280@30G45

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


>
> The neutral position for trim tabs is the position in which the trim
> tabs are aligned with the control surface. The neutral position for
> control surfaces is the position in which they are aligned with the
> surfaces to which they are attached (wings or stabilizers).

What's the neutral position of a Cub or Cessna 180?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kev wrote:
> Dude, do more flying. I can think of a lot more fun things, than
> constantly bashing one teenage boy on the net :-)

The problem is he isn't a teenager.

http://www.atkielski.com/

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> What are you going to do once
> you have burned off fuel and the CG changes?

Adjust the trim. Ideally, I'd be in an aircraft where the fuel load
is already at that ideal neutral point, and so very little adjustment
would be required.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> What's the neutral position of a Cub or Cessna 180?

I don't know. I've never flown anything that tiny.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

So sad.



On Jan 8, 6:08 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Newps writes:
> > What's the neutral position of a Cub or Cessna 180?I don't know. I've never flown anything that tiny.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


>
>
> Adjust the trim. Ideally, I'd be in an aircraft where the fuel load
> is already at that ideal neutral point, and so very little adjustment
> would be required.

No such animal.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>What's the neutral position of a Cub or Cessna 180?
>
>
> I don't know. I've never flown anything that tiny.

Of course. Go back to being a hermit.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Kev writes:
>
>> In this case, you really need to listen to what Thomas and others are
>> saying. There is no neutral position. There is just a natural
>> position for a certain flight regime.
>
> The neutral position for trim tabs is the position in which the trim
> tabs are aligned with the control surface. The neutral position for
> control surfaces is the position in which they are aligned with the
> surfaces to which they are attached (wings or stabilizers).

A crowd is standing around at the airport. A Piper Pathfinder start's
circling overhead.

Man *1: "Who's that? What are they doing up there?"

Mary: "Why, that's Jay! What the heck is he doing - he's supposed to be
fixing the toilets that were clogged with shampoo bottles."

The Pathfinder starts to nose down and pick up speed

rooorrrrrRRRRrrrrRRRRrrrrrRRRRRrrrrr (That sound that airplanes in the
movies make when it is diving out of control - getting louder)

Mary Shouting: "JAY! JAY! What are you doiing!!!?"

(Sound gets louder and higher in pitch - the Pathfinder keeps coming down
and speeding up)

Crowd shouting: "PULL UP! PULL UP!" Mary turns away and covers here eyes

The Mighty Grape comes roaring around the hanger screeches to a halt - Jay
jumps out.

Mary: "Jay - What's going on? Who is flying our airplane?

Jay: "It's Anthony - he's turned into a maniac! He came up to me and said he
didn't have any money to fill the tank in the courtesy van, but he had to
prove his theory about the neutral point for the trim! He knocked me out and
tied me to the Kiwi and took off in Atlas! He said he was going to show us
all!"

Mary: "Kiwi? You were supposed to be fixing toilets"

Crowd still shouting: "PULL UP! PULL UP!" Airplane diving noise getting
louder

Cockpit Camera: Anthony is unconscious - eyes closed behind the goggles.
Silk scarf hanging down limply"

Geoff (Played by Arnold Schwarzenegger): "Oh No! I vas afraid of dis - he
doesn't know dat John Thorp [vit no "e", G.T.] designed das sherokee vhit
dat flying tail. Vith de anti-servo tab line up vith de stabilator it vill
not generate any down vorce - he must haff let go of de vheel! Oh! Anthony!
Vhy didn't you listen to me??? (looks up) Grab Der vheel! Pull Anthony!
Pull! Dis is not a game!"

Crowd still shouting: "PULL UP! PULL UP!" Pathfinder getting lower and
lower, airplane noise getting louder and louder

Al runs out in front of the crowd: "Stop it! Stop trying to talk to him! It
doesn't work! You need to ignore him to get him to stop!!!! Why won't you
listen to me! STOP! STOP!"

CRASH! cut to the wreckage - upside down and starting to smolder. Woman
screams. Crowd rushes up to the wreck. Anthony can be seen struggling,
trying to get out.

Gig 601XL Builder rushes up and crawls under to help

Anthony shouting: "HELP ME - I'm trapped!!!"

Gig 601XL Builder tugs on his arm - it doesn't work.

Pathfinder bursts into flames

Jay: "Get back! It has 55 gallons of unleaded auto gas in it!!!"

Gig 601XL Builder is forced back by the flames

Anthony screams in anguish - bystanders cover their faces in horror

Kev: "Why couldn't you people just leave him alone? He was just asking
questions!!"

Al: "I tried to convince him to fly a real airplane - if only he had stuck
to his simulator! Why? Why? Why?"

Thomas: "I tried to explain it to him! Over and Over! He just wouldn't
listen!"

Others in crowd: "Yes" "Me too!" etc. "It's such a shame" "He was so young"

Mary: "Kiwi? You were supposed to be fixing toilets"

Geoff: "I'll be baack"

To be continued in the next thread.


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Tony]

Deep in your story you said "He's so young."

But he's not young, he's 46, and he did this on purpose, because
otherwise he'd be sitting in his overhot Paris apartment wondering why
no one is sending him money -- his web site asks for donations -- with
only a few Euros, and he sees the computer waiting for him to simulate
life.

But his is empty, and in a clear moment he sees that.

The simulator was good enough to get him off the ground, that at least
made him better than people who fly real big iron into buildings, they
needed real training.

And the earth, after all, is a big target

So sad.

RIP, Mx, RIP.

Or press alt, control, and delete and start all over again.

On Jan 8, 6:30 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in messagenews:32t4q29gj30c0f8c86p6cm9tsla5vp6u00@4ax .com...
>
> > Kev writes:
>
> >> In this case, you really need to listen to what Thomas and others are
> >> saying. There is no neutral position. There is just a natural
> >> position for a certain flight regime.
>
> > The neutral position for trim tabs is the position in which the trim
> > tabs are aligned with the control surface. The neutral position for
> > control surfaces is the position in which they are aligned with the
> > surfaces to which they are attached (wings or stabilizers).A crowd is standing around at the airport. A Piper Pathfinder start's
> circling overhead.
>
> Man *1: "Who's that? What are they doing up there?"
>
> Mary: "Why, that's Jay! What the heck is he doing - he's supposed to be
> fixing the toilets that were clogged with shampoo bottles."
>
> The Pathfinder starts to nose down and pick up speed
>
> rooorrrrrRRRRrrrrRRRRrrrrrRRRRRrrrrr (That sound that airplanes in the
> movies make when it is diving out of control - getting louder)
>
> Mary Shouting: "JAY! JAY! What are you doiing!!!?"
>
> (Sound gets louder and higher in pitch - the Pathfinder keeps coming down
> and speeding up)
>
> Crowd shouting: "PULL UP! PULL UP!" Mary turns away and covers here eyes
>
> The Mighty Grape comes roaring around the hanger screeches to a halt - Jay
> jumps out.
>
> Mary: "Jay - What's going on? Who is flying our airplane?
>
> Jay: "It's Anthony - he's turned into a maniac! He came up to me and said he
> didn't have any money to fill the tank in the courtesy van, but he had to
> prove his theory about the neutral point for the trim! He knocked me out and
> tied me to the Kiwi and took off in Atlas! He said he was going to show us
> all!"
>
> Mary: "Kiwi? You were supposed to be fixing toilets"
>
> Crowd still shouting: "PULL UP! PULL UP!" Airplane diving noise getting
> louder
>
> Cockpit Camera: Anthony is unconscious - eyes closed behind the goggles.
> Silk scarf hanging down limply"
>
> Geoff (Played by Arnold Schwarzenegger): "Oh No! I vas afraid of dis - he
> doesn't know dat John Thorp [vit no "e", G.T.] designed das sherokee vhit
> dat flying tail. Vith de anti-servo tab line up vith de stabilator it vill
> not generate any down vorce - he must haff let go of de vheel! Oh! Anthony!
> Vhy didn't you listen to me??? (looks up) Grab Der vheel! Pull Anthony!
> Pull! Dis is not a game!"
>
> Crowd still shouting: "PULL UP! PULL UP!" Pathfinder getting lower and
> lower, airplane noise getting louder and louder
>
> Al runs out in front of the crowd: "Stop it! Stop trying to talk to him! It
> doesn't work! You need to ignore him to get him to stop!!!! Why won't you
> listen to me! STOP! STOP!"
>
> CRASH! cut to the wreckage - upside down and starting to smolder. Woman
> screams. Crowd rushes up to the wreck. Anthony can be seen struggling,
> trying to get out.
>
> Gig 601XL Builder rushes up and crawls under to help
>
> Anthony shouting: "HELP ME - I'm trapped!!!"
>
> Gig 601XL Builder tugs on his arm - it doesn't work.
>
> Pathfinder bursts into flames
>
> Jay: "Get back! It has 55 gallons of unleaded auto gas in it!!!"
>
> Gig 601XL Builder is forced back by the flames
>
> Anthony screams in anguish - bystanders cover their faces in horror
>
> Kev: "Why couldn't you people just leave him alone? He was just asking
> questions!!"
>
> Al: "I tried to convince him to fly a real airplane - if only he had stuck
> to his simulator! Why? Why? Why?"
>
> Thomas: "I tried to explain it to him! Over and Over! He just wouldn't
> listen!"
>
> Others in crowd: "Yes" "Me too!" etc. "It's such a shame" "He was so young"
>
> Mary: "Kiwi? You were supposed to be fixing toilets"
>
> Geoff: "I'll be baack"
>
> To be continued in the next thread.
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
> > If you fly a cruise speed of 150
> > knots in a Baron, you'd still have different elevator positions
> > depending on CG location. In fact, the position would change during the
> > flight with fuel burn. Which would be "neutral"?
>
> The one that aligns the trim tabs with the control surfaces.

What if it's a spring type system, rather than a trim tab - what is the
neutral position for that?

--
Duncan

[Flatulence]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Newps writes:
>
>> What's the neutral position of a Cub or Cessna 180?
>
>I don't know. I've never flown anything that tiny.
>

The correct placement of the period in that last sentence is after
the word "anything".

[Kev]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> Kev: "Why couldn't you people just leave him alone? He was just asking
> questions!!"
>
> Al: "I tried to convince him to fly a real airplane - if only he had stuck
> to his simulator! Why? Why? Why?"
>
> Thomas: "I tried to explain it to him! Over and Over! He just wouldn't
> listen!"

*Heh heh* Pretty good! You forgot:

BT: Moron! I could crash much better than he can!

Newps: Damned airline pilots, screwing up the descent as always! I
bet he flies simulated NWA or UAL !!

- Kev

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Deep in your story you said "He's so young."
>
> But he's not young, he's 46, <...>

Some of us would argue that point...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> What if it's a spring type system, rather than a trim tab - what is the
> neutral position for that?

The same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> No such animal.

Unless you are familiar with every aircraft ever built, you don't
really know.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>No such animal.
>
>
> Unless you are familiar with every aircraft ever built, you don't
> really know.

Well look at that, your stock answer for everything when proven wrong.
Maybe try rearranging the sentence a little to make it look original.
Time to check the bank account again to see if some poor sap sent you $5.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
> > What's the neutral position of a Cub or Cessna 180?
>
> I don't know. I've never flown anything that tiny.

Nor that big, either, for that matter!

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> Nor that big, either, for that matter!

A Baron and 737 are both larger.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

Sad. So sad.


On Jan 8, 9:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn writes:
> > Nor that big, either, for that matter!A Baron and 737 are both larger.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>What's the neutral position of a Cub or Cessna 180?
>
>
> I don't know. I've never flown anything that tiny.
>
You've never flown ANYTHING AT ALL! You've merely pushed electrons
around with a joystick, and watched the associated pictures on a video
display.

Rip

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> You've never flown ANYTHING AT ALL! You've merely pushed electrons
> around with a joystick, and watched the associated pictures on a video
> display.

As I've said, I've flown mostly a Baron and a 737.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Casey Wilson]

"Rip" > wrote in message
et...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Newps writes:
>>
>>
>>>What's the neutral position of a Cub or Cessna 180?
>>
>>
>> I don't know. I've never flown anything that tiny.
>>
> You've never flown ANYTHING AT ALL! You've merely pushed electrons around
> with a joystick, and watched the associated pictures on a video display.
>
> Rip

...........in a game by Microsoft

[Tony]

Sad. So sad.

On Jan 8, 10:46 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rip writes:
> > You've never flown ANYTHING AT ALL! You've merely pushed electrons
> > around with a joystick, and watched the associated pictures on a video
> > display.As I've said, I've flown mostly a Baron and a 737.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>
> > Nor that big, either, for that matter!
>
> A Baron and 737 are both larger.

But *YOU* have never flown *ANYTHING* at all -- only a low-fidelity
electronic version of the above aircraft!

I stand by my original post: "You haven't flown anything even as big as
a Cub, because you haven't flown anything!

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> But *YOU* have never flown *ANYTHING* at all -- only a low-fidelity
> electronic version of the above aircraft!
>
> I stand by my original post: "You haven't flown anything even as big as
> a Cub, because you haven't flown anything!

As I've said, I've flown primarily a Baron 58 and a 737-800. I've
occasionally flown a Beechcraft A36 as well. I like the twin, though.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > What if it's a spring type system, rather than a trim tab - what is the
> > neutral position for that?
>
> The same.

Which is indicated how? Please do explain.

--
Duncan

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> No such animal.
>
> Unless you are familiar with every aircraft ever built, you don't
> really know.

For a plane to have the fuel loaded as you suggest the fuel would have to be
contained in an infinitely narrow (forward to aft)tank and be moveable to
take into account what the pilot had for breakfast that morning.

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> Which is indicated how? Please do explain.

Look at the control surface. If the trim tab is flush with the
control surface, it is in its neutral position.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > Which is indicated how? Please do explain.
>
> Look at the control surface. If the trim tab is flush with the
> control surface, it is in its neutral position.

There is no trim tab - it's a spring type system to balance out the
force on the column. So the question remains, what is the neutral
position?

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> There is no trim tab - it's a spring type system to balance out the
> force on the column. So the question remains, what is the neutral
> position?

Trim tabs that don't exist don't have neutral positions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > There is no trim tab - it's a spring type system to balance out the
> > force on the column. So the question remains, what is the neutral
> > position?
>
> Trim tabs that don't exist don't have neutral positions.

Hey don't be a ******. What is the neutral position for a spring type
trim control? You've claimed there is one, and I wanna know where it is
and how you can tell.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> Hey don't be a ******. What is the neutral position for a spring type
> trim control?

I said tab, not control. A tab is neutral when it is flush with the
control surface to which it is attached.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > Hey don't be a ******. What is the neutral position for a spring type
> > trim control?
>
> I said tab, not control. A tab is neutral when it is flush with the
> control surface to which it is attached.

I don't think *you* asked the question - *I* did. Shall I quote it for
you?

--
Duncan

[Blanche Cohen]

FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-27E
Aircraft Weight & Balance Control

This is used by the builder to construct the W&B for certification, also
printed in the aircraft Type Certificate (TC)

FAA-H-8083-1 Aircraft Weight & Balance Handbook

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche Cohen writes:

> FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-27E
> Aircraft Weight & Balance Control
>
> This is used by the builder to construct the W&B for certification, also
> printed in the aircraft Type Certificate (TC)
>
> FAA-H-8083-1 Aircraft Weight & Balance Handbook

Thanks! I've located and downloaded both. They should be very
helpful, particularly the latter.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Y'All,
Not exactly on topic but something to try in a simulator and again in an
air. Trim for level at cruise,
Put your hands and arms a far forward as you can and hold them there. The
nose of the aircraft will drop and the speed increase slightly in the
airplane but not in the simulator. Then put your hands up and back as far
as you can reach. The plane's nose will rise and airspeed will drop as you
lelnter a climb. You can actually fly the aircraft just be moving your arms
and using the rudder. This is NOT possible on the simulator.

During WWII (See my web site at www.whittsflying.com ) I was the mechanic
operator of a radar bombing
simulator on Tinian Island that provided simulated flights over Japan and
specifically Fukuoka. We worked on the attack only to find on the Sept 9,
1945 mission day that the target was obscured by smoke.

Nagasaki.was a secondary target requiring an attack from a direction
opposite to the one practiced. Thus this very first electronic simulator
paved the way for the failures of future electronic simulators to really
provide a true sense of what is supposed to happen.

Another Comparison:
I had a Designated Examiner that I had tutored through his CFI come to me in
need of a Flight Review.
I told him as, we got into the airplane, that we were going to make an IFR
flight from Concord to shoot the ILS in Oakland. We discussed the flight
and requirements except for one minor aspect which began on takeoff.

As he lined up on the runway, I informed him that I had electrified the
yoke. Were he to touch the yoke he would go up in smoke. Under the hood he
flew a perfect flight without touching the yoke including making
the Oakland published missed at which point I asked his permission to have a
go at it. It can be done in an airplane. Can anyone do it in a simulator?
Has it even been tried?

Gene Whitt

[A Lieberma]

> wrote in
:

It can be done in an airplane. Can
> anyone do it in a simulator? Has it even been tried?

Heh, heh, waiting for Mx cult to chime in on this one :-))

After all, you don't need to be in a real plane to learn to fly as I was
told last week.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

> writes:

> Not exactly on topic but something to try in a simulator and again in an
> air. Trim for level at cruise,
> Put your hands and arms a far forward as you can and hold them there. The
> nose of the aircraft will drop and the speed increase slightly in the
> airplane but not in the simulator. Then put your hands up and back as far
> as you can reach. The plane's nose will rise and airspeed will drop as you
> lelnter a climb. You can actually fly the aircraft just be moving your arms
> and using the rudder. This is NOT possible on the simulator.

Are you tested on it when you get your license?

> Nagasaki.was a secondary target requiring an attack from a direction
> opposite to the one practiced. Thus this very first electronic simulator
> paved the way for the failures of future electronic simulators to really
> provide a true sense of what is supposed to happen.

That was 62 years ago. Times have changed.

> As he lined up on the runway, I informed him that I had electrified the
> yoke. Were he to touch the yoke he would go up in smoke. Under the hood he
> flew a perfect flight without touching the yoke including making
> the Oakland published missed at which point I asked his permission to have a
> go at it. It can be done in an airplane. Can anyone do it in a simulator?

It's possible in most simulators, just as it is possible in real life.
It's even possible in MSFS. However, success would depend on the
pilot.

> Has it even been tried?

I don't know. I'll have to try it sometime, when I'm looking for a
challenge. Currently, I have enough trouble with more conventional
flying.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> > writes:
>> As he lined up on the runway, I informed him that I had electrified
>> the yoke. Were he to touch the yoke he would go up in smoke. Under
>> the hood he flew a perfect flight without touching the yoke
>> including making the Oakland published missed at which point I asked
>> his permission to have a go at it. It can be done in an airplane.
>> Can anyone do it in a simulator?
>
> It's possible in most simulators, just as it is possible in real life.
> It's even possible in MSFS. However, success would depend on the
> pilot.
>
>> Has it even been tried?
>
> I don't know. I'll have to try it sometime, when I'm looking for a
> challenge. Currently, I have enough trouble with more conventional
> flying.


So in the same post you say something can be done in most simulator,
including MSFS, AND that you have never done it and don't know if anyone has
ever done it in a simulator.

Add to that I doubt you have any experience with MOST simulators.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So in the same post you say something can be done in most simulator,
> including MSFS, AND that you have never done it and don't know if anyone has
> ever done it in a simulator.

Very good!

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.