On Oct 29, 8:55*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:

I'd agree with Bob, where'd the 9# come from? If the ship has been
repaired or re-finished, it could have gained significant tail weight
and this would require much more cockpit weight to stay within
published CG range. Guess that would/could bring the minimum cockpit

I think I'm running into the max weight consideration. I need to get
my calculation sheet and figure out the max pilot without considering
gross dry (on the weekend).

The factory W&B and placards indicate a pilot weight range from 221 to
229 lbs, with a ship empty weight of 731 lbs. The max landing weight
was 960 lbs, so the 229 pilot would hit gross dry weight. The W&B
calculations are designed to have min pilot weight giving full aft
CoG.

I removed 10 lbs of lead from the nose bulkhead -- had a Slingsby
stamp on it, so I guess it was installed at the factory. The tail has
been repaired, the rudder enlarged, and a repair to a wingtip. New
empty weight is 737 lbs -- which indicates 16lbs added for the various
repairs. Slingsby also upped the gross dry weight to 990lbs. The new
figures are not out of line from the factory, given the change of
weight locations (10 lbs out of nose, 15 added to tail).

My calculations give a minimum pilot weight of 243 lbs, and simple
math puts the max pilot at 253. I'll fully calculate the range when I
get to my papers.

However, the ship flew quite well with a 200 lb pilot -- he said it
handled beautifully. He should have been quite aft of CoG, but it
didn't handle like it was too aft... so what gives?

As an aside, why would the designers allow for only 80 lbs of water to
be carried? Hardly seems worth the effort (I can only carry 50 lbs).
I know one pilot wrote a while ago about modifying his Kestrel to
carry something like 250 lbs... what would that do to the legal status
of the aircraft when flying loaded? Insurance factors when trying to
land (over)loaded due to a rope break? Just wondering...

Thanks all,
John