View Single Post
  #27  
Old January 15th 12, 04:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Measurement of CofG

Thanks for a good technical reply.

Now I just have to check and see if any of my measuring devices have decimal
inch/cm graduations. Seems most are graduated in 1/16th, etc... Let/s
see... That would be 200 inches long and 2 and 14.4/16 inches high. Oh,
crap! There's that pesky decimal again. I know - I'll make my triangle
2,000 inches long and 29 inches high! Now, if I could just find a surface
on the glider where I can make that fit.

Really, how accurately can you measure 2.9 inches, mark it, and cut it? I
don't have a machine shop. This all reminds me of the old Air Force adage:
"Measure with a micrometer, mark with a grease pencil, cut with an axe".

I've been out of school for a long time, so my calculation is probably
wrong, but it looks like 100:2.9 is an angle of 1.6618 degrees. Will a
digital level get that accuracy? Is that accuracy really necessary?

What's the good of a parallel surface if it's not accessible? Why not make,
say, the arm rest parallel to the longitudinal axis? Then you could simply
place a carpenter's level on the arm rest and, voila!

And, BTW, you shouldn't really be doing a weight and balance in a grassy
field, no matter how level it is. The slightest breeze will generate some
measureable amount of lift and throw your weight measurement off. And if
that weight change is not enough to be concerned with, then I challenge the
need to measure the angle of the fuselage to the thousandth of a degree
(measure with a micrometer).

Bottom line - that's what the manufacturer says to do and I'll try my best
to do it that way, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 3:29 pm, "Dan Marotta" wrote:

Why don't the manufactures publish the height to raise the tail as a
difference between the axle center lines above ground? Then you don't need
to cut or calculate.

Oh, gee... That'd be too simple.


I specify W&B leveling with a level and wedge on the aft fuselage
because it is the simplest and easiest way of getting the glider
level. You make the wedge and keep it in the glider's toolbox, or you
use a digital level as somebody else suggest. I don't see what's so
hard or complicated about that.

I have actually designed in a couple of internal surfaces that are
parallel with the glider's x axis, but they are in under the wing spar
and you can't see them while actually doing the leveling. With the
level on the aft fuselage, you can actually see it while you are
raising and lowering the tail to find the level.

To specify the level in terms of height of the axles, you have to know
the distances of the axles from the x axis, which is not simple
because the gear might have an oleo strut (as does mine), and you
don't know if the tailwheel location has been changed or modified.

Also, when leveling to the axles, you have to know what you're
leveling to. If you have a hangar or shop floor known to be level,
you're golden. But if you're doing a W&B in the field or on grass or
another uneven surface, then you need to construct a water level or
other surveying tool. By then, the bubble level on the aft fuselage
starts to look pretty good.

Thanks, Bob K.