To me, what's unusual about tail trim ballast is that as the pilot weight goes up, the ballast weight goes up too...making it easier to hit gross...

The "schweizer" way, Light pilot adds ballast, heavy no ballast...

But 220 is pretty high for not needing ballast....

But none of the "regulars" who flew this glider were anywhere near 220...more like 135 to 165....I probably weighed in at 150 back then...

Specs show "empty weight at 508#...so it looks like pilot could go all the way up to 262#.....so us 150-pounders were probably far aft on the CG...no?

If memory serves me correct, we started putting a 25 lb lead sheet under the seat...to avoid the kiting problem...

I don't know what happened to the wreck....Anybody in ACA have any info on this?


cookie

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 7:33:22 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 3:23:25 PM UTC-6, Cookie wrote:
Yeah, it seemed like a balance problem...but we ran the numbers...

Did they have CG hook? How heavy are you? Funny thing with a pilatus....the trim ballast weights go on the TAIL !! Heavy pilots need tail ballast!



So it can take a fairly light pilot without trim ballast, and as the pilot gets heavier, you add weights to the tail...If I remember, there were two "plates"...small one, big one...you could use either, or both to give proper balance...they were bolted on externally...

Nothing unusual about aft ballast weight for a heavy pilot - got some of that in my LS6 these days! But back then, I was well under the 220 lb that the B4 flight manual says is the pilot weight that calls for the aft ballast.

And they are all CG hooks.

Was that B4 ever damaged and repaired?

Kirk
66