This can't be right. If you stop and think about it, the most the CG could
move would be the distance that the center of mass of the passenger changed.
Maybe a foot at most.

rick

"Jay" wrote in message
om...
Depending on the amount of leg room you allow and how much the seat is
reclined, I got about 3 feet difference in passenger CG. And I'm not
counting the kind of seating where the guy in back's legs go around
the guy in front's seat (Soneri?).

At take off and landing the backwards seat could be a little wierd,
but at cruise altitude, you can hardly tell the difference. Flown
backwards several times on commercial jets and didn't even notice once
we were airborne.

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
. com...
Earlier, (Jay) wrote:

Noticed White Lightning used the same back to
back seating I've been playing with for my
concept design...
Seemed like the only reasonable way to handle
the CG for a wing with a relatively high aspect.

Actually, John Roncz explored back-to-back seating for a design that
he was doing. But he abandoned that plan after discovering that it
made only a very small difference in the CG of the seated occupant. I
think that he weighed that small advantage against the discomfort that
many potential passengers expressed with traveling backwards.

I think that this episode is described in a series of articles that he
published in Sport Aviation in 1990. According to this, I think it was
in either the May 1990 or the February 1991 article:

http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/sportavi90.html

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.