If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement of CofG
On Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:48:09 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hilty wrote:
I did this with a stop watch and 5 gallon buckets under the dump valves and had the "Weigher" tell me when I got to gross, stop and record both time and gallons dumped, then continued to 9 lbs per sq ft, stop and record, then dumped the rest. This gave me a very accurate amounts in both gallons and time (seconds to dump for any wing loading I may want to fly with. Um, no, dump speed is limited by vent (in flight and on ground). Lower pressure on vent in flight slower dump time in flight... Also, for that glider, enlarging vent holes makes it safer if you fall off a ridge and need to dump fast... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Great to hear a little history on her! I'm trying to treat her well and keep her flying down here in the Texas Hill Country outside of Austin. She went through a rough patch from '94 to '04...didn't fly and trailer leaks caused water damage on the fuse under the dolly which Gehrlein repaired...now only ~1040 TT. Would love to put 50-60 hours on it this season...put about 25 hours on in '11. Pass along any history to me at aggies78 at gmail dot com. Rob |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement of CofG
...."sprung landing gear." That's why I specified axle centers rather than
simply raising the tail. I didn't consider sprung gear and your information is good on that account. As to following the manufacturer's recommendations, I'm all for that. My question should have been "why do they specify such a complicated method for gliders with unsprung gear" though I didn't mention the suspension part. BTW, my LAK-17a specifies an angle of 100:2.9. "Andy" wrote in message ... On Jan 11, 4:29 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. One possible reason is that the height is not a constant for any glider that has a compressible pneumatic tyre or a sprung landing gear. Both have deflection that depends on the glider mass. That same deflection would need to be applied to the tail height. It may not be neglible at max gross wt. Speaking of sprung landing gear - in some cases the deflection changes not only the height but also the distance between the tyre/ground contact point and the datum. That applies to modern Schleicher single seaters and probably other gliders. The best plan is to do the weight and ballance as defined by the manufacturer. I also calculated my own pilot arm as I considered the generalities in the manual to be unacceptable. That can be done with a reasonably accurate bathroom scale under the tail as the calculation is independent of weight on the main gear. Andy (GY) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement of CofG
When we did my ASW-15 we took the weights just balancing the wings
level, no stand. Fore and aft level was done as you describe (my manual has about the same information as yours) with the exception I noted about using a digital protractor instead of making the triangle. As my ship was exported from Germany in 1998 we had copies of the W&B's they did there for my maintenance engineer to use as a guideline for making the new W&B and equipment list. The records that accompanied my ship when it was exported show that the W&B was done every second year when it was in Germany! I could get you scans of the forms though being of German origin they would be useful as a guideline at best. Sometimes you can get a surprise when doing a W&B. My club has a Grob 102 Standard III. When the A.D. requiring the installation of lead mass balance in the control system was done we naturally had to reweigh the glider. The last time it had been weighed was by a previous owner many years before we bought it. The new weight was about 80 pounds LESS than the last one. Aircraft generally don't LOSE weight over the years, especially when you've just bonded a bunch of lead to them. The maintenance shop double and triple checked their procedures, recalibrated their scales and reweighed the glider several times. The new weight was accurate. We're still trying to figure out what the hell was going on with the previous weighing. Water ballast left in the tanks maybe? On Jan 11, 8:51*pm, RAS56 wrote: Hagbard Celine;807559 Wrote: If the shop has a digital protractor you could also convert the rise/ run to degrees, put the protractor on the specified part of the tail boom and raise the tail until it reads the correct angle. Arctan(rise/run) = angle in degrees About 2.1 degrees, sloping down towards the tail in this case. Same question, hopefully same answer...could use a little more info. I'm trying to put together a W&B event at our club, we're bringing in outside help from another club with a set of scales and the experience of knowing what to do. WRT positioning the glider at the correct angle, my ship is an ASW-19b. Although my owners manual has a page dedicated to CG info, there's nothing in there about what procedure to use to actually weigh the thing. It's just a page with a CG envelope on it. Now I did find on page 30 of the manual (a page that has general dimensions as well as specs for control deflections) a side view drawing with info presented as the thread starter discussed, mine says 1000 by 45. SO, to do the procedure correctly, construct a small triangle with those dimensions, inflate the main wheel to proper pressure, put a level on the triangle, then raise the tail till I get a level bubble? It would seem to make sense that this is done with wings level laterally as well, correct? Lightly (fingertips) or is a wingstand under a tip ok? THEN, take the weights? Finally, this will be the 4th W&B for this glider. All the ones done previously have had a "form" with a glider drawing on it and appropriate spots to fill in main wheel/tail wheel weights, etc. Where can we obtain "blanks" to fill in our ships for our event? We will have an A&P IA overseeing the process and signing off logbooks. As I said, I'm coordinating, so I'm trying to get all the info/materials each owner will need to have on hand at weigh-in so the event goes smoothly. Thanks much, Rob ASW-19b ZAP Ps-sorry if this double posts... -- RAS56 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement of CofG
At 22:00 12 January 2012, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:48:09 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hilty wrote: I did this with a stop watch and 5 gallon buckets under the dump valves and had the "Weigher" tell me when I got to gross, stop and record both time and gallons dumped, then continued to 9 lbs per sq ft, stop and record, then dumped the rest. This gave me a very accurate amounts in both gallons and time (seconds to dump for any wing loading I may want to fly with. Um, no, dump speed is limited by vent (in flight and on ground). Lower pressure on vent in flight slower dump time in flight... Also, for that glider, enlarging vent holes makes it safer if you fall off a ridge and need to dump fast... Dave you missed my point any glider that you fly it will work for on the ground to get to your desired take off weight. No water meters ect for calcs also I use a 3 gallon bucket and time the fill rate to decide how much to put in each wing to get to what I want. 9 gallons per wing works for me and its easy and quick to do once you have the initial weight snd balance. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement of CofG
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement of CofG
As Bob mentioned, building a wedge for your gilder is a good solution the
will provide accurate results time after time. Here is the wedge that I use for my HP-14. I'm sure the dimensions required to build a similar device are available for production aircraft. http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Co...uselage_Level/ Wayne HP-14 "6F" http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder "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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement of CofG
On Jan 15, 8:57*am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
Really, how accurately can you measure 2.9 inches, mark it, and cut it? I think that just on the far side of 2-7/8" would do just fine. ...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? Most digital levels will offer repeatable measurements to 0.1 degrees, and I think that that is close enough. In this case I'd feel fine about a reading of 1.7 degrees. For my fuselage, the exact tailboom slope is 1.213 degrees, but 1.2 or even 1-1/4 degrees would be fine. 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! Thanks, the armrest trick is a good idea, I might adopt that; it would be useful for people who have digital levels that beep when they're actually level. Thanks again, Bob K. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement of CofG
I like the idea of a "beeping" level which would allow a single person to
complete the operation. And I *really* like the design of Wayne's "wedge". Bob, thanks for stating what I've always felt, i.e., the TLAR method is good enough (2-7/8"). I was (wrongly) getting the impression that people were stuck on precision which I couldn't attain. It would seem pointless to measure the angle to a gnat's ass and then fly with boots and a heavy jacket one day and shorts and sneakers the next. One more time - Wayne, I LIKE the design of your wedge. I think I'll build one. And ask the manufacturer why they don't include at least a drawing for a device to level the fuselage. "Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message ... On Jan 15, 8:57 am, "Dan Marotta" wrote: Really, how accurately can you measure 2.9 inches, mark it, and cut it? I think that just on the far side of 2-7/8" would do just fine. ...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? Most digital levels will offer repeatable measurements to 0.1 degrees, and I think that that is close enough. In this case I'd feel fine about a reading of 1.7 degrees. For my fuselage, the exact tailboom slope is 1.213 degrees, but 1.2 or even 1-1/4 degrees would be fine. 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! Thanks, the armrest trick is a good idea, I might adopt that; it would be useful for people who have digital levels that beep when they're actually level. Thanks again, Bob K. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
vibration measurement system | Stu Fields | Rotorcraft | 9 | May 27th 11 04:07 AM |
fuel flow measurement | khanindra jyoti deka | Home Built | 0 | January 5th 05 04:34 AM |
TAS measurement | Bravo Delta | Piloting | 4 | June 30th 04 11:55 PM |
Time Measurement for Inspections | O. Sami Saydjari | Owning | 15 | April 7th 04 05:26 AM |
units of measurement on altimeters | Pat Norton | Piloting | 30 | March 21st 04 06:00 AM |