Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - max gross weight test

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

max gross weight test

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

sarg314(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:09 pm Post subject: max gross weight test

I am just about done testing my 6A.Â  I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and will fly it at that weight in a couple days.Â  (Empty weight was 1076.)Â  I know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights.Â  So far in my tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.Â  

 

Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it that far aft before.Â  I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or 72.5".

 

Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it reasonable to just go for it in one flight?Â  

-- 

Tom Sargent

  [quote][b]

kboatright1(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:55 pm Post subject: max gross weight test

Thomas,

  

 I recommend approaching the gross weight and aft CG  gradually.  IIRC, I was right in the envelope expansion process about 10  years ago. What I did was ballast the airplane about 50 lbs at a time to  increase the weight up to gross. Then I adjusted ballast to move the CG rearward  in ~1/2" increments.  What I found was that the last 75 pounds of weight  and the last inch or two of CG travel were very noticeable.

  

 One thing I would recommend would be to go ahead  and test to Van's published aft CG limit. One day (light fuel, big pax, lotsa  luggage, etc.) you will probably find the airplane near that aft limit.   Better to know test under those conditions (how much trim will you need?   How will the stall behave?), than to experience it for the first time with a  passenger on board.

  

 My $0.02

  

 Kyle Botright

 [quote]   ---

vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:38 pm Post subject: max gross weight test

I'll take the obvious cheap shot here (because I can) about taking advice from a guy who can't even spell his own name, but Kyle is correct about sneaking up on it.  ;o)

  

 I would go further and suggest that you take a big guy with you who can also reposition the moment arm of the sand bags in the baggage area while you fly the plane.

  

 -GV

  

  

  

 In a message dated 03/22/11 15:56:24 Pacific Daylight Time, kboatright1(at)comcast.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		    One thing I would recommend would be to go ahead and test to Van's published aft CG limit. One day (light fuel, big pax, lotsa luggage, etc.) you will probably find the airplane near that aft limit.  Better to know test under those conditions (how much trim will you need?  How will the stall behave?), than to experience it for the first time with a passenger on board.

  

 My $0.02

  

 Kyle Botright



	
  

  [quote][b]

kboatright1(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: max gross weight test

I'm conserving vowls these days.  

  

 Kyle

  

 Do not archive

 [quote]   ---

recapen(at)earthlink.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: max gross weight test

I did mine in stages.



It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......

--

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:31 am Post subject: max gross weight test

Too bad we have to do the phase 1 testing solo.  It would be nice to 

take a fat friend for a ride!!!!

Linn

On 3/23/2011 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:

[quote] 



 I did mine in stages.



 It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......

 --

jfogarty(at)tds.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:42 am Post subject: max gross weight test

Great post Kyle.  Thanks for sharing this information.



Jim



On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Kyle Boatright <kboatright1(at)comcast.net (kboatright1(at)comcast.net)> wrote:

 [quote]       Thomas,

  

 I recommend approaching the gross weight and aft CG  gradually.  IIRC, I was right in the envelope expansion process about 10  years ago. What I did was ballast the airplane about 50 lbs at a time to  increase the weight up to gross. Then I adjusted ballast to move the CG rearward  in ~1/2" increments.  What I found was that the last 75 pounds of weight  and the last inch or two of CG travel were very noticeable.

  

 One thing I would recommend would be to go ahead  and test to Van's published aft CG limit. One day (light fuel, big pax, lotsa  luggage, etc.) you will probably find the airplane near that aft limit.   Better to know test under those conditions (how much trim will you need?   How will the stall behave?), than to experience it for the first time with a  passenger on board.

  

 My $0.02

  

 Kyle Botright

 [quote]   ---

andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:58 am Post subject: max gross weight test

I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little insight from my day job.



We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small steps. Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the airplane because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this could be a handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).

 



From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft:

•Higher takeoff speed.

•Longer takeoff run.

•Reduced rate and angle of climb.

 •Lower maximum altitude.

•Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel required).

•Reduced cruising speed.

•Reduced maneuverability.

•Higher stalling speed.

 •Higher landing speed.

•Longer landing roll.

•Excessive weight on the nosewheel.

The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:

FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose

 AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane’s capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces). 

 AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)

FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.

 

Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for trends, instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself into a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces) can get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.

 



Hope this helps.

-az



On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen <recapen(at)earthlink.net (recapen(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:

 [quote]--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net (recapen(at)earthlink.net)>

  

 I did mine in stages.

 

 It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......

 

 

 --

larywil(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:28 am Post subject: max gross weight test

Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave 

us your "day job" description. It sounds interesting.



I wasn't going to post on this question, since 

many members on this list have so much more 

experience than I have. However, as a 12 year 

RV-4 veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG 

guidelines. Most of us quickly feel the effects 

of extra gross weight each time we take off after 

refueling, or take off or land with a 

passenger.  What we don't "feel" as quickly or as 

often is the effects of pushing close to the CG 

limits. We are constantly making small 

adjustments in trim while always 

remaining  within the envelope. It would be a 

shock to most of us if we made these adjustments 

to a plane that was loaded near the edge to start with.



I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with 

a passenger who weighed 240#. I don't know how he 

even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I 

didn't realize   what I was doing ( yes, I was 

stupid). When landing, I failed to add extra 

speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped 

a wing, and raised my blood pressure. All this, 

in the blink of an eye, with no telltale to a 

novice like me. I was only 6 inches  off the 

ground but you would have thought I was two feet 

high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This 

problem is probably more acute in the -4's and 

-8's. So we pay more attention to CG.



Look, I am not experience or capable enough to 

advise anyone how to fly their RV. I just thought 

I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens 

the stick feel under some circumstances (when you 

are already slow and trimmed forward) and can 

help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly. 



Louis



At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:

[quote]I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, 

but I have a little insight from my day job.



We approach weight and CG changes with great 

care and in many small steps. Generally, someone 

like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the 

airplane because outside of those limits, some 

limit may be exceeded (this could be a handling 

requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).



 From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft:



•Higher takeoff speed.

•Longer takeoff run.

•Reduced rate and angle of climb.

•Lower maximum altitude.

•Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel required).

•Reduced cruising speed.

•Reduced maneuverability.

•Higher stalling speed.

•Higher landing speed.

•Longer landing roll.

•Excessive weight on the nosewheel.



The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:



FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose

AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can 

reduce the airplane’s capability to recover from 

stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator 

moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).

AFT CG also yields very light control forces. 

(This makes it easy for the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)

FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.



Anyway, the point is that by expanding the 

envelopes during testing, you can watch for 

these effects. If you do it slowly, you can 

watch for trends, instead of just going to the 

endpoint all in one go and getting yourself into 

a situation where something (like light 

longitudinal control forces) can get you into 

trouble if you aren't expecting it.



Hope this helps.



-az



On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen 

<<mailto:recapen(at)earthlink.net>recapen(at)earthlink.net> wrote:


<<mailto:recapen(at)earthlink.net>recapen(at)earthlink.net>



I did mine in stages.



It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......

--

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:37 pm Post subject: max gross weight test

Good post Louis. If you're gonna push the CG limits, don't push the aft 

one. When things get hairy an aft CG is the worst to recover from, and 

unfortunately it gets hairy close to the ground. Having said that, when 

you find what loading gets you close to aft CG ...... make a note in 

your aircraft manual what those weights are, and when you have large 

passengers/baggage, take the time to check. Oh, and use your calibrated 

eye .... all us overweight people lie about our weight. 

As for your 'plop' .... it was an educational experience ..... and we 

re-learn all to frequently. Embarrassing? Shouldn't have been ..... you 

get to use the plane again.

Here's a video of a bad landing ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aydbBl6_W0...  Feel better???

Linn

On 3/23/2011 2:09 PM, Louis Willig wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job"

 description. It sounds interesting.

 I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this

 list have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year

 RV-4 veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us

 quickly feel the effects of extra gross weight each time we take off

 after refueling, or take off or land with a passenger. What we don't

 "feel" as quickly or as often is the effects of pushing close to the

 CG limits. We are constantly making small adjustments in trim while

 always remaining within the envelope. It would be a shock to most of

 us if we made these adjustments to a plane that was loaded near the

 edge to start with.

 I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who

 weighed 240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he

 did. And I didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When

 landing, I failed to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled

 sharply, dropped a wing, and raised my blood pressure. All this, in

 the blink of an eye, with no telltale to a novice like me. I was only

 6 inches off the ground but you would have thought I was two feet

 high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This problem is probably more

 acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more attention to CG.

 Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to

 fly their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG

 lightens the stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already

 slow and trimmed forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer"

 routine very quickly. 

 Louis

 At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:

> I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little

> insight from my day job.

>

> We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small

> steps. Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on

> the airplane because outside of those limits, some limit may be

> exceeded (this could be a handling requirement if it's a certified

> airplane, etc.).

>

> From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the

> aircraft:

>

> •Higher takeoff speed.

> •Longer takeoff run.

> •Reduced rate and angle of climb.

> •Lower maximum altitude.

> •Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel

> required).

> •Reduced cruising speed.

> •Reduced maneuverability.

> •Higher stalling speed.

> •Higher landing speed.

> •Longer landing roll.

> •Excessive weight on the nosewheel.

>

> The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:

>

> FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose

> AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane’s

> capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and

> elevator moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control

> surfaces).

> AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for

> the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)

> FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.

>

> Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing,

> you can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch

> for trends, instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and

> getting yourself into a situation where something (like light

> longitudinal control forces) can get you into trouble if you aren't

> expecting it.

>

> Hope this helps.

andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:44 pm Post subject: max gross weight test

Flight Test Engineer. Worked in Kansas and North Carolina.



But, I'm a young guy and don't have as much experience as a lot of guys who are probably reading this list, so full disclosure, most of my knowledge comes from various advisory circulars and flight test guides. 

 



Being a CFI has reinforced that I need to be conservative and being in Flight Test has reinforced that I need to seek other's experiences before embarking on stuff on my own. Modern flight test is a little like being a litigation attorney. We don't ever ask a question in the courtroom (fly a test) for which we don't already know the answer (have previous experience, data, or windtunnel predictions.) Surprises during any type of flight test are a bad, bad thing.

 



I think with aft-CG testing of RVs, going slow is good advice, but I'm actually most interested in hearing the data from others' expansions. Did they expand slow or fast, what results did they see?

 



Your shared experience is a good one to keep in mind.

-az



On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net (larywil(at)comcast.net)> wrote:

 [quote]--> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net (larywil(at)comcast.net)>

  

 

 Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job" description. It sounds interesting.

 

 I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this list have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year RV-4 veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us quickly feel the effects of extra gross weight each time we take off after refueling, or take off or land with a passenger.  What we don't "feel" as quickly or as often is the effects of pushing close to the CG limits. We are constantly making small adjustments in trim while always remaining  within the envelope. It would be a shock to most of us if we made these adjustments to a plane that was loaded near the edge to start with.

  

 I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who weighed 240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I didn't realize   what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When landing, I failed to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped a wing, and raised my blood pressure. All this, in the blink of an eye, with no telltale to a novice like me. I was only 6 inches  off the ground but you would have thought I was two feet high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This problem is probably more acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more attention to CG.

  

 Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to fly their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens the stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already slow and trimmed forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly. 

  

 Louis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:

 

[quote] I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little insight from my day job.

 

 We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small steps. Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the airplane because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this could be a handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).

  

 >From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft:

 



 µÙigher takeoff speed.

 ²¦onger takeoff run.

 ¯Ãeduced rate and angle of climb.



 ²¦ower maximum altitude.

 ¦Êhorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel required).



 ¯Ãeduced cruising speed.

 ¯Ãeduced maneuverability.

 µÙigher stalling speed.

 µÙigher landing speed.

 ²¦onger landing roll.

 Àhxcessive weight on the nosewheel.

 

 The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:

 

 FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose



 AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane·ö capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces). 

 AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)

 FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.

 

 Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for trends, instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself into a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces) can get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.

  

 Hope this helps.

 

 -az

 



 On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen <<mailto:recapen(at)earthlink.net (recapen(at)earthlink.net)>recapen(at)earthlink.net (recapen(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:

  --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <<mailto:recapen(at)earthlink.net (recapen(at)earthlink.net)>recapen(at)earthlink.net (recapen(at)earthlink.net)> 

 

 I did mine in stages.

 

 It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......

 

 

 --

acepilot(at)bloomer.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:07 pm Post subject: max gross weight test

Especially one you could jettison overboard if things go South 

     

     

     On 3-23-2011 14:27, Linn Walters wrote:      	  Quote: 	
		  -->       RV-List message posted by: Linn Walters       <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> (pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net)       

       

       

       Too bad we have to do the phase 1 testing solo.Â  It would be nice       to take a fat friend for a ride!!!!       

       Linn       

       

       

       

       

     	
     

     -- 

       [img]cid:part1.01080004.05090005(at)bloomer.net[/img]

sig.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

6 KB

Viewed:

4966 Time(s)

HCRV6(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject: max gross weight test

My own experience with aft CG loading was an eye opener and scary.  After a long day of reassembling a friends RV-7A after painting, a friend in the over 200 lb class and I tossed all our tool boxes and several jugs of gallons of liquid speed polish in the back of my RV-6.  I was down to less than 10 gallons of fuel and with a light Catto prop up front I have to be aware of potential for aft CG loading, but that day I was tired and not thinking.  We took off  for a less than 5 minute flight to a nearby airport where fuel was cheaper and I did not notice anything particularly different about my RV's handling until I slowed for landing.  I very quickly realized that the normal light stick force in pitch had become close  to zero or possibly even negative. I added power and made a fast wheel landing, and vowed to never get beyond Van's aft CG again.  I later calculated that while we were well under max gross, the CG was almost a inch aft of Van's specified range.



In short , I highly recommend approaching aft CG loading very cautiously.



Harry Crosby

RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours



---

sarg314(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: max gross weight test

FWIW I did my first "heavy" flight today in the 6A.Â  It was at about 1590 lbs (max gross set at 1720) with cg at ablut 73.9.Â  Pitch was definitely light and it took a little longer to lift off, but it still seemed to climb pretty good - in the 1400 ft/min range on take off.Â  That is with a fixed pitch cruise prop (Catto) and I didn't try to climb especially fast.Â  

 

I got up to 8000 and did some stalls and low speed turns.Â  Nose is definitely light.Â  It is definitely a little squirrellier at low speed.Â  Seemed to want to drop the right wing when it stalled, but that was probably just me.Â  

 

They landed me (KRYN) with a quartering tail wind, which didn't help any.Â  Definitely had to watch that pitch very carefully when flaring.Â  Seemed to roll out for a loooong time too.



Full gross wt. in my plane puts the cg at 74.8, still well forward of the limit and only 0.9 further aft than today's flight.Â  I think I'll try that next time.Â  

 

-- 

Tom Sargent

  [quote][b]

n223rv(at)wolflakeairport
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:24 am Post subject: max gross weight test

As your cg moves aft and you load increases, your pitch will become even more sensitive and you will notice increased sink rates.  Carry in a bit more speed on final and be ready on the rudder pedals.  

Ask any RV-4 pilot with >200 lbs behind the roll bar.  Makes landing feel 'new' again 

Sent from my iPhone



On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:30 PM, thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com (sarg314(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



[quote]FWIW I did my first "heavy" flight today in the 6A.  It was at about 1590 lbs (max gross set at 1720) with cg at ablut 73.9.  Pitch was definitely light and it took a little longer to lift off, but it still seemed to climb pretty good - in the 1400 ft/min range on take off.  That is with a fixed pitch cruise prop (Catto) and I didn't try to climb especially fast.  

 

I got up to 8000 and did some stalls and low speed turns.  Nose is definitely light.  It is definitely a little squirrellier at low speed.  Seemed to want to drop the right wing when it stalled, but that was probably just me.  

 

They landed me (KRYN) with a quartering tail wind, which didn't help any.  Definitely had to watch that pitch very carefully when flaring.  Seemed to roll out for a loooong time too.



Full gross wt. in my plane puts the cg at 74.8, still well forward of the limit and only 0.9 further aft than today's flight.  I think I'll try that next time.  

 

-- 

Tom Sargent

   	  Quote: 	
		  

	


[b]

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: max gross weight test

On 3/24/2011 12:30 PM, thomas sargent wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   FWIW I did my first "heavy" flight today in the 6A.  It was at about 

 1590 lbs (max gross set at 1720) with cg at ablut 73.9.  Pitch was 

 definitely light and it took a little longer to lift off, but it still 

 seemed to climb pretty good - in the 1400 ft/min range on take off.  

 That is with a fixed pitch cruise prop (Catto) and I didn't try to 

 climb especially fast.



 I got up to 8000 and did some stalls and low speed turns.  Nose is 

 definitely light.  It is definitely a little squirrellier at low 

 speed.  Seemed to want to drop the right wing when it stalled, but 

 that was probably just me.



 They landed me (KRYN) with a quartering tail wind, which didn't help 

 any.  Definitely had to watch that pitch very carefully when flaring.  

 Seemed to roll out for a loooong time too.



 Full gross wt. in my plane puts the cg at 74.8, still well forward of 

 the limit and only 0.9 further aft than today's flight.  I think I'll 

 try that next time.



 -- 

 Tom Sargent

Hi Tom,
	




I'm a little uncomfortable with telling you this, because of of obvious 

'apples/oranges' issues, but here goes.



When I was doing transition training (from one taildragger to another), 

the guy doing the training suggested leaving the plane trimmed somewhat 

nose down when doing wheel landings. The logic for that a/c was that the 

pilot then doesn't need to force himself to *push* the stick when the 

mains touch; the nose down trim will do that with just a release of 

backpressure.



Again, this is 'apples/oranges', but you might consider re-purposing 

that trick; it might buy you a little insurance against inadvertently 

pulling the nose up into a stall. If you've run out of trim, I might 

think carefully about re-weighing or re-calculating.



Charlie

larywil(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:27 pm Post subject: max gross weight test

Charlie, I had several tailwheel instructors suggest trimming forward 

for wheel landings. But I was always afraid to wheel land ( the sight 

picture seemed strange). Many years later I tried their advice, and 

it worked. I also noticed that the "feel" of the aircraft when 

flaring and landing seems more honest and controlled.



Many of the posts, so far, have shown consistent descriptions with 

what I felt when I flew overloaded and close to aft CG limits upon 

landing. I guess we all have tricks to make a nice landing. Mine is 

to keep the throttle a hair forward, and the nose trimmed forward of 

neutral when I wheel land and when I have my sweetheart aboard.



This thread is what the RV-list is about. Thanks, guys.



Louis



 	  Quote: 	
		  I'm a little uncomfortable with telling you this, because of of 

obvious 'apples/oranges' issues, but here goes.



When I was doing transition training (from one taildragger to 

another), the guy doing the training suggested leaving the plane 

trimmed somewhat nose down when doing wheel landings. The logic for 

that a/c was that the pilot then doesn't need to force himself to 

*push* the stick when the mains touch; the nose down trim will do 

that with just a release of backpressure.



Again, this is 'apples/oranges', but you might consider re-purposing 

that trick; it might buy you a little insurance against 

inadvertently pulling the nose up into a stall. If you've run out of 

trim, I might think carefully about re-weighing or re-calculating.



Charlie

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum