Date   

Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Keith Spreuer
 

What CG was that?


On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 3:48 PM 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:
 

Hi Mike,

 

I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B.  Ambient was 87F with low humidity.

Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105. 

Normal for Tucson.  This is real heat.  Not a heat index.  It’s always damn hot here.

 

Here are the flight details. 

 

I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows:

 

Rotated at 60 kts.

No noticeable change in TO roll. 

Altitude 6500 ft MSL

OAT 70F

Flying lean of peak

Tach 2250

IAS 140-145 kts..  That was unusually high for me

TAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 kts

I had down trim to spare.  No stick pressure necessary.

Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.

Checked stall speed, full throttle.  Plane would not stall.  Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.

I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating.

 

I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious.

 

I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.

The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5. 

Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs.  I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot. 

Should I give it a try?

 

I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard.  That is not an issue here.  I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago.  It was too thick.  I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence.  Everything in that regard is copesetic.

 

Thanks for your continued interest.  You guys are great.

 

Marc  B

(not as smart as Marc Z)

 

.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 



Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 



 





Re: Camping update at OSH

Dick Knapinski
 

Jerry:

That is for reserved hard-surface parking at the Basler FBO.

Dick

 

From: canard-aviators@... <canard-aviators@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 7:11 PM
To: Canard Aviators <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: [c-a] Camping update at OSH

 

 

Just got this text update:

“GA camping and parking is full unless you have reserved parking.”

Wait....
There’s reserved camping spots for GA camping/parking at Oshkosh??? (WTF!?!!)

Ok.....So I’m feeling like I belong on the short bus right now; so when did we start having reserved parking at Oshkosh? Miss-read on my part or is this just a typo? I’ve been camping under the wing for 25 years, and feel like I’ve been missing something...

Jerry Eaton


Re: Camping update at OSH

Nick U
 

Are you planning to camp in General Aviation or Homebuilt Camping? 

  I have never seen an issue with HB camping.  No reservation needed. 

On Jul 21, 2019, at 8:10 PM, Gerald Eaton jeaton5428@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

Just got this text update:

“GA camping and parking is full unless you have reserved parking.”

Wait....
There’s reserved camping spots for GA camping/parking at Oshkosh??? (WTF!?!!)

Ok.....So I’m feeling like I belong on the short bus right now; so when did we start having reserved parking at Oshkosh? Miss-read on my part or is this just a typo? I’ve been camping under the wing for 25 years, and feel like I’ve been missing something...

Jerry Eaton



Camping update at OSH

Gerald Eaton
 

Just got this text update:

“GA camping and parking is full unless you have reserved parking.”

Wait....
There’s reserved camping spots for GA camping/parking at Oshkosh??? (WTF!?!!)

Ok.....So I’m feeling like I belong on the short bus right now; so when did we start having reserved parking at Oshkosh? Miss-read on my part or is this just a typo? I’ve been camping under the wing for 25 years, and feel like I’ve been missing something...

Jerry Eaton


Re: Coupling Radio antennae reply to Don Jones

Marc
 

Don,

 

I lost the upper third of the winglet and the rudder was ripped off (see attached picutres).  I kept a cool head and was able to control the plane fairly easily using only the ailerons.  If the Piper had been 18 inches lower, I would have lost my head compoletely..

 

After having totally rebuilt this plane in only five days at Oshkosh in 1988, it was a bit ridiculous how long it took to get this repair done.  I was a little bummed out.

 

Marc

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:25 AM
To: canard-aviators@...
Subject: Re: [c-a] Coupling Radio antennae

 




Marc, how much of the winglet was taken off and how difficult was it to control the plane. If this story was put out on the forum, I somehow missed it. Glad things turned out ok for you.

 

Don Jones

Berkut FG

 

On Friday, June 28, 2019, 1:18:35 PM EDT, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Since I had my mid-air, in which I lost my left winglet and associated radio antenna, I want to avoid the possible loss of radio contact, if this ever (very unlikely) happens again.  It was fortunate that my radio was connected through my right winglet, so I maintained radio contact with the tower.

 

I have now rebuilt my left winglet and associated radio antenna.  It works.  Is it possible to connect both antennae to the radio through a splitter (or combiner??) so that, if one antenna goes bad, or is knocked off by an errant airplane, radio contact is maintained?

 

Anxious to know.

 

Marc Borom

N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

alt

Virus-free. www.avg.com





Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Marc
 

Hi Mike,

 

I went out early this morning to beat the heat and try my new W&B.  Ambient was 87F with low humidity.

Temperature was scheduled to climb to 105. 

Normal for Tucson.  This is real heat.  Not a heat index.  It’s always damn hot here.

 

Here are the flight details. 

 

I added the 12.1 weight to the nose area (FS 3.0) giving me a total ballast of 35.5 lbs and flew as follows:

 

Rotated at 60 kts.

No noticeable change in TO roll. 

Altitude 6500 ft MSL

OAT 70F

Flying lean of peak

Tach 2250

IAS 140-145 kts..  That was unusually high for me

TAS from a/s indicator (with temp and altitude correction) 160-165 kts

I had down trim to spare.  No stick pressure necessary.

Elevator appeared to be in the neutral position.

Checked stall speed, full throttle.  Plane would not stall.  Continued to climb at 60kts without stalling.

I didn’t want to kick up the rpms because of the OAT and possible engine overheating.

 

I was very pleased, although, at first, a bit anxious.

 

I can try another weight less than 12.1 by removing the 10.7 lb weight in the port pocket in front of the battery and filling the pocket with lead shot.

The total ballast with the 12.1 addition is now 35.5. 

Removing the 10.7 lb weight will give me a base of 24.8 lbs.  I can add weight with sacks of recovered lead shot. 

Should I give it a try?

 

I was advised by a friend to check the incidence on my canard.  That is not an issue here.  I had to modify the canard about 18 years ago.  It was too thick.  I modified it by carefully following an aluminum template and rechecked the incidence.  Everything in that regard is copesetic.

 

Thanks for your continued interest.  You guys are great.

 

Marc  B

(not as smart as Marc Z)

 

.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators]
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 



Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 



 





Oshkosh parking.

Nick
 

Just received this text from the EAA:

OSHARRIVAL, GREAT NEWS HOME BUILT PARKING IS NOW AVAILABLE. FLY SAFE

Take care,
Nick


Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Marc
 

Jack M,

 

Absolutely correct.  Make sure the mold has cured fully.  The suggested soak in the oven at 150F should do the job.

Attached are some photos of the finished product, including installation.  The lead is clean and free of dirt and debris.

Note how neat and snug the casting fits in its site.  It can’t slip out in any attitude of the aircraft.

 

Marc

 

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 3:46 PM
To: canard-aviators@...
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




 

 A safety note on steps 6-7 below. Make sure the plaster mold is THOROUGHLY dry. Other wise you risk a molten lead explosion from the moisture in the mold boiling to steam and throwing lead every where. Just had it happen with supposedly dry concrete.  Prior to the lead pouring I would recommend baking the mold in an oven for an hour each at 150 F and then at 212 F. Wear a safety face shield or at least goggles.

 

JackM

Veze

 

 

Oh Man,

 

I never dreamed that W&B would be such a complex issue.  Thank you all for your input.  Gives me a lot to think about – what with super stars like Mike Tooze and Marc Zeitlin adding comments.

 

Hey, I am the 187 lb pilot.  That include all the clothing required to survive desert heat.  I used to have a good BMI until my spinal cord began to collapse and I lost 1” in height.  Now I am in the obese category – but I don’t believe it.

 

Mike, I will probably take the reverse approach since I have already produced a snug-fit, 12.1 lb lead ballast weight..  If 12.1 does not do a good job, I will cut of some of the top section and try again.

 

For those who might be interested in producing a snug-fit lead ballast, here is the process:

  1. Place a plastic bag in the space to occupy the lead weight and inject some two-part expanding foam.
  2. Remove the foam and trim to a best fit.
  3. Arrange the shaped foam in a position that would be suitable for pouring a mold.
  4. Wrap the foam in Saran Wrap and coat it with Plaster-of-Paris leaving the appropriate face open for casting.
  5. Remove the shaped foam from the Plaster-of-Paris.
  6. Place the Plaster-of-Paris mold, bottom down, in a bucket of sand.
  7. Melt recycled lead shot in an aluminum or stainless steel pot and skim off the gunk until the lead melt is shiny.
  8. Pour the melt into the Plaster-of-Paris mold..  There will be some outgassing of the mold.  Watch out for spits and spurts.
  9. When cool.  Break away the mold.
  10.  

I am attaching some pictures of the process.

 

Thanks for all the input.  I will report the results.

 

Marc Borom

 

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 



Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12..1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 

 

Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different.. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 

 

 



 





Re: Oshkosh parking

Ryszard Zadow
 

Thanks Dick! 

On Jul 20, 2019, at 16:27, Dick Knapinski dknapinski@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

Hi, everyone:

 

Here’s the latest: https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-fly-in-flying-to-oshkosh/ground-operations/airventure-ground-status

 

We’ll be updating that as often as we can. Hopefully the rain stops this evening and we can get going in the right direction. It’s not quite 2010, but it is certainly one more “opportunity.”

 

Best,

Dick Knapinski

EAA OSH

 

From: canard-aviators@... <canard-aviators@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 4:18 PM
To: canard-aviators <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: [c-a] Oshkosh parking

 

 

As of about an hour ago, the grass at Oshkosh is too wet for any aircraft parking. No grass parking for vendor aircraft or any aircraft.

Jim Rodrian
Defiant
N403R


Re: Oshkosh - No grass parking!

Ryszard Zadow
 

It’s not going to rain all week.. 


<Showplane Areas

Showplane areas accommodate experimentals (homebuilts), warbirds, production aircraft manufactured prior to 1971, ultralights, and amphibians.  These areas are expected to remain open for the duration of AirVenture 2019, except that these areas are currently unavailable due to ground conditions.> 


On Jul 20, 2019, at 16:00, Jim Jim.Rodrian@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

As of about an hour ago, the grass at Oshkosh is too wet for any aircraft parking. No grass parking for vendor aircraft or any aircraft.

Jim Rodrian
Defiant
N403R


Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Webcave
 


 A safety note on steps 6-7 below. Make sure the plaster mold is THOROUGHLY dry. Other wise you risk a molten lead explosion from the moisture in the mold boiling to steam and throwing lead every where. Just had it happen with supposedly dry concrete.  Prior to the lead pouring I would recommend baking the mold in an oven for an hour each at 150 F and then at 212 F. Wear a safety face shield or at least goggles.

JackM
Veze

 
Oh Man,
 
I never dreamed that W&B would be such a complex issue.  Thank you all for your input.  Gives me a lot to think about – what with super stars like Mike Tooze and Marc Zeitlin adding comments.
 
Hey, I am the 187 lb pilot.  That include all the clothing required to survive desert heat.  I used to have a good BMI until my spinal cord began to collapse and I lost 1” in height.  Now I am in the obese category – but I don’t believe it.
 
Mike, I will probably take the reverse approach since I have already produced a snug-fit, 12.1 lb lead ballast weight..  If 12.1 does not do a good job, I will cut of some of the top section and try again.
 
For those who might be interested in producing a snug-fit lead ballast, here is the process:
  1. Place a plastic bag in the space to occupy the lead weight and inject some two-part expanding foam.
  2. Remove the foam and trim to a best fit.
  3. Arrange the shaped foam in a position that would be suitable for pouring a mold.
  4. Wrap the foam in Saran Wrap and coat it with Plaster-of-Paris leaving the appropriate face open for casting.
  5. Remove the shaped foam from the Plaster-of-Paris.
  6. Place the Plaster-of-Paris mold, bottom down, in a bucket of sand.
  7. Melt recycled lead shot in an aluminum or stainless steel pot and skim off the gunk until the lead melt is shiny.
  8. Pour the melt into the Plaster-of-Paris mold.  There will be some outgassing of the mold.  Watch out for spits and spurts.
  9. When cool.  Break away the mold.
  10.  
I am attaching some pictures of the process.
 
Thanks for all the input.  I will report the results.
 
Marc Borom
 
 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators]
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not
 



Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T
On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:
 
 
 
Hi Mike,
 
I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?
 
I have cast a 12..1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.
 
Marc
 
PS
It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.
 
From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not
 


Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:
 
 
 
Hi Canardians,
 
After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.
I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:
 
Green (in the first flight box),
Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)
Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)
Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)
 
Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?
 
The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.
 
Thanks in advance for your input.
 
Marc Borom
LongEZ  N966EZ
Ryan Field
Tucson, AZ
 
Virus-free. www.avg.com
 


 





Re: Oshkosh parking

Dick Knapinski
 

Hi, everyone:

 

Here’s the latest: https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-fly-in-flying-to-oshkosh/ground-operations/airventure-ground-status

 

We’ll be updating that as often as we can. Hopefully the rain stops this evening and we can get going in the right direction. It’s not quite 2010, but it is certainly one more “opportunity.”

 

Best,

Dick Knapinski

EAA OSH

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 4:18 PM
To: canard-aviators
Subject: [c-a] Oshkosh parking

 

 

As of about an hour ago, the grass at Oshkosh is too wet for any aircraft parking. No grass parking for vendor aircraft or any aircraft.

Jim Rodrian
Defiant
N403R


Oshkosh parking

Jim Rodrian
 

As of about an hour ago, the grass at Oshkosh is too wet for any aircraft parking. No grass parking for vendor aircraft or any aircraft.

Jim Rodrian
Defiant
N403R


Oshkosh - No grass parking!

Jim Rodrian
 

As of about an hour ago, the grass at Oshkosh is too wet for any aircraft parking. No grass parking for vendor aircraft or any aircraft.

Jim Rodrian
Defiant
N403R


Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Marc
 

Oh Man,

 

I never dreamed that W&B would be such a complex issue.  Thank you all for your input.  Gives me a lot to think about – what with super stars like Mike Tooze and Marc Zeitlin adding comments.

 

Hey, I am the 187 lb pilot.  That include all the clothing required to survive desert heat.  I used to have a good BMI until my spinal cord began to collapse and I lost 1” in height.  Now I am in the obese category – but I don’t believe it.

 

Mike, I will probably take the reverse approach since I have already produced a snug-fit, 12.1 lb lead ballast weight.  If 12.1 does not do a good job, I will cut of some of the top section and try again.

 

For those who might be interested in producing a snug-fit lead ballast, here is the process:

  1. Place a plastic bag in the space to occupy the lead weight and inject some two-part expanding foam.
  2. Remove the foam and trim to a best fit.
  3. Arrange the shaped foam in a position that would be suitable for pouring a mold.
  4. Wrap the foam in Saran Wrap and coat it with Plaster-of-Paris leaving the appropriate face open for casting.
  5. Remove the shaped foam from the Plaster-of-Paris.
  6. Place the Plaster-of-Paris mold, bottom down, in a bucket of sand.
  7. Melt recycled lead shot in an aluminum or stainless steel pot and skim off the gunk until the lead melt is shiny.
  8. Pour the melt into the Plaster-of-Paris mold.  There will be some outgassing of the mold.  Watch out for spits and spurts.
  9. When cool.  Break away the mold.
  10.  

I am attaching some pictures of the process.

 

Thanks for all the input.  I will report the results.

 

Marc Borom

 

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:38 AM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators]
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 



Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 



 





Re: ADS-B preflight exemption

KEN4ZZ
 

I'm reasonably sure the NOTAM is referring to the requirement that dispatchers look at the RAIM (RECEIVER AUTONOMOUS INTEGRITY MONITOR) prediction if a GPS based RNAV approach is planned at destination.?? RNAV approaches can also be flown using land based inputs to an FMC (flight management computer).??

The RAIM prediction looks ahead to literally see if the stars will be properly aligned - stars in this case being GPS satellites - to provide sufficient accuracy to satisfy the RNP (required navigation performance) associated w/ a GPS based RNAV approach. Once in a great while they do not so a different approach, or different arrival time if GPS is the only option, must be planned. As the spokesman said, the more modern WAAS receivers mandated by the ADSB-OUT requirement are not *quite* as dependent on satellite positioning to meet RNP, but they will still flag you if the geometry is not good enough for an approach.

This stuff melts my brain???.

Ken

On 7/17/2019 7:53 AM, Harley Dixon harley@... [canard-aviators] wrote:
??

Just saw this on AVWeb...

The FAA will issue a Notam on Thursday that will essentially exempt general aviation aircraft operators from an ADS-B preflight requirement when the ADS-B mandate kicks in next January. The Notam specifically exempts ADS-B Out transmitters that use WAAS GPS receivers as a position source from the preflight requirement described in an FAA policy statement that was released earlier this month. The Notam reads: ???It is not necessary for operators of aircraft equipped with the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) (TSO???C145 or TSO???C146) receivers to conduct a preflight availability prediction.???

Garmin spokesman Bill Stone told AVweb the preflight requirement was always intended for airliners, most of which have early-generation GPS systems that are not as reliably precise as those with WAAS. All ADS-B units certified for GA aircraft for the 2020 mandate must use a WAAS GPS receiver as a position source. ???There are currently zero non-WAAS based ADS-B Out GPS solutions for general aviation aircraft,??? he said. ???For GA, it???s a non-issue.??? Stone said he suspects the WAAS exemption got lost in the extensive vetting process that policy statements like the preflight requirements included in the recent Federal Register Notice go through. The original intent of the policy statement was to codify exemptions from sanctions for airlines when GPS signals degrade after they???ve done the preflight checks and the subsequent lack of compliance is beyond their control.

Harley



Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Mike Tooze
 

Hi Marc,

I assume from your spread sheet that you are the 187lb guy and we are discounting the heavy fellow.

Yes, you are with it. What you describe indicates to me that in trimming via nose down stick pressure that you do need to increase your ballast. (Down force produced by extra ballast is cheaper, drag wise, than extra down trim force with its associated drag.)

You could go for the 12.1 lb. but time is on your side, I would try, say, +6 or +8lb first. If you can't get the stick free trim condition then carry on to the +12.1lb etc. What you don't want is to run out of pitch authority in the landing configuration also if you have a problem landing in rain the more forward CoG will not help that. That's why I would advise an incremental approach.

You will feel so much more comfortable at your chosen a/s rather than have to 'fly it' all the time - and it will run more efficiently.
(Vance made a good point, if you have the space you could put in a larger capacity battery instead of some of the ballast. I recently swapped my 14Ahr m/c battery for a 21Ahr removing about 2lb of steel plate)


A point of interest that may or may not be relevant. Re. the lower weight pilot on the spread sheet.
When my daughter was flying G-EMMY all she wanted was 'hours' complaining that the a/s meant she flew longer stages.
I put the ballast such that either of us could safely fly without having to move the ballast.
This had the effect of maintaining my higher cruise a/s at neutral trim while she, at her lower front seat weight (w second set of pedals), flew at a considerably lower a/s but also, interestingly, at around neutral pitch trim. (She eventually gave me a GIB flight and I found myself leaning forward! - she was running leaned-out at 1900/2000 rpm! )
She now flies her 'light twins' long-haul for BA. And I have the Eze to myself. ;^)

Best with it Marc, - incrementally,

Mike T

On Saturday, 20 July 2019, 01:23:20 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] wrote:




Hi Mike,

 

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

 

I have cast a 12.1 lb nose insert that will give me a CG of around 101 (see spreadsheet).  Would you suggest that I test fly that configuration to see, if my nose trim is reduced?  I like your explanation of how balance affects efficiency.

 

Marc

 

PS

It is unlikely that a 230 lb pilot would fit in the cockpit of my LongEZ.  A 230 lb pilot presents a forward CG (but still in the first flight box) issue with low fuel.

 

From: canard-aviators@...
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:52 PM
To: 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...>
Subject: Re: [c-a] Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

 




Hi Marcus,

You are very right to reassess your W&B after a few (15) years.

However, you are now at a stage with your Long that you ought to be refining its performance.

I recently wrote on another point "".... Add(remove) ballast as necessary to achieve your minimum trim drag at the speed you choose to fly."

It is not simply to push your CoG back as far as safely possible. I worked all my carer in aerospace, a large part of that was in 'stability and control'. This included FBW systems that allowed reduce stability margins brought about by flying with rearward CoGs to attain more efficient flight. (mil and civil). Mainly for tailed aircraft this is the case but for a canard aircraft things are slightly different. - the canard gives positive lift whereas a tailplane pushed down. So, by moving the CoG of a plane back if it is 'tailed' this reduces the down-thrust required from the tailplane , increasing efficiency (but reducing natural stability margins). But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

But Forget All that, there is a much easier way. Following the quote above....

i.e What airspeed do you wish to fly with your required load? - Say, 160kts
Then run a test with your nominally safe ballast at a reasonable CoG.. Run at your chosen airspeed (160kt) and note the amount of trim you need to maintain 'stick free' straight and level flight.
If the trim is significantly 'down' and/or you need to augment the trim for level flight with more 'nose down stick' then this indicates that you need more nose ballast. If it is 'up' then you can reduce the nose ballast. (But keep within the given CoG limits)

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Running you spread sheet as you go will keep you inside safe limits.
I hope this is of some help. OMV.

Best with it,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE, Last winner of EuroCAFE, in our 38th yr.

On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 19:04:22 BST, 'Marcus Borom' borommarc@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi Canardians,

 

After flying for 15 years on my last weight and balance determination, I enlisted the help of George Snyder and his certified, digital scales for a re-weigh.  I am considering adding additional nose ballast, either 10 or 25 pounds..  I would like some advice on whether I should choose 0, 10, or 25 pounds of nose ballast.  The nose already has 23.4 pounds of ballast installed.

I am attaching an Excel spreadsheet with the comparisons showing the effect on the CG for various scenarios of loading.  I have indicated the position for the CG for each of the loadings, and color coded each as follows:

 

Green (in the first flight box),

Yellow (in the CG box, but aft of the first flight box)

Pink (in the CG box, but near the aft limit)

Red (dangerously aft of the CG box)

 

Question.  Do I want to favor the nose ballast that places the CG in the first flight box.?

 

The CG box is shown at the bottom of the spreadsheet. You can play with the weights by just changing them.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

Marc Borom

LongEZ  N966EZ

Ryan Field

Tucson, AZ

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 







O$H Radar plot

KEN4ZZ
 

It's late. Almost flew in this past afternoon. Really, REALLY glad I didn't. Would have gotten in, but heard reports on evening WX of up to 2" hail not all that far NW from O$H.?? Plane does definitely does not deserve a beating on the ramp. This is supposed o be fun, right?

Ken


Re: Armpit cooling photos

Dale Martin
 

In case Don's unavailable...

They come with the Melvill cowls when ordered from Aero Composites.  They are custom made to fit that cowl.  Installing some a client right now.




Dale
For Contact info - See Website
http://www.long-ez.com
=====================>


On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:44 PM j bustard pmg1158@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:
 

Don, where did you get the armpit scoops?  Looks great!




On Saturday, July 13, 2019, 8:17 AM, DONALD BERLIN vette164@... [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...> wrote:

 




Re: Weight and Balance - help with choosing additional nose ballast - or not

Marc J. Zeitlin
 

Mike Tooze wrote:

But for a canard moving the CoG further back, incrementally, means less lift is needed from the canard - good to start with but if that means that the canard elevator is now required to produce 'down trim' to the extent of adding drag that is where the rearward CoG efficiency gain idea starts to fail.

Agreed, which is why I explicitly said that moving the CG aft will be advantageous UNLESS you have an airplane that is substantially overpowered with respect to the designer's original intent, which is the only way that the plane can get to a condition where the trim drag starts going UP with a more rearward CG.

After an iteration or two you will be flying with slight elevator trailing edge, TE, floating above the in-line position for minimum canard drag. Thus for that flight condition you have your main-plane and canard balanced for minimum trim drag.

Agreed again. For normal VE's, LE's and COZY's (95% of the aircraft population and certainly for Marcus Borom's O-320 powered Long-EZ, which is the specific plane we're talking about here), the aircraft does not have enough power to sustain an IAS which, even at the rear of the CG range, will create a situation where the AOA of the canard needs to be low enough to demand substantial elevator TE up position, increasing trim drag. An O-320 Long-EZ, even at a CG of 103" (rearmost allowed), will cruise at anywhere between 120 KIAS and 160 KIAS, depending upon altitude. These speeds will have a very slightly TE down to very slightly (a few degrees either way) TE up elevator position, all of which will be in the "drag bucket" for either the GU or the Roncz canard. Therefore, having the CG further aft will ensure the minimum trim drag.

On COZY MKIV's with O-360 engines, the aftmost CG position will give about 7 KIAS more speed than a forwardmost CG position.

For the Long and VE I have found that the faster the chosen airspeed the more down trim, stick nose down force, is needed to maintain level flight, so expect to increase ballast for increased 'chosen airspeed'.

Mistaking trim force for elevator position is a common error. As you mentioned above, it is the elevator TE position that's important with respect to trim drag - NOT the amount of trim force that it takes to hold the elevator in that position. As long as the elevator TE is not up enough to get the canard airfoil out of the drag bucket, the trim drag will not increase, however much force it takes to keep it there.

Now, in the higher power Berkuts and Long-EZ's - those with O-540's - not only can one run out of elevator trim FORCE at the higher IAS's, but one can even run out of elevator up deflection - even at full forward stick - to the stops - the airplane cannot be held in level flight - it will climb and cannot be made to go faster. Clearly, these aircraft may benefit (at least from a top speed standpoint, if not a takeoff and landing roll standpoint) from more nose ballast and a more highly loaded canard. But most of the canards out there do not fit into this category.

So I agree that the idea is to ensure that the CG is positioned so that the trim drag is minimized, and this may require a CG that is not at the rearmost position, but that will only occur if the airplane has enough power to go substantially faster than the designer intended these planes to fly. Marcus' O-320 powered Long-EZ does not fit into that category.


Marcus Borom wrote:

I was all set to remove some nose ballast, but your post has caused me some doubt.  I generally cruise at around 165 kts TAS, and I run out of nose down trim and have to push on the stick.  Does that mean that I need a little more nose ballast?

No. You're conflating trim force with elevator position (and you're hardly the first person to do so - I run into this confusion a fair amount)  and those are two very different things. First of all, it's not TAS that matters, but IAS. If we assume that you're flying somewhere between 6500 - 13500 ft. most of the time, you'll be somewhere between 130 KIAS and 150 KIAS, give or take. Look at your elevator TE POSITION when you're in cruise. I'll bet a lot of $$$ that it's within a few degrees up or down of in-trail with the TE of the canard (assuming the canard incidence angle is correct, which it may or may not be), when you're at those IAS's. This indicates that you're within the drag bucket that I mentioned earlier, and that you're minimizing trim drag. If, somehow, the TE is more than 3 - 5 degrees down or 3 - 5 degrees up, then you're not minimizing trim drag and you'd need to adjust your CG position (within the approved range) to do so (or adjust your canard incidence angle, if it's incorrect).

Now, with respect to trim FORCE, if you run out of trim spring force at some higher IAS (and you don't say what that is), you've got a trim spring force issue, not an elevator position (and CG location) issue. Since the aerodynamic forces are created by IAS, not TAS, being at 120 KIAS at 16K ft at 164 KTAS, or being at SL at 164 KIAS and 164 KTAS are going to produce VERY different trim force requirements, due to the very large IAS differential. Far more trim force will be required at SL than at 16K ft.

So you then get into the question of what the lowest IAS you can trim to - can you trim to stall speed? Just above stall speed? You may need stiffer trim springs, shorter trim springs (more highly preloaded), or you may just need to adjust the neutral point of the trim range. Knowing the whole range of available trim speeds would inform the appropriate correction to make.

 -- 
Marc J. Zeitlin                      marc_zeitlin@...
                                            http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright © 2019                     Burnside Aerospace

5281 - 5300 of 110432