Nice BRS save. (Cirrus out of fuel over ocean.)

[SDQDI]

I think you got it ass up FH. nose high more drag trim nose down more speed i think you yanking my chain

Nope Ozzie he has it right. (At least I hope he is because that is how I see it:blush:)

Well at least in some setups, the horizontal stabiliser is an inverted airfoil which in normal balanced flight holds the tail gently down. If you put weight up the front the tail has to work harder at pushing down which to a certain degree also loads your main wing up more.

 

And vice versa loading tail heavy to a certain point will help economy wise. But obviously too far back is just as bad if not worse than too far forward.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Be careful loading aft cg on takeoff, in some aircraft burning off fuel can move the cg even further aft. One reason the old V tail Bonanza (for one example) became known as the fork tail Dr Killer was that they were easy to load with an aft cg that made them less stable and a real hand full in turbulence and harder to hand fly on instruments. They became even less stable and harder to recover from a stall as they burnt off fuel as the cg moved more aft the lighter they became. Barons where another example. Sure you may get a slightly better cruise speed with the resulting economy but at the end of the trip it will be more of a handful. I remember a Baron leaving Bankstown for Cooma one night on a trip to the snow back in the nineties, full seats heap of fuel, max take off weight and pilot only had the on type endo for three weeks and 5 hours. Got as far as Golbourn before it stalled and went in. As it burnt off the fuel the cg went to far aft. The thing that really screwed them was the three sets of skis loaded between the seats.

 

I'll take the more forward cg, higher wing loaded stable aircraft any day.

 

 

[facthunter]

Nothing to do with nose high. If the plane is rear heavy the tailplane has to provide more lift or less down force (both desirible for efficiency) to balance the whole thing. Down force acts as an extra load the wing has to provide more lift to compensate for and as a natural consequence more drag. Its simple physics.I did say it had to be managed within the allowable CG range. That's bloody obvious isn't it.? Modern Jets transfer fuel for the exact same reason as I'm trying to explain.. If you want to dumb it right down nose heavy is safer but surely we are able to discuss this intelligently? Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Watch the first minute ...

 

 

 

[cooperplace]

note to self: next time on a trans-Pacific ferry flight, check that fuel supply is OK from all tanks, all valves working, early in the flight.

 

Not that I'm likely to take the jab across the pacific any time soon.

 

 

[facthunter]

BRS in windy conditions on a ditching might just prove lethal. Get tangled up and dragged.and can't exit the plane. It has happened.. When you have to ditch, the orientation of the swell is important more so than the actual wind direction. Fixed or extended U/C is not helpful. Underslung engines make the touchdown more risky as well especially if one contacts substantially before the other, usually causes the plane to slew and a wing break off.. Nev

 

 

[Garfly]

A new video by Paul Bertorelli marking 20 years Cirrus' CAPS system.

 

 

 

 

 

[poteroo]

. As it burnt off the fuel the cg went to far aft.

 

That's true, but when loading a Baron it's usual to chockabloc the noselocker, then fill the main fuel tanks, then whatever more fuel you need goes in the aux tanks - which are aft in the wing.  You may be a little toward the aft CoG limit on take-off, but with nil flap extended this is manageable with trim setting alone. Once in cruise, switch to AUX tanks and use them up completely so that the CoG moves forward. Then when you setup the approach - start highish, use a lower power setting to limit the noseup tendency, and it's unlikely you'll reach a critical CoG situation.    happy days,