| Citabria | CG range is 21 - 36% at lowest loading |
| CG range is 24 - 31% at max loading |
| |
| Cessna 150 | CG range is 24 - 34% at lowest loading |
| CG range is 26 - 34% at max loading |
| |
| From FAA Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook, page 1-3 and 1-4: |
| 1 | If the CG is too far forward, the downward tail load will |
| have to be increased to maintain level flight. This increased |
| tail load has the same effect as carrying additional weight; |
| the aircraft will have to fly at a higher angle of attack, and |
| drag will increase. |
| |
| 2 | A more serious problem caused by the CG being too far |
| forward is the lack of sufficient elevator authority. At slow |
| takeoff speeds, the elevator might not produce enough |
| nose-up force to rotate and on landing there may not be |
| enough elevator force to flare the airplane. [Figure 1-3] |
| Both takeoff and landing runs will be lengthened if the CG |
| is too far forward. |
| |
| Steve Klibinger | LEU flying CG at 17"; 30% wing cord, per chart: |
| http://www.angoraaffaire.com/leu/whatdoesitweigh_.htm |
| |
| Jimbo Stevens | "Hawg", LE, chopped the throttle coming over the fence, trying my short field landing. The nose pointed down and no amount of elevator would pick it up. I tried the weight on the tail trick, which made no discernable difference, and finally surmised that if I have no power I will carry an extra 5 mph to make up for it. |
| |
| Leonard | In a note to Steve Kiblinger, I wrote: |
| I recently saw a post stating that Leonard had a near nose-over with the straight gear, thus generating the canted gear design. Replicating Leonard's W&B calculations in the plans, and adding 30# fuel and my weight (225#) (these arms based on our DE, but probably close to Leonard's DE arms), his airplane flying CG calculates to be about 14%. |
| |
| Gil Devault | For what it is worth, My DE was built according to the drawings. All of my weights and measurements all came out to what they were supposed to. My plane flew just fine, no adverse tendances at all during normal flying. The problem I had was at low power settings on landing. It did not want to flair with out a prop blast across the elevator. I would suggest that special attention should be paid to this. It could present a problem with an engine out situation. |
| My DE did not flair during a dead stick landing and I had an IAS over 50 MPH |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| TWH | and I do not think our DE can be in its safest condition if flown with a CG at the forward limits as shown in the DE plans (that is, at 10.9% of cord). All evidence that I have seen suggests that forward CG tends to encourage nose down pitching. CGs in the 29% area (as in our LEU and Spencer's LEU) seem to reduce the nose down pitch when power is reduced. So, we are testing CG points moved closer to 25-30% to understand the effect on landing flare. |
| |
| John Steere | Bodacious, modified XL |
| CG is right where I want it, so it rotated nicely for the landing flair at an indicated 45-mph |
|
| |
| design intent for my CG range is 22% to 34% of chord, or a target of 28% ± 6%. The empty CG is at 28.05% of chord, and the fully loaded (5-gal of fuel, full oil, 187-lb. pilot, and removable instrument panel) is at 28.345% of chord, or 52.88% of the CG range |