C of G Question
Thread Starter
C of G Question
To work out the aircraft's C of G, I need to know the arm of a
passenger seat with/without anyone sat in it.
I do the following. I remove the seat from the aircraft, and balance
it on a narrow piece of wood until it balances, ie it does not tip
forward or back. That is the C of G of the empty seat. I do the same
with someone sat in it. That is the C of G of an occupied seat.
I put the seat back in the aircraft, measure those positions from a
known aircraft station point and I have the arms for the seat empty
and occupied.
Is the above correct or a load of b******ks? The reason I ask is that
the figures I get are somewhat different to the company's figures.
passenger seat with/without anyone sat in it.
I do the following. I remove the seat from the aircraft, and balance
it on a narrow piece of wood until it balances, ie it does not tip
forward or back. That is the C of G of the empty seat. I do the same
with someone sat in it. That is the C of G of an occupied seat.
I put the seat back in the aircraft, measure those positions from a
known aircraft station point and I have the arms for the seat empty
and occupied.
Is the above correct or a load of b******ks? The reason I ask is that
the figures I get are somewhat different to the company's figures.
There are more than one way to skin this particular cat, but the method you've just described is a perfectly valid one, and so long as you've done it all sufficiently carefully, and have remembered to ensure that your measuring line from datum is horizontal in the flight attitude, I think it's absolutely correct.
G
G
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apple and Oranges
I think:
Your statements are correct (enough).
But the positions you are deriving like that are probably not what you are trying to find.
Subtly different but aren't you trying to find the:
1 Station of the empty seat
2 Station of a person when seated BUT NOT with a seat attached to him.
Your Station of person plus seat is not giving you the station of the person.
I presume you want to find the station of the person - so that you can then apply the assumption that any person sitting in the seat is at that station.
The 'person plus seat' station will lie between the seat station and the person station.
Question:
Does the 'Standard passenger' (male/european/onshore/shorthaul - for they are all different would you believe?) have a standard CG location.
(Just curious.... but does it actually matter?)
Your statements are correct (enough).
But the positions you are deriving like that are probably not what you are trying to find.
Subtly different but aren't you trying to find the:
1 Station of the empty seat
2 Station of a person when seated BUT NOT with a seat attached to him.
Your Station of person plus seat is not giving you the station of the person.
I presume you want to find the station of the person - so that you can then apply the assumption that any person sitting in the seat is at that station.
The 'person plus seat' station will lie between the seat station and the person station.
Question:
Does the 'Standard passenger' (male/european/onshore/shorthaul - for they are all different would you believe?) have a standard CG location.
(Just curious.... but does it actually matter?)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ISTM you're getting too picky. In most helicopters, the seats are in the ship when it's weighed, so you know the empty CG, & exactly where the seats are doesn't matter when they're empty. When you put pax in them, all you need is an approximation - are they leaning back, leaning forward, are they fat, or thin, are they full back in the seat or sitting on the edge with a lose belt? All you can do is get an approximate central location & go with that. In any case, the CG won't change appreciably, & there's nothing you can do about them moving anyway.
C of G.
MG
A good place to start would be the Flight Manual!!
A good place to start would be the Flight Manual!!
Thread Starter
Thanks for your replies guys which confirm that I am basically correct.
Sycamore: the FM is somewhat vague. Because the position of our seats is variable it gives the arm as: as reqd. Despite saying that the seats should be in acertain position for landing and take-off.
Qmax: because the seats can be moved around so much, we really need the arm of seat plus pax. Plus we use actual pax weights.
The arm and station points can be considered to be in the same plane. My figure is just over 6 inches further forward than the company's.
Sycamore: the FM is somewhat vague. Because the position of our seats is variable it gives the arm as: as reqd. Despite saying that the seats should be in acertain position for landing and take-off.
Qmax: because the seats can be moved around so much, we really need the arm of seat plus pax. Plus we use actual pax weights.
The arm and station points can be considered to be in the same plane. My figure is just over 6 inches further forward than the company's.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What type aircraft is this?
Do you mean the seat station is 6" different, or the aircraft CG is 6" different? 6" is a big difference in CG, but 6" difference in the station of the seat should have minimal effect on the actual CG.
Do you mean the seat station is 6" different, or the aircraft CG is 6" different? 6" is a big difference in CG, but 6" difference in the station of the seat should have minimal effect on the actual CG.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scone, NSW
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLS is right - in an S76, moving a 90kg pilot by 6 inches results in a cg change of only 0.1 inches.
So unless we are considering an R22 where the pilot can detect a cg change induced by the instructor moving his feet back off the pedals, a change of 6 inches in the arm won't make much difference. Are you talking about a BK or something bigger?
_______________________
Helicopters --- a triumph of science and technology over common sense.
So unless we are considering an R22 where the pilot can detect a cg change induced by the instructor moving his feet back off the pedals, a change of 6 inches in the arm won't make much difference. Are you talking about a BK or something bigger?
_______________________
Helicopters --- a triumph of science and technology over common sense.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Haggisland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience, moving an S76 Pilot by 6" can only be done by towing the aircraft 6" further away from the tea room. Or you could try moving his sticky buns a further 6" away in the cockpit, that should do the trick.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gem: "Qmax: because the seats can be moved around so much, we really need the arm of seat plus pax. Plus we use actual pax weights."
- so you need:
Seat station
And
Person station ... where Person Station=Seat Station + x"
(x might be minus 3)
(But I still can't see that it actually matters .... unless of course it actually does matter.)
- so you need:
Seat station
And
Person station ... where Person Station=Seat Station + x"
(x might be minus 3)
(But I still can't see that it actually matters .... unless of course it actually does matter.)
MG: serves you right! can of worms springs to mind. As discussed we went through this like a dose of salts 3 years ago. You have to accept the median because there are fat piggies and thin piggies
The important issue here is that the yellow line drawn across the floor boards in your aircraft, is in the correct place. Then the seats need to be positiioned around that to remain within C of G..
capiche
The important issue here is that the yellow line drawn across the floor boards in your aircraft, is in the correct place. Then the seats need to be positiioned around that to remain within C of G..
capiche
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mighty Gem,
The C of G is an approximation for all aircraft, since the critical flight maneuvers that establish the limits are based on flight tests where the cg naturally moves with fuel burn. For the S-76, we try to flight test within 1/2 inch for critical maneuvers, but 1 inch is allowed (out of a total range of 17 inches). We often start the tests 1 inch outside of the limit, and burn to 1 inch inside the limit. The 1 inch is therefore about 6% of total CG, quite within the common sense range of variability of flight maneuvers, considering all the things that influence the behavior of the craft.
I would take as a rule of thumb that 5% or so is the likely accuracy for CG determination, so take your aircraft's CG range and divide by 20 to yield the likely tolerance band for such variables as whether the pilot slouches in his seat, or if the fuel is 6.3 lbs/gal instead of 6.0, etc.
None of this should be construed as encouraging a lax attitude concerning limits, but rather as showing that basic rules of thumb are acceptable for the calculations that we all depend on.
The C of G is an approximation for all aircraft, since the critical flight maneuvers that establish the limits are based on flight tests where the cg naturally moves with fuel burn. For the S-76, we try to flight test within 1/2 inch for critical maneuvers, but 1 inch is allowed (out of a total range of 17 inches). We often start the tests 1 inch outside of the limit, and burn to 1 inch inside the limit. The 1 inch is therefore about 6% of total CG, quite within the common sense range of variability of flight maneuvers, considering all the things that influence the behavior of the craft.
I would take as a rule of thumb that 5% or so is the likely accuracy for CG determination, so take your aircraft's CG range and divide by 20 to yield the likely tolerance band for such variables as whether the pilot slouches in his seat, or if the fuel is 6.3 lbs/gal instead of 6.0, etc.
None of this should be construed as encouraging a lax attitude concerning limits, but rather as showing that basic rules of thumb are acceptable for the calculations that we all depend on.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kyrilian,
I'll bet Walsh put you up to that jibe! See if I recommend you for another job! The "1,11 Vne" film was fun, did you note the skinny test pilot and his mentor with the full head of dark hair?
Nick
PS It WAS a symetrical fuel loading, wasn't it?
I'll bet Walsh put you up to that jibe! See if I recommend you for another job! The "1,11 Vne" film was fun, did you note the skinny test pilot and his mentor with the full head of dark hair?
Nick
PS It WAS a symetrical fuel loading, wasn't it?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: WPB, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I told your other apprentice that I'd posted this he said this may be a record for the shortest career here! I hope not!
Washuta found it and showed it to us 'younger folk', though everyone enjoyed it. They said they poke fun because that line sounds staged in the way it's spoken, though it seems feasible.
Yeah, it was a neat film. And without putting myself in even more hot water, I'll admit that you guys do look a bit different.
Washuta found it and showed it to us 'younger folk', though everyone enjoyed it. They said they poke fun because that line sounds staged in the way it's spoken, though it seems feasible.
Yeah, it was a neat film. And without putting myself in even more hot water, I'll admit that you guys do look a bit different.
Last edited by Kyrilian; 10th Sep 2002 at 02:52.