Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Boeing 777 Flare difference with Forward CG and Aft CG

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Boeing 777 Flare difference with Forward CG and Aft CG

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 20th May 2017, 11:16
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing 777 Flare difference with Forward CG and Aft CG

Hello Everyone,

Anyone with expertise in aerodynamics out here? Can you please tell me how different the flare feels on a B777 with a forward CG (lets say 23%) and with an aft CG (lets say 35%)? Am looking for elevator response (quick vs sluggish) and similar. Thank you very much!

Best regards!
fighterkok is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 12:06
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: GA, USA
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 0
Received 23 Likes on 10 Posts
I don't fly a 777 but I'd like to think physics don't change with airplane type.
What I don't know if artificial 'feel' systems differentiate between forward and aft cg.
I would assume it 'feels' the same just aircraft response is slightly slower or faster.
B2N2 is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 14:14
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,555
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
1. Never noticed any difference,
2. Not an expert on FBW laws but given that the 777 is FBW I'm not sure you should notice any difference, certainly not a significant one.
wiggy is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 14:45
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: San Diego
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Forward CG is slightly more sluggish in pitch up. Think about the physics, for example, put a huge lead weight (or an obese pilot!) in the cockpit, then try to pitch up. The tail will need do apply more moment to the CG to raise the nose, requiring a greater tail deflection. Flare is a pitch up command, so the tail has to deflect more on the forward CG case. ... Fly-by-wire moves that tail fast so you may never notice the difference though.


Whats really interesting is the main gear sinks more during flare with a forward CG since the tail has to apply more downward force. (Non-minimum phase control.) This means you can slam the mains into the ground harder than usual if you flare late!
QuagmireAirlines is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 14:55
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GPS L INVALID
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Never noticed a difference whatsoever - the 777 is always tight as a drum and only needs small inputs in both pitch and roll
STBYRUD is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 15:04
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 997
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Get the book "Handling the big jets" by D.P. Davies.
gearlever is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 16:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That one's OK. I prefer "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by the recently deceased Robert Pirsig myself.
Amadis of Gaul is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 16:18
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If there is any difference, it is pretty small. But I would expect that the fly-by-wire designers have some sort of compensation system built into the software.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 17:10
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Edging towards 9000 hrs on all the 777 variants from 200 to 300 ULR. tbh I have never noticed a difference! Though the landing/flare characteristics between RR powered versions and GE90s is significant. Residual thrust, ground effect and wing span differences play a huge part.
My biggest issue is the controls oscillating in manual flight!!
alwayzinit is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 17:10
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you very much everybody for your constructive inputs!
fighterkok is offline  
Old 20th May 2017, 17:14
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sand pit
Age: 54
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have flown with Cg very forward, and very aft... very little difference and assume it has lot do do with fbw artificial feel?
The md-11 was a different airplane at extremely light vs heavy weights but 777 is very consistent at different weights and cg
casablanca is offline  
Old 22nd May 2017, 16:04
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
777 Pitch Control not a function of CG

The C*U pitch control law implemented on the 777 does not involve any adjustments as a function of airplane CG. During approach / landing column input generates a pitch rate (i.e., C*U) command. Near the ground the flare compensation function requires slight column pull to maintain pitch attitude such that pilot input during flare is nominally a pull until main gear touchdown followed by relaxing the pull to lower the nose gear.

The relatively consistent response across a range of CG values comes from C*U seeking to deliver the same pitch rate for a given column input regardless of CG.
FCeng84 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.