"The reason is simple: with the CoG more aft the tailplane has less
"inverted lift" to produce, and this also reduces the load on the main
wings. So this reduces two times induced drag."
Hi Frans,
I might question the accuracy of the above assertion - (IMHO) The load on
the wing would be greater with the higher gross weight (with the additional
luggage), and thus the main wing's induced drag is greater - can't get
around that. The net drag savings from a more aft CG come purely from
the lower induced drag by the lower angle of incidence of the forward
trimmed tailplane, from which the drag savings must be greater than the
penalty of higher induced drag from the main wing.
Cheers,
Pete
A239
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Frans Veldman <frans@privatepilots.nl>
wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/09/2014 05:30 PM, Roland wrote:
>
> > I found out, that it makes quite a difference for measuring
> > performance and fuel consumption, if I'm solo on board or at MTOM.
>
> I always fly (at least) at MTOW. However what I found out is that the
> distribution of the weight has quite an impact on performance: the
> more aft, the less drag, and the better the performance.
> Hence when Ilona and I are going on vacation with a lot of lugage with
> us, the airplane is actually faster than when we are flying with just
> the seats occupied.
> The reason is simple: with the CoG more aft the tailplane has less
> "inverted lift" to produce, and this also reduces the load on the main
> wings. So this reduces two times induced drag.
> Indeed, while cruising in stable weather we often shift a few heavy
> things more aft in the bagage compartment, which is immediately
> rewarded by the need to trim a bit more forward, followed by a higher
> cruise speed.
>
> Another thing you need to be aware off is that it makes a difference
> whether you climbed up to that speed, or came down to that speed. So
> we often overshoot our intended altitude a bit, and after reaching a
> stabilized speed, we push her down to the desired altitude, and a
> higher speed is kept if you be cautious not to let that speed to be
> "climbed away" again.
>
> I know, we consider it some kind of sport to get the most out of our
> flying machine (or out of our precious fuel). It is worth a grin if
> you get a consistent 120 knots for 16 l/h.
>
> > Plus it's often not mentioned at which altitude the speed is
> > indicated. At least this (from my point of view) is important to
> > have comparable figures.
>
> IAS is IAS regardless of altitude as far as I can recall. Of course
> altitude has influence on ground speed, but that should never be used
> for performance comparisons.
>
> Frans
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUDybOAAoJEC+zXxqs0ZzVVlIP/1civE4VrK9mWLQuWih9pgyN
> 2UJmNjgPAtbfTr5acflJ+lrO1Hbg2fAdBqwtkJ639z74hSRY5Vdbdlb2Q1Pdb6Gq
> LqBr/iSoAJyWeJhBOn0BCdFkKZOg0meLzZCwzH/cBCI3jljdkGuctbV+VbU8Ny9s
> SQVXurcl9VOW1h0B8vz1D6HaoeCvOsu4oepMh6HzqHEzKg/vbwSLWDqCrlyZgYhn
> A3ypl9oHL6UmGEYLFqv0orW/fEnX608tZzQoCDqRpd/qwYcQizHbi6gCuFFG6mL9
> 0dt6LYNfr1Yta4k4CHQmXgBwUmc2/hY2brmQxv21aK5ylnPKRdZrSFsrt8fD5ntV
> mOXpjfiyEQNhl42C78YauQud880BOGXNdbnp/kyh/z2q2VF0xH05IX45LqUyLVGp
> j77/xQB47BwpCtunWFKZ7sXUoUYtMOiW9D9BIR6wzdQUkASlQDPA1mwfD2wu9lcz
> kf40OrDH8xwum1MgP6vFKu7RlzjOYmvwVCpqMq2zwFMG75Magf2JD8b7IiY5/khD
> mUS0KtepAGV8PKqQ3sVa0U5kqEq+yxAyZBnZu/MWhrTo+ZxhUmT2hLLfMd9YuK+u
> JigDIOd6nrlytzy9LlGWiyQ86FJNMdOSRZHgg2KB8KVIJtJ3sfnHvutzsbz8svMm
> ZhzkKinN0+L+YWfTHjpk
> =dtMN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
|