RE: Pietenpol-List: Michael Cuy's Weight & Balance---please see attachment
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 2:09 pm
Original Posted By: gboothe5(at)comcast.net
Thanks for the clarification. I know how it is messing around with 'what ifs' in the spreadsheet.Yet my basic question remains. What justifications do others use to deviate from the original plans numbers? I see a lot of TLAR (That Looks About Right) reasons. I suspect that=2C as I do=2C everyone needs a bit more useful load available. I have found a variety of numbers in the archives=2C but not much justification in their use.I found a rib strength analysis by Jack Phillips from 2005. I'm going to do some similar arithmetic for the spars to see if I can come up with a reasonable number for max gross weight of the airplane based upon strength (not performance) of the wing.If someone else has already done this=2C I'd appreciate the input.Lorenzo
Thanks for the clarification. I know how it is messing around with 'what ifs' in the spreadsheet.Yet my basic question remains. What justifications do others use to deviate from the original plans numbers? I see a lot of TLAR (That Looks About Right) reasons. I suspect that=2C as I do=2C everyone needs a bit more useful load available. I have found a variety of numbers in the archives=2C but not much justification in their use.I found a rib strength analysis by Jack Phillips from 2005. I'm going to do some similar arithmetic for the spars to see if I can come up with a reasonable number for max gross weight of the airplane based upon strength (not performance) of the wing.If someone else has already done this=2C I'd appreciate the input.Lorenzo