Jump to content
pointpergame

Foreflight W&B Template?

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering if any of you CT fliers has created a Weight and Balance Template for any of the FD aircraft in Foreflight and if you'd be willing to share it?   Tnx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if any of you CT fliers has created a Weight and Balance Template for any of the FD aircraft in Foreflight and if you'd be willing to share it?   Tnx.

 

You will find W&B calcs are only needed when you put a lot of weight in the luggage areas > 20lbs or so.  Mostly you are limited by your Useful Load - (fuel + humans).  If you are close or over MTOW after you add fuel + people then you can't carry luggage anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi  Pointpergame,

 

There should be several here that can supply a W&B sheet.

 

Many years ago back in 2006 - 07 W&B was a huge discussion when the CT's were newer on the market and on a different forum. Most of us quit worrying about W&B when we figured out what it would take to get it out of CG. So long as you put weight where it was designed to go (seats and luggage compartment) and "don't have a little tiny 90 lb solo pilot or put lead in the tail (paraphrasing) you would have to try really hard to get a CT out of W&B. I have seen some pretty outlandish W&B setups in CT's over the years and they all fly fine and within the W&B curve on the charts. The CTSW's are capable of up to 55 lbs of weight in each side. This used to be posted on the plane. They are not sensitive to being overweight either. I'm not telling you this to do it, but to put your mind at ease. I know this out of 10 years experience with the CT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I greatly appreciate the info.   I'm working on a check out in a CT a few weeks from now.   Despite the assurances, I have to go through the exercise for myself.  A forefight template would be a convenient double check and save the tedium of a spreadsheet.   And if there were ever a Sec. 91.103 question, if would be comforting to know that I could whip out the Foreflight W&B page.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the neat things about the CT is they have a published empty weight CG range. If the airplane falls within the range you can not load it outside the CG range if you don't excede any of the published weight limits. Those limits are minimum seat weight one pilot 120 pounds, maximum seat weight 260 pounds x2, maximum baggage 110 pounds 55 each side, and of course gross weight of 1320. So if you don't excede any of those limits and are within gross weight, there is no need to do a complete weight and balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One of the neat things about the CT is they have a published empty weight CG range. If the airplane falls within the range you can not load it outside the CG range if you don't excede any of the published weight limits. Those limits are minimum seat weight one pilot 120 pounds, maximum seat weight 260 pounds x2, maximum baggage 110 pounds 55 each side, and of course gross weight of 1320. So if you don't excede any of those limits and are within gross weight, there is no need to do a complete weight and balance.

 

Acutally ballast is required for at least 1 condition.  I think its a light solo pilot with full fuel.

 

Also don't the envelopes vary?  I think mine is a simple shape where the above case would still work but other envelopes that move the forward limit aft or the aft limit forward as weight changes can require ballast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also don't the envelopes vary?

Not in my experience. They are published for a given aircraft model and are consistent for that model.

 

Though Lord knows, there may be exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would posit that every envelope is a little different, but are accounted for by the safety margins.

 

Still, you should only use your own W&B figures that came with the plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 post-6-0-26180500-1469054151_thumb.jpg

 

The CT owners that say you can't load out of range have their pants on fire.

 

Look at the envelope and notice that the forward most CG is at 1,000lbs and as weights go up or down the limit moves aft.  I put an X on the area where you can load, not overload yet be out of balance.

 

You can see it.  Start with full fuel 200lbs with a mere 11.8" arm.  Next station is pilot and passenger and we go with a little guy solo so at our first 2 stations we minimized the amount we moved the CG aft while increasing weight. 

 

The luggage has the long moment arm but for this flight we aint got none.

 

You do the math, this flight needs some bowling balls rolling around in the luggage to keep our cg within limits, no?

 

Notice its a bit self defeating with that sloping line for a limit.  You put another bowling ball in luggage and the CG moves aft but at the higher weight so does the limit.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

What's the harm in loading into this out of balance area?  Perhaps little/none or perhaps there is insufficient authority to raise your nose wheel to avoid contacting the runway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acutally ballast is required for at least 1 condition.  I think its a light solo pilot with full fuel.

 

Also don't the envelopes vary?  I think mine is a simple shape where the above case would still work but other envelopes that move the forward limit aft or the aft limit forward as weight changes can require ballast.

Did you read what I posted? There is a published minimum pilot weight, of IIRC 120 pounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read what I posted? There is a published minimum pilot weight, of IIRC 120 pounds.

 

So Martha Lunken couldn't solo a CT ( Last time I had reason to ask, she weighed 105 ) without a couple bowling balls in her flight bag.   Sort of funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read what I posted? There is a published minimum pilot weight, of IIRC 120 pounds.

 

120 pounds you say, first ss I found was Dick's lets use his:

 

post-6-0-67825400-1469075685_thumb.jpg

 

Guess you didn't read what I said?   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys were way wrong.

 

Our 120lb pilot just gained 60lbs and guess what?  Even 180lb pilot needs ballast with full fuel in Dick's plane.

 

Myth = falsified!  You cannot load a CT anyway you want without exceeding weight limits and always have your cg within limits.  

 

 

 

 

post-6-0-24826200-1469076088_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-6-0-08692800-1469076280_thumb.jpg

 

Dick,

 

Can that be right?  > 13.28 is correct only at 1 weight, right?

 

Don't you have an envelope like the one I posted above?

 

13.28 is correct at 998lbs if I read the chart right, as you get heavier or lighter that forward limit moves aft.

 

You could be out of limits and the SS would show you ok.  I think it is late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example where even a 200lb pilot can't just fill Dick's plane with fuel and be in blance.  (  Assuming Dick has an envelope as posted above )  

 

13.31 is greater than 13.28 but the limit goes back to almost 14" when you add 80lbs.

post-6-0-39767900-1469077080_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ed,

 

Tom is right about the published 120 lb solo pilot.

Even my helicopter had a 150 lb minimum weight or it would not auto rotate properly.

 

You were in that conversation back on the old forum when there were only 15 of us on it. Back about Dec. 2006. After all the discussions and calculations back then (and it was another long discussion) I haven't looked at a CT W&B chart to check.

 

Most here would be shocked at what I have seen come flying in for W&B. I have seen CT's almost fall on their tail when the pilot gets out it is so heavily packed in the luggage area or 300 lb. pilot and 245 passenger get out with full fuel and these CT's have 1200-1800 hrs. on them like that off and on. The gross weight can't be that critical because FD was willing to approve 1500 lbs. for a special need and the two Swiss pilots flew at 1645 lbs. with 120 gal of fuel and their luggage. Extra fuel in the wings and in the passenger seat. They weren't that balanced then. The CT is approved for floats up to 1430 lbs. Unless you have really flown with some of these weights and CG limits it's hard to just stand on a chart and say it's 100% correct and that even though they are old could use a little revamping.

Certainly some planes are sensitive to gross weight and W&B, but the CT is not. Most of us that fly them rarely ever calculate W&B because we know it isn't a factor under our NORMAL loading conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The gross weight can't be that critical because FD was willing to approve 1500 lbs. for a special need and the two Swiss pilots flew at 1645 lbs. with 120 gal of fuel and their luggage.

Certainly some planes are sensitive to gross weight and W&B, but the CT is not. Most of us that fly them rarely ever calculate W&B because we know it isn't a factor under our NORMAL loading conditions.

I have a longer post planned, but for now...

 

I encourage all pilots to consider gross weight limits as absolute and inviolable, unless blessed with a ferry permit allowing higher weight.

 

Regardless of some of the opinions expressed here, there is one time when you will find gross weight limits absolutely critical - if and when you ever have an accident or incident involving the FAA. Once the scales come out, your flying privileges going forward will be at risk.

 

Again, we're all adults here, so if anyone wishes to routinely fly a Light Sport over 1,320 lbs - and post about it - be my guest. Just be aware that that decision could someday suspend or terminate your flying career. It's up to you if it's worth the risk.

 

Again, look for a longer post on this topic some time in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ed,

 

Tom is right about the published 120 lb solo pilot.

 

 

 

So what?  You guys are still wrong, even a fat guy can load out of cg just by getting in with full fuel.

 

The 120 min makes no difference.

 

You shouldn't say you can't load out of balance, I just posted 3 examples of out of balance yet under gross weight and in range for each station.

 

And at least some of our spread sheets give us green results when we are not in the envelope.

 

BTW Roger, your example above is grossly out of blanance aft.  The way we can be out of balance yet under gross weight is out of balance forward.  We need pilot / passenger to get in to bring the weight aft into the envelope not forward like in your example.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I guess I'm wrong. From what I remember my old SW based on a spread sheet that a customer made up could not be loaded out of CG. In addition they must be using "empty weight CG range" in a different manner than what I remember it being taught back when I was in A&P school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is for thought provoking out of your box considerations and not as an absolute flight guide or game changer. It is to challenge what you think you know armed with only a chart and no real life testing experience.

 

 

"BTW Roger, your example above is grossly out of blanance aft.  The way we can be out of balance yet under gross weight is out of balance forward.  We need pilot / passenger to get in to bring the weight aft into the envelope not forward like in your example. "

 

Yet I know of one that has flown this way for 1200 hrs. at all altitudes, short runways, to Vne, terrible turbulence, recovers very well in full in-flight stalls and can land in winds to 35 knots (by the way published is 24 knts. Is this wrong too or just padded?). If the charts are absolutely correct then shouldn't there be an issue somewhere? On the old forum before CTLS models were around the existing charts made it very difficult to get them out of CG with normal loading as you may use on a day to day basis. This was beat to death back on the old forum.

What about the other CT pilot I know that weighs 175 lbs and loads his luggage area so heavy it almost falls on the ground when he gets out? It doesn't, but put a single finger on it and give a tiny push and it falls to the ground.

So are the charts wrong and need revamping? Could there be a safety margin built into the charts? I don't know?  What I do know is real life flights.

 

Several CT's fly this way a lot and they actually fly and land better many times. Don't ask me how I know.

Things like what is a CT's Vne (real Vne) or what was it really tested at for it's load rating? We all believe many times what people tell us, but that may be to just limit our options.

 

Anyone including Eddie (he's been there) ever been up to the Page Fly-In and seen me, my wife and bagge get out of the plane? Probably over a hundred people.  Anyone here ever see the two Gutmann's from Airtime Aviation get out of a CT? 

 

Absolutes to me are many times absolutely wrong because  a human did the work which is proven correct everyday in many people's lives. What we as an individual's believe as true may not be at all. It's just all that someone wanted you to know.  That's why I love research to prove  things can be done or why someone's thought process didn't extend out far enough. . 

 

Better not let NASA know you absolutely couldn't go into space back in the old days.

 

Here is another example of not taking things at face value. The Jabiru 250 was designed as a 4 place 1600 lb. aircraft. They wanted to get into the LSA market so the yanked the back seats and called it a large cargo area and said the weight now was 1320 lbs. Where does that put absolute charts for 1320?

 

FD was willing to give a variance for the CT to 1500 lbs and it let the swiss pilots fly it at 1645 lbs.with a variance.  Where is that absolute now.

Go look at the LOA approval list for FD on this forum. If things were always to be believed as absolutely correct why are there so many.?

 

Some people are happy in a safe comfort zone and some will always explore and check the limits to an existing or new idea.

 

Thank You Wright Brothers not believing we couldn't fly and checking our limits. Wonder what W&B chart they had? :)

 

This much info ---------------------------------- is not absolute because someone said so, there may be this much ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

 

If we truly believed what everyone told us when CT's came to the US and over the years, as an absolute why did so many things change from being challenged.

 

If things are absolutes why does ED want to put a different oil cooler on?

 

 

I'm not telling anyone to fly outside any chart spec or do anything that makes them uncomfortable. What I am saying is open your mind up to the possibility that there is more than the piece of paper in front of you. If all you have is that piece of paper vs the guy who not only has that paper and went out and tested all those numbers then he's most likely ahead of your argument against  and armed with more info.

 

So who is right? They both are  for me. One lives within the box and the other considers things outside the box.

 

Was a time you couldn't put a CT on floats in the US too. But....

 

Many pilots through history have challenged flight envelopes to prove the absolutely can't people wrong and change the way we look at things.

I abhor comfort zones, envelopes and not challenging existing ideas, it would make life boring. That said I have had to drag my wife kicking a screaming at times to challenge her phobias and fears, but what fun.

 

We would still be in caves if it weren't for someone always challenging what we THINK we know. We have what we have because someone didn't believe the last guy that said no you can't.

 

So:

So are the charts wrong and need revamping? Could there be a safety margin built into the charts? I still don't know. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read what I posted? There is a published minimum pilot weight, of IIRC 120 pounds.

 

My wife fly's the plane regularly solo (up until two weeks ago) and weighs 90lbs.  Remember, fuel weight varies widely and she always fly's with max fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife fly's the plane regularly solo (up until two weeks ago) and weighs 90lbs.  Remember, fuel weight varies widely and she always fly's with max fuel.

 

Its the max fuel that causes her balance problems requiring ballast to stay within the CG.  Low fuel fixes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamburger has a good example that falls off the chart. These are all original charts and they either need re-working or they have a fairly good cushion built in. 

I would rather someone re-work the W&B charts. I do recognise that the charts are also there to help make certain flight performance problems recoverable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the max fuel that causes her balance problems requiring ballast to stay within the CG.  Low fuel fixes that.

 

Her biggest complaint is in rough air she says she bounces around readily so we top her off before flights and she thinks that helps.  She hops off the runway (about 300 feet at 5500msl) and is able to land in the 'normal' config with 15 flaps and 62kts over the numbers even in slight cross wind.  We remembered seeing the min ballast and her first time up solo so we weighted the passenger seat with some dead weights but after over 100 hours flying in all conditions without the ballast it just a non issue.

 

The FD goes to her new home Monday (Bishop CA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×