Go Back   ExpressJet Forum > ExpressJet Pilots > Tech Talk

Tech Talk Post your technical questions here!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-11-2008, 11:13 PM   #11 (permalink)
RBower
Commercial
 
RBower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 350
RBower
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Luv View Post
8 is lower than 9... Just because 8 is the highest of the allowable take-off trim numbers doesn't mean it's high for the airplane. We really don't know. Also, where is it in the 8 region? The 8 is more than 1/2 the wheel, the 7 is another half, and the 6 is barley in there.

...I give up....
RBower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 12:32 AM   #12 (permalink)
kidicarus5897
Commercial
 
kidicarus5897's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SJC
Posts: 407
kidicarus5897 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

ok.........back to the origional question. anyone?
__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......
kidicarus5897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 12:49 AM   #13 (permalink)
schoolio
Commercial
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 359
schoolio is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus5897 View Post
Anyone know what the average tail-down force the horizontal stabilizer produces in cruise flight is?
If trimmed for level flight...

Enough.
schoolio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 01:50 AM   #14 (permalink)
Yariv
Commercial
 
Yariv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LAX/340/8
Posts: 712
Yariv is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus5897 View Post
I'm bored. Anyone know what the average tail-down force the horizontal stabilizer produces in cruise flight is? I say average because it varies with CG loading and speed. Or, I guess more specifically, how much does the down force change with a forward versus and aft CG in cruise flight?
I'm more bored than you. and I went to riddle.

here are the assumptions, I made up the numbers since I don't have the real ones:

airplane weight 48000 lbs
total lift produced in level flight 48000 lbs at the cg.
cp location 1 foot behind cg
tail cp location 49 feet behind cg

the forces at the cp (of the wing and of the tail) are creating torque around the cg. torque is force (weight or lift) times distance (from cg)
the two torques (lift and tail down) cancel each other (or else the nose would go up or down)

so:

lift produced at cp + lift produced at tail cp = lift at cg = 48000 lbs
cp torque - tail cp torque = 0

lift at cp = X lbs
torque at cp = X lbs x 1 ft = 1X ftlbs

lift at tail cp = Y lbs
since it's down force as opposed to (up) lift, it's -Y lbs
torque at tail cp = -Y lbs x 49 ft = -49Y ftlbs

all lifts add up to airplane weight
X lbs + (-Y) lbs = 48000 lbs
therefore Y = X-48000

the two torques cancel out
X+(-49Y)=0

substitute X-48000 for Y
X+(-49(X-48000))=0
X-49X+2352000=0
-48X=-2352000
X=2352000/48=49000

since X+Y=48000
Y=-1000

so the wing produces 49000 lbs, and the tail -1000 lbs, to lift the 48000 lbs plane at the cg. obviously since these numbers (the 1 ft and the 49 ft) aren't real, the result isn't either, but you can see the relationship between lift at the wing and down force at the tail is proportional to the distance from cg to cp and the distance from cg to tail cp, with both forces adding up to the weight of the airplane.

other notes:

trim for t/o is designed to give you somewhere between v2 and v2+15. you can try it! (but please don't except in the sim) it works regardless of how many engines are running.

concorde has a rear fuel tank because in supersonic flight the cp travels so far aft that full up trim isn't enough to counter the mach tuck, so instead the cg has to be moved aft and this is done by transferring fuel to the rear tank. this new cg would be too aft for subsonic flight. so this fuel has to be transferred back to the wings (it can't be burnt!) while slowing down.

still bored?
__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

Last edited by Yariv; 04-12-2008 at 02:09 AM.
Yariv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 09:24 AM   #15 (permalink)
NightIP
Commercial
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 454
NightIP is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacts View Post
Nigel: ...the numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board.
Marty: Ahh...oh, I see....
Nigel: Eleven...eleven...eleven....
Marty: ...and most of these amps go up to ten....
Nigel: Exactly.
Marty: Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see,
most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten
here...all the way up...all the way up....
Marty: Yeah....
Nigel: ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go
from there? Where?
Marty: I don't know....
Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over
the cliff...you know what we do?
Marty: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top...
number...and make that a little louder?
Nigel: ...these go to eleven.
Don't worry, the Spinal Tap reference wasn't lost on everyone.
NightIP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 11:51 AM   #16 (permalink)
D-Luv
Commercial
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 917
D-Luv is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBower View Post
...I give up....
CG @ 32% MAC is the most efficent loading of most swept wing airplanes, I don't know where that is on our airplane. Your reference to 8 up means little.

Last edited by D-Luv; 04-12-2008 at 11:56 AM.
D-Luv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 12:41 PM   #17 (permalink)
RBower
Commercial
 
RBower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 350
RBower
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Luv View Post
CG @ 32% MAC is the most efficent loading of most swept wing airplanes, I don't know where that is on our airplane. Your reference to 8 up means little.
Ok here we go:

1) We can only legally take off with the trim between 6 and 8 units.
2) With the trim at barely 6 up, our cg is at the aft limit takeoff.
3) An aft cg is the most efficient loading for the airplane, reducing tail down force during the whole flight.
4) Airplane burns less fuel than cg at full forward limit.

I cant help you any further than this.
RBower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 02:13 PM   #18 (permalink)
kidicarus5897
Commercial
 
kidicarus5897's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SJC
Posts: 407
kidicarus5897 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

So say we take off at 53131LBS in an XR, with Yariv's rough, albiet excellent example, we are actually flying a 54,131Lb (all must be carried by the wings) so where does this weight get put in? Obviously it is not an issue because the max weights we use are derrived from flight tests while experiencing the tail-down force.
__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......
kidicarus5897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 05:21 PM   #19 (permalink)
Yariv
Commercial
 
Yariv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LAX/340/8
Posts: 712
Yariv is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus5897 View Post
So say we take off at 53131LBS in an XR, with Yariv's rough, albiet excellent example, we are actually flying a 54,131Lb (all must be carried by the wings) so where does this weight get put in? Obviously it is not an issue because the max weights we use are derrived from flight tests while experiencing the tail-down force.
53131 replaces the 48000 in my example. the wing will have to produce enough lift to equal the 53131 plus the tail down force (which will be 1107 lbs.) for a total of 54238 lbs of lift. not a problem! airplane is certified for this. we don't have a published wing-loading limit.
__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake
Yariv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 07:39 PM   #20 (permalink)
kidicarus5897
Commercial
 
kidicarus5897's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SJC
Posts: 407
kidicarus5897 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yariv View Post
53131 replaces the 48000 in my example. the wing will have to produce enough lift to equal the 53131 plus the tail down force (which will be 1107 lbs.) for a total of 54238 lbs of lift. not a problem! airplane is certified for this. we don't have a published wing-loading limit.

We have a max allowable take-off weight of 53131 or 49823, which does not include the extra tail down force. Plus, when we calculate a runway, climb, brake or obsticle weight limit, that doesn't include the extra thousand pounds of effective tail down force the airplane feels.
__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......
kidicarus5897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.

 

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0