Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Weight and Balance question

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jeffwill55(at)sbcglobal.n
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:37 am    Post subject: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

I am working on an initial weight and balance for my Europa XS and I was wondering how the baggage arm listed in the Europa manual came about.
Does anyone know, and is it worth thinking about?
Page 6-4 of The "XS Trigear Owners Manual”, Issue 7, January 2015, shows the arm for baggage at 88. The weight and balance arm measurements are taken starting at the rear of the joggle for the cowling, which is at Fuselage Station FS 29.25.

As I measure it, the bottom of the D-panel bulkhead at the back of the baggage area is at 94.5” aft of the joggle, which is FS 103.75. A typical carry-on bag is 23 inches tall, and I expect the CG for that in the aircraft would be about at the mid-point, or 11.5 inches forward of the base of the D panel bulkhead.

The result of 103.75 - 11.50 is an arm of 92.25, not 88.

Six and a half (6.5) inches in the baggage arm does make a difference with full bags loaded onboard. And CG calculations do need to be based on what I are putting on board and where those things are actually located.

However, I expect using 88 is close enough - unless it looks like I am getting close to the limits, which I would think should be seldom, if ever.

Right?

Regards,

Jeff Williams


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
Back to top
Remi Guerner



Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

Jeff,
That is a good point. I have always used 94" for the bagage, as I do think the 88" figure is wrong for the XS bagage bay.
Remi
F-PGKL


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter jeffers



Joined: 24 Aug 2020
Posts: 20
Location: hp143hr

PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:17 am    Post subject: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

Hi Jeffrey,

Whatever the rights and wrongs of your email  may be, the 88 ins WAS the correct figure for the original classic mono prior to the baggage bay extension mod (I have forgotten the no of this mod). Your figure of 92.25" may be more correct but 88" remains in the book.

Pete J  ( LAA inspector rep to the Europa Club)

From: owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-europa-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Williams
Sent: 04 April 2021 16:37
To: Europa-List Digest Server
Subject: Weight and Balance question

I am working on an initial weight and balance for my Europa XS and I was wondering how the baggage arm listed in the Europa manual came about.


Does anyone know, and is it worth thinking about?


Page 6-4 of The "XS Trigear Owners Manual”, Issue 7, January 2015, shows the arm for baggage at 88. The weight and balance arm measurements are taken starting at the rear of the joggle for the cowling, which is at Fuselage Station FS 29.25.



As I measure it, the bottom of the D-panel bulkhead at the back of the baggage area is at 94.5” aft of the joggle, which is FS 103.75. A typical carry-on bag is 23 inches tall, and I expect the CG for that in the aircraft would be about at the mid-point, or 11.5 inches forward of the base of the D panel bulkhead.



The result of 103.75 - 11.50 is an arm of 92.25, not 88.



Six and a half (6.5) inches in the baggage arm does make a difference with full bags loaded onboard. And CG calculations do need to be based on what I are putting on board and where those things are actually located.



However, I expect using 88 is close enough - unless it looks like I am getting close to the limits, which I would think should be seldom, if ever.



Right?



Regards,



Jeff Williams








Virus-free. www.avg.com


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List

_________________
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
kingsnjan(at)westnet.com.
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:51 am    Post subject: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

Hello Jeff,

FWIW, when I did the W&B on my Mono Classic I calculated the moment arms for both the forward and rear sections of the extended baggage bay.
For the calculations, I used a 20.5 kg bag of wild bird seed as I considered this to be a good way to spread the load.
In the forward section the bag was stood vertically. Calculated arm was 84.33”
In the rear section, the bag was placed flat across the aircraft and pushed as far back as possible. Calculated arm was 96.26”
Best regards
Kingsley in Oz

Sent from my iPhone

Quote:
On 5 Apr 2021, at 1:44 am, Jeffrey Williams <jeffwill55(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I am working on an initial weight and balance for my Europa XS and I was wondering how the baggage arm listed in the Europa manual came about.
Does anyone know, and is it worth thinking about?
Page 6-4 of The "XS Trigear Owners Manual”, Issue 7, January 2015, shows the arm for baggage at 88. The weight and balance arm measurements are taken starting at the rear of the joggle for the cowling, which is at Fuselage Station FS 29.25.

As I measure it, the bottom of the D-panel bulkhead at the back of the baggage area is at 94.5” aft of the joggle, which is FS 103.75. A typical carry-on bag is 23 inches tall, and I expect the CG for that in the aircraft would be about at the mid-point, or 11.5 inchesforward of the base of the D panel bulkhead.

The result of 103.75 - 11.50 is an arm of 92.25, not 88.

Six and a half (6.5) inches in the baggage arm does make a difference with full bags loaded onboard. And CG calculations do need to be based on what I are putting on board and where those things are actually located.

However, I expect using 88 is close enough - unless it looks like I am getting close to the limits, which I would think should be seldom, if ever.

Right?

Regards,

Jeff Williams








- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
Back to top
Duncan McFadyean



Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Posts: 218

PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:30 am    Post subject: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

Priceless information.
Duncan Mcf.
do not archive.
Quote:
On 05 April 2021 at 11:50 Kingsley Hurst <kingsnjan(at)westnet.com.au> wrote:

Hello Jeff,

FWIW, when I did the W&B on my Mono Classic I calculated the moment arms for both the forward and rear sections of the extended baggage bay.


For the calculations, I used a 20.5 kg bag of wild bird seed as I considered this to be a good way to spread the load.


In the forward section the bag was stood vertically. Calculated arm was 84.33”
In the rear section, the bag was placed flat across the aircraft and pushed as far back as possible. Calculated arm was 96.26”


Best regards
Kingsley in Oz

Sent from my iPhone

Quote:
On 5 Apr 2021, at 1:44 am, Jeffrey Williams <jeffwill55(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I am working on an initial weight and balance for my Europa XS and I was wondering how the baggage arm listed in the Europa manual came about.
Does anyone know, and is it worth thinking about?
Page 6-4 of The "XS Trigear Owners Manual”, Issue 7, January 2015, shows the arm for baggage at 88. The weight and balance arm measurements are taken starting at the rear of the joggle for the cowling, which is at Fuselage Station FS 29.25.

As I measure it, the bottom of the D-panel bulkhead at the back of the baggage area is at 94.5” aft of the joggle, which is FS 103.75. A typical carry-on bag is 23 inches tall, and I expect the CG for that in the aircraft would be about at the mid-point, or 11.5 inches forward of the base of the D panel bulkhead.

The result of 103.75 - 11.50 is an arm of 92.25, not 88.

Six and a half (6.5) inches in the baggage arm does make a difference with full bags loaded onboard. And CG calculations do need to be based on what I are putting on board and where those things are actually located.

However, I expect using 88 is close enough - unless it looks like I am getting close to the limits, which I would think should be seldom, if ever.

Right?

Regards,

Jeff Williams












- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Wighton



Joined: 18 May 2010
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:20 am    Post subject: Re: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

Gentlemen (and Ladies, if present),

All this discussion on CG moment arm made my weekend, an absolute hoot from start to finish (is it finished yet?). This is not helped by the rather cack-handed approach prescribed in the POH.

A reasonably common piece of data in this thread is the location of the datum. But even that may vary depending on who/how weighed/measured the aircraft - treat this as a variable across the fleet, but a constant for your aeroplane. Any calculation of W&B needs to use the actual mass as measured and the actual moment arm as measured.

Weigh the item (you, pax, the dog, grannies apple pie or your bag of birdseed). Use that data in a spreadsheet.

Link: http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Weight%20and%20balance/w_and_b_main.html

Skydemon also provides a very nice W&B calculator (it is legally necessary to do this for EVERY flight), which makes it easy-peazy.

The moment arm I use for baggage is a measurement to the centre of the bay. However, the Europa Aircraft method of establishing the FS 0.0 datum is a comedy. A position 29.25" fwd of the "Rear of joggle for cowling in fuselage moulding" needs to be marked.

This is totally unnecessary - the cowling to fuselage joint is as good a datum as any. It requires all moment arms forward of it to be given a negative sign (for the initial W&B calculation and any subsequent firewall forward mods) and all those aft of it to be positive.

Just measure along the horizontal fuselage datum WL (level sill can be used as per POH) to the FS of the item to be measured.

Attached is an extract from the POH (note the depicted Trigear also has a secreted mainwheel protruding from the fuselage!).


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List



Europa_W&B.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  237.7 KB
 Viewed:  3961 Time(s)

Europa_W&B.jpg



_________________
John Wighton
Europa XS trigear G-IPOD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JohnFrance



Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Posts: 77
Location: Grenoble France

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:18 am    Post subject: Re: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

John,
Weight and balance is an interesting subject and everyone has their opinion on what’s best.
While a datum of 29,25 forward of the joggle might seem strange initially, it could have been 30” or any other number forward of the entire aircraft. This simplifies the calculation by only having to deal with positive number and thus reducing the likelihood of errors when calculating.
The 2 examples I found in the LAA document you gave a link to showed a Cloudpusher aircraft with the datum 3191mm forward of the C of G which put it on the nose of the aircraft and a Sportster with the datum 70” in front of the leading edge, a small distance in front of the aircraft.

I don’t think Ivan or Andy were far off the mark, or maybe 0,75” for a whole number. 😁


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List

_________________
Europa mono Nr 192
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dave Disney



Joined: 16 Aug 2010
Posts: 54
Location: Weston-Super-Mare

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:43 am    Post subject: Re: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

As a matter of interest, has anyone recorded the station points for the various bulkheads in the Europa such as 'front of seats', 'seats rear vertical face', 'forward face of baggage bay', 'aft face of baggage well', etc?

- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kingsnjan(at)westnet.com.
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:37 am    Post subject: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote


Quote:
On 7 Apr 2021, at 7:25 pm, JohnFrance <77alembert(at)gmail.com> wrote:

While a datum of 29,25 forward of the joggle might seem strange initially, it could have been 30” or any other number ......

Whilst it is true any position can be chosen, there is a very valid and logical reason why the reference point was chosen to be 29.25” forward of the joggle.
The reference point FS 0.00 for the original Classic was the forward face of the engine cowl behind the spinner. This position corresponds to 29.25” forward of the joggle on the Classic and the XS. The front face of the cowl on the XS is further forward to accommodate the relocated engine position on the XS.
Over and out
Kingsley in Oz.


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
Back to top
Peter jeffers



Joined: 24 Aug 2020
Posts: 20
Location: hp143hr

PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:48 am    Post subject: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

Hi John,
Stupid you may call the position of the zero datum but the reason is mostly
historical, very practical and it standardises critical numbers like CG
positions across our fleet of Classics, XS's & motor gliders.
Taken in order the history started with the Classic where zero datum was the
front of the engine cowl. It was at this time also considered logical for
the sake of non mathematicians to keep all figures positive and not confuse
the issue with negative numbers. You don't have to look very far to find
stupid errors in critical calculations caused by deliberately introducing
negative moments.
As the XS nose was extended slightly further forward it was sensible to
leave zero datum as was. Hence the 29 3/4" point on ALL marks of Europa is
where the front of the engine cowl would have been had it been a classic.
This means, and this is important, that the CG limits and fuel tank pilot
passenger and baggage load points for all marks are consistent. It all makes
for less risk of confusion and error.
Had the first type of Europa to be produced been an XS then zero datum would
probably have been a quite different location.
Pete J
PS There may be good reason to change the baggage station of 88 ins to a
more realistic figure in light of the fact that this figure is still the
same as was applicable prior to the extended baggage bay mod.

--


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List

_________________
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
budyerly@msn.com



Joined: 05 Oct 2019
Posts: 280
Location: Florida USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:15 am    Post subject: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

Well said Pete.
It may be worth the research and time to do the aft CG flight tests to see if extension of the rear limit is possible. Andy may be the best guy to go to.
Story time:
Years ago, after Sun 'n Fun, Andy and I flew, and we discussed for a moment the extended baggage bay and gear placement when loading. Unfortunately, our discussion was abruptly ended by the Former President of Europa Aircraft, Keith Wilson, who said "We spun tested and inch past the CG so who cares, we need to go." What a nice guy.

When loading for my first long cross country with my Classic (XS cowl and FWF and Extended baggage that was home made but nearly exact except for the size of the access holes) I loaded as follows:
With two bags (20" airline roll around at 15 pounds each planned but really 20 pounds) 10 pounds of tools and oil in the trigear bracing, flight bag at 10 pounds, kids toys, hair curlers and essentials, and full fuel (new fuel tank and filled to the neck), I computed the weight in the rear at right at 80 pounds (or so, as I only was figuring 50). My gear legs are at 70 inches so all was fine until I pushed the tail down and the angle changed. Thud, the plane hit on the tail tie down and stayed there with no one in the seats. A recalculation of the "needed" baggage and its placement was made.

The weight and balance was computed based on the short 88 inches from the POH which I knew was a stretch. Bags were arranged hard at the tank as was the tool bag and oil tucked in the X bracing of the trigear wells. Flight bag was held on top of the roll arounds under my baggage net. Kids toys and hair care essentials went at the aft bulkhead and I computed the weight and arm to be 62.5. It was the fuel that surprised me. The new tank held a full 20 gallons to the top of my trigear neck not 18, why the difference I didn't measure but the fuel was carefully checked and found to be 76 inches on the average from full to empty. A trigear sitting level can pack a few more cubic inches in I guess. A new recalculation of the weight and balance was made based on the fuel weight of the new tank and plumbing. My scales were giving me trouble, and it took a couple of days. Not much of a CG change, but still my assumptions were not accurate. I needed to measure and weigh both airplane and bags and their placement then test.

Of course, the Europa flew fine but the nose was just as I found in flight testing at the full aft CG limit, just a little lighter in pitch on takeoff and damping in flight was still superb because of the well designed tail.

It would be prudent to measure back from the joggle and recompute when planning your load in any aircraft then recompute via the 29.25" and do the calculations for full fuel and landing fuel. The Cherokee Six is one that scares the heck out of me as does the Cessna 207 when I see guys loading them willy nilly with large passengers and heavy bags.

Trust no one, verify, measure and weigh. Don't arbitrarily build an intentionally nose heave A.P.S for load as landing and approach light weight with two full sized guys is a bit nose heavy in the flare. Building tail heavy for two 250 pound pilots is not prudent either for flying solo with baggage. Do the measurements and calculate. It's just math. Then compute your CG for many loadings and test carefully. I learned when converting a Zenith 601 for a very large individual (275 pounder) required me to actually weigh the aircraft with him in it and a second pilot with and without fuel (tank is at the firewall and in the wings) to get a handle on his loading restrictions. That was my first eye opener on these small aircraft. If you stepped on the Zeniths aft mounted step to get in the plane with him in it and full fuel, the plane fell on its butt and damaged the rudder. What a lesson. I was delighted with the compact arrangement of the Europa for CG control.

Within the CG limits and especially from 59-62.5 inches I find the Europa delightful. Make sure stab throws are near the max for assured control. Follow prudent testing when near the limits of the CG. I find full forward CG to require a slightly faster round out if the stab is only 12 degrees up travel, and I find it more comfortable to carry 5 more knots in my aircraft if at the full forward CG. I moved the battery to the rear when I added the Airmaster and have never looked back. APS is right at 59 for N12AY.

I keep an electronic fish scale (good to 25 pounds) and a tape measure handy when carrying props and things in the Europa that are heavy/bulky. Sometimes when solo, I strap heavy props and things in the seat next to me.
In your computations for your POH include the various loading extremes of max forward/aft possible, two pilot, fully loaded for cross country with full fuel and landing fuel. It is just math. I do mine on Excel for neatness and my Avare flight planning program now has the data for XC use. The POH is in the aircraft with the actual fore and aft limitations on loading and my phone has EVERY manual loaded on the cloud and the data card for the airplane and its equipment.

If you are building an airplane and watching TV at night, change your priorities and do the research on every component in your aircraft, and for CG that means loading assumptions too. YOU are the manufacturer and therefore responsible for the safety of your aircraft, documentation, flight restrictions and operational limitations. Oh by the way, stay flight proficient and married at the same time. Aircraft builders are busy people.

Best Regards
Bud Yerly



--


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
wdaniell.longport(at)gmai
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:54 am    Post subject: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

When I flew from Colombia to USA I strapped the aux tank to the trigear
cross bar snug up against the rear of the main tank. The aux tank and
transfer pump weighs 16 lbs and holds 10 gals. I made a sort of bath tub
to hold the turtle pac bladder precisely to concentrate the weight as far
forward as possible, even so from the center of the main tank to the center
of the aux tank is 11 inches suggesting the arm of the POH 88 is about
right. Another 10 lbs of tools went under the seats and we had 10lbs of
ipads handheld radio batteries and liferaft.. We had 5lbs each of T shirts
and underwear which went behind the aux tank in the baggage bay.

Lbs arm moment
Front 177.00 15.00 2,655.00
Right 385.00 70.80 27,258.00
Left 385.00 70.80 27,258.00
APS 947.00 60.37 57,171.00
tools Maps GPS headset etc 20.00 56.00 1,120.00
Pilot 200.00 56.00 11,200.00
Pax 200.00 56.00 11,200.00
Baggage 10.00 88.00 880.00
Aux fuel tank weight 16.28 88.00 16.28
Subtotal 1,393.28 58.56 81,587.28
fuel 108.00 76.00 8,208.00
Aux fuel 60.00 88.00 5,280.00
1,561.28 60.90 95,075.28
MTOW 1450
Available -111.28

William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:19 AM Bud Yerly <budyerly(at)msn.com> wrote:

[quote] Well said Pete.

It may be worth the research and time to do the aft CG flight tests to see
if extension of the rear limit is possible. Andy may be the best guy to
go to.

*Story time:*

Years ago, after Sun 'n Fun, Andy and I flew, and we discussed for a
moment the extended baggage bay and gear placement when loading. Unfortunately,
our discussion was abruptly ended by the Former President of Europa
Aircraft, Keith Wilson, who said "We spun tested and inch past the CG so
who cares, we need to go." What a nice guy.

When loading for my first long cross country with my Classic (XS cowl and
FWF and Extended baggage that was home made but nearly exact except for the
size of the access holes) I loaded as follows:

With two bags (20" airline roll around at 15 pounds each planned but
really 20 pounds) 10 pounds of tools and oil in the trigear bracing, flight
bag at 10 pounds, kids toys, hair curlers and essentials, and full fuel
(new fuel tank and filled to the neck), I computed the weight in the rear
at right at 80 pounds (or so, as I only was figuring 50). My gear legs
are at 70 inches so all was fine until I pushed the tail down and the
angle changed. Thud, the plane hit on the tail tie down and stayed there
with no one in the seats. A recalculation of the "needed" baggage and
its placement was made.

The weight and balance was computed based on the short 88 inches from the
POH which I knew was a stretch. Bags were arranged hard at the tank as
was the tool bag and oil tucked in the X bracing of the trigear wells. Flight
bag was held on top of the roll arounds under my baggage net. Kids toys
and hair care essentials went at the aft bulkhead and I computed the weight
and arm to be 62.5. It was the fuel that surprised me. The new tank
held a full 20 gallons to the top of my trigear neck not 18, why the
difference I didn't measure but the fuel was carefully checked and found to
be 76 inches on the average from full to empty. A trigear sitting level
can pack a few more cubic inches in I guess. A new recalculation of the
weight and balance was made based on the fuel weight of the new tank and
plumbing. My scales were giving me trouble, and it took a couple of days


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
Back to top
John Wighton



Joined: 18 May 2010
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:08 am    Post subject: Re: Weight and Balance question Reply with quote

Response to Pete and others.

Clearly the existing system is faultless - that is why so many people are confused and key moment arms are simply wrong. Including, most likely, the baggage bay moment arm published for 20+ years in the POH!

Say no more.


- The Matronics Europa-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List

_________________
John Wighton
Europa XS trigear G-IPOD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group