Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Results 1 to 15 of 15

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    palos park, IL
    Posts
    40
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    CG Calculation Differences

    Why is the Ideal CG so different between the Adamone and the Geistware calculators in the link at the the top of this forum? I put i the same wing/tail numbers and the Adamone Ideal CG at 15% statisc margin is 5.08 in. while the Gistware number is 5.49 in. My wing root is 17.25 in (tip 12.25); this seems to be a significanr difference. Which one should I use?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    All Day Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    MANHATTAN BEACH, CA
    Posts
    3,543

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    I've been using this one for years. It's right on with another method I use for a double check. Dan.
    http://www.geistware.com/rcmodeling/cg_calc.htm#mac
    Dan

  3. #3
    All Day Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    MANHATTAN BEACH, CA
    Posts
    3,543

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    Also, you may have your static margin and percent MAC set wrong. Dan.
    Dan

  4. #4
    Thud_Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Victorville, CA,
    Posts
    1,492
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences



    Last year when I wanted to put together my own spreadsheet for Cg, I looked at a lot of different implementations.  What I noticed was that there are a couple of effectiveness/efficiency coefficients buried in the equations that each author has used as his best guess.  They tend to be slightly different between all of them and so you get different answers.  If you go look up sources, you will get opinions of what they ought to be based on aircraft configurations, experience, theory, etc.    So each author has chosen what he thinks fits model aircraft best.

    I ended up using Adamone as my reference for crosschecks but they will all get you in the ballpark.  After that, you have to fly and test.


  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, JAMAICA
    Posts
    5,958
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    Would be interesting to hear more views on this topic so hopefully more folks will chime in.
    When inverted always remember that down is up and visa versa

  6. #6
    Lnewqban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,034
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences


    ORIGINAL: karolh

    Would be interesting to hear more views on this topic so hopefully more folks will chime in.
    I just verified both with different numbers and found out that the difference is in the location of the NP, which considers the moment introduced by the tail (it should be the same for both since it depends on tail area and fuse length).
    Lnewqban - "God will not look you over for medals, degrees or diplomas, but for scars. He has achieved success who has worked well, laughed often, and loved much." - Elbert Hubbard

  7. #7
    Thud_Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Victorville, CA,
    Posts
    1,492
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    If you look at Adamone's version, there is an entry for Stabilizer Efficiency.Viewing the source for the page around line 178 you can see the values applied for stab efficiency, i.e., .85 for Std, .65 for Low. Opinions vary about what value to use. A quick look at Geistware seems to indicate thathe uses .80 in his neutral point calculation.He also notes published references for his method.

    In IE, go to the View menu and click on Source to see the code.

  8. #8
    limeybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Rockwall, Tx, TX
    Posts
    965
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    Here's mine
    try it out

    limeybob

    Attached Files Attached Files
    Laser-Design-Services
    JetMach manufacturer

  9. #9
    All Day Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    MANHATTAN BEACH, CA
    Posts
    3,543

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    Limey, your Excel file does not open. Does RCU support .xls files? Dan.
    Dan

  10. #10
    limeybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Rockwall, Tx, TX
    Posts
    965
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    try, right click, save as link.
    limeybob
    Laser-Design-Services
    JetMach manufacturer

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    palos park, IL
    Posts
    40
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    Limeybob, I tried your worksheet and got a cg right in the middle of the adamore and geistware values with a 15% safety factor. Thanks for attachment, I will use it. What I like is that I can save a spreadsheet for each plane and always have it available for future reference. The links can'f be saved with the data.

  12. #12
    limeybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Rockwall, Tx, TX
    Posts
    965
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    OK, glad you like it.
    The neutral point is a tricky one, had to use three different formulae and average them.
    limeybob
    Laser-Design-Services
    JetMach manufacturer

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, JAMAICA
    Posts
    5,958
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    Hi LB,

    I tried using your formula but could not understand what the terms Tail Root Leading Edge and Tail Root Trailing Edge refers to.
    When inverted always remember that down is up and visa versa

  14. #14
    limeybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Rockwall, Tx, TX
    Posts
    965
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    dimensions "e" and "f" on the instruction page.
    limeybob
    Laser-Design-Services
    JetMach manufacturer

  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, JAMAICA
    Posts
    5,958
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: CG Calculation Differences

    Thanks
    When inverted always remember that down is up and visa versa


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:36 AM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.