c/g vs. wing location
12-09-2004, 04:10 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: butternut,
WI
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c/g vs. wing location
Decided to design my own glider. After going back to school to learn about Reynolds number, L/D, tail volume coefficients, ad-nauseam. My last remaining question is about the c/g. If the numbers indicate a c/g of 38% mac is that location tied to the wings location on the fuselage or does it remain static with reasonable wing location changes?
12-09-2004, 06:17 PM
#2
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,425
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
RE: c/g vs. wing location
Because the CG location is based on the neutral point which is based on the tail volume coefficient then yeah. Moving the wing back and forth changes where the CG should be since the tail volume changes as well. If you mean up and down no that won't change things worth mentioning unless it gets extreme. And it can't get that extreme with any glider fuselage depth I can dream of.
12-09-2004, 07:00 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: butternut,
WI
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: c/g vs. wing location
Thanks Bruce,
That's kind of what I thought. But several threads I read confused the issue.
I'd love to post a GIF of a C/G locator chart I found. But RCU keeps telling me the 17k file is too large[:@]
That's kind of what I thought. But several threads I read confused the issue.
I'd love to post a GIF of a C/G locator chart I found. But RCU keeps telling me the 17k file is too large[:@]
12-09-2004, 08:22 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Anchorage,
AK
Posts: 2,565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-10-2004, 02:17 AM
#5
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,425
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
RE: c/g vs. wing location
Mike, I'm not sure what they are using to figure out the CG at the Palos site but it sure seems to be based on some generic tail volume sizing. There's nothing there to factor in the rest of the model and that is at least as important as what they DO show.
