Forward vs Aft CG and Cruise Speed/Efficiency

flyingcheesehead said:
What is the "total moment" you're speaking of here? Same as "basic airplane moment" above? Or just the sum forces on the entire aircraft? (or both?)
Click to expand...
The sum of the moments. Net non-zero moment causes pitch acceleration.

flyingcheesehead said:
So, at a particular airspeed, a particular force on the yoke will cause a particular deflection and a particular change in down force.
Click to expand...
At a particular dynamic pressure and local AOA (at the tail) a particular yoke *deflection* will cause a particular *elevator* deflection and a particular change in *force* (up or down) provided by the tail. You can basically substitute force for deflection if you prefer, but I tend to think of stability as defined by the deflection characteristics and handling qualities defined by force characteristics with some contribution by deflection.

flyingcheesehead said:
(Lower airspeed, same yoke force will be higher deflection but same change in downforce, right?)
Click to expand...
Close enough.

flyingcheesehead said:
The change in downforce will create a torque around the CG of the airplane. As the CG moves aft, the arm decreases and thus the torque around the CG is lower. Is the reason for the change simply that the change in downforce is a higher proportion of the total downforce when we have an aft CG?
Click to expand...

I'm going to throw the math card. Think of an airplane with the cg at location 0 and the center of lift at location X and the tail at location 10X. There's a base pitching moment, constant with angle of attack, of every airfoil, although it may be zero for some. Call it M0, call the wing lift LW and the tail force LT. The moment of the wing lift is LW * X and the moment of the tail lift is LT * 10X. If the CG moves closer to the center of lift by 10% the lift based moment will be LW * 0.9X, a 10% reduction in moment, but the moment at the tail will be LT * 9.9X, a 1% reduction in moment. Since the wing-lift induced moment moment is reduced by a significantly larger amount the tail becomes that much more effective as the CG moves aft. Not because the pure tail moment is increasing, but that the moment it's working against (or supplementing) is decreasing, even if the "downforce" is the same.

ETA: In this example since Wing lift moment decreases the tail lift (downforce) to compensate can decrease as well, meaning there is less induced drag produced by the tail - this is the basis for trim drag reduction.

Now, about that downforce. Look back at M0, the base pitching moment. If that is zero, then you've got the last situation I described. If it's zero or in the nose-down direction (which is positive by stability&control convention) then for any positive lift (up, like in level flight) the tail will always be providing a downforce for trim. It may produce 'upforce' when maneuvering nose-down, but that's a bit out of scope here - just consider that with nose-down M0 the tail will have a downforce.

However...

Adding camber or other clever shaping can tailor the base pitching moment, and it's fairly easy to get a mostly conventional airfoil with a nose *up* base pitching moment. What that means is that with the CG ahead of the center of lift the base pitching moment is counter to the lift-induced moment. It is possible to tailor the airfoil such that at some design condition the base nose-up moment is equal and opposite the nose-down lift-induced moment at, say, cruise condition, meaning there is zero force required at the tail to trim. The CG still has to be ahead of the center of lift to provide stability when you're off-condition or maneuvering, but you can minimize drag at the design condition with no induced drag at the tail and let a high-aspect wing generate *all* of the lift, not farming it out to a lower aspect ratio (less efficient) lifting tail or canard. If you miss your design condition and still have to deflect the elevator to trim, doing it with a long moment arm out the back results in less up- or downforce to trim, reducing induced drag. This is why almost all mass-produced airplanes where L/D is king (think gliders and commercial transports) have conventional layouts with long tails instead of canards.

Nauga,
who says, "It's all Geek to me."
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Negative. Pitch attitude will be the same for any combination of *wing lift* and airspeed. More forward CG requires a higher AoA because you have to generate more lift with the wing to cancel out the increased tail down force.
Click to expand...
That is true, but the difference would be small.

In flight, that R182 has an attitude like this:

1732126082152.png


How much more nose-up would it take to make those wheel wells start scooping air?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
What are you calling trim.....and trim drag?
Click to expand...

It is well known that aircraft stall speed varies with CG. Is that a result of trim drag?

While there are some trim drag changes, changes to induced drag is the primary factor with increased efficiency with aft loadings.

If you don’t believe it, load an aircraft at 2 different weights and the same CG and see which is faster.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
It is well known that aircraft stall speed varies with CG. Is that a result of trim drag?

While there are some trim drag changes, changes to induced drag is the primary factor with increased efficiency with aft loadings.

If you don’t believe it, load an aircraft at 2 different weights and the same CG and see which is faster.
Click to expand...
Interesting....here I thought lift was a function of angle of attack?:eek:

1732198005526.gif
:eek:
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
Interesting....here I thought stall speed was a function of angle of attack?:eek:
Click to expand...
Stall speed is a function of a lot of things.

But stall speed varies with angle of attack? Does that even make sense?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Old wives' tale, though you can make some observations that would seem to support the theory.
Click to expand...

As with most myths/Old wives tales there is an element of truth to it with airplanes with laminar airfoils (Mooney's, and others). Most have an area of l/d called the drag bucket (see example image below), is fairly obvious why they call it a drag bucket.

If you get into a situation where you don't have quite enough power to get into the drag bucket area, then a short climb followed by a descent can get you into the drag bucket area. But this only works if you have enough power to stay in the drag bucket and maintain the few extra knots of speed. So another way of saying it is the higher drag outside the bucket prevents you from getting into it, but once in it the lower drag can let you stay in the bucket.

The problem is this is a pretty specific scenerio and depends on the weight of the aircraft. If lighter the plane will just power itself into the bucket area anyway, if heavier you might be able to get into the bucket but won't have enough power to stay there. This is why some airplanes get significantly slower when you load them up.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL


1732201441939.png
 
Clip4 said:
It is well known that aircraft stall speed varies with CG.
Click to expand...

First of all, let's be careful with the word "stall speed" (some people suggest we should not even use the term). An airfoil stalls when the relative air is beyond the critical angle of attack, not below at a certain speed. Now, when we talk about 1g unaccelerated straight flight, at a given weight and configuration, there is a calibrated airspeed at which that critical angle of attack is reached. The slower we fly, the higher lift coefficient needs to be to still create the right amount of lift to offset the downward forces, and we can increase the lift coefficient by increasing the angle of attack - but only up to a point (i.e. the critical angle of attack).

If that's the speed we call "stall speed", then moving the CG to the rear does in fact decrease stall speed. The reason is that the downward forces from the tail decrease, so even though weight remains constant, the total downward force is reduced, and thus less lift is needed. That reduced amount of lift can be created by the wing (at the critical angle of attack) at a slower airspeed than larger amount of lift needed when flying with the forward CG, all else being equal.

- Martin
 
nauga said:
The sum of the moments. Net non-zero moment causes pitch acceleration.
Click to expand...
So, moments around the CG. Got it.
nauga said:
At a particular dynamic pressure and local AOA (at the tail) a particular yoke *deflection* will cause a particular *elevator* deflection and a particular change in *force* (up or down) provided by the tail.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that. Doh. <facepalm>
nauga said:
I'm going to throw the math card. Think of an airplane with the cg at location 0 and the center of lift at location X and the tail at location 10X. There's a base pitching moment, constant with angle of attack, of every airfoil, although it may be zero for some. Call it M0, call the wing lift LW and the tail force LT. The moment of the wing lift is LW * X and the moment of the tail lift is LT * 10X. If the CG moves closer to the center of lift by 10% the lift based moment will be LW * 0.9X, a 10% reduction in moment, but the moment at the tail will be LT * 9.9X, a 1% reduction in moment. Since the wing-lift induced moment moment is reduced by a significantly larger amount the tail becomes that much more effective as the CG moves aft. Not because the pure tail moment is increasing, but that the moment it's working against (or supplementing) is decreasing, even if the "downforce" is the same.
Click to expand...
Now that you threw the math card, it makes perfect sense. Thanks!
 
Martin Pauly said:
First of all, let's be careful with the word "stall speed" (some people suggest we should not even use the term). An airfoil stalls when the relative air is beyond the critical angle of attack, not below at a certain speed. Now, when we talk about 1g unaccelerated straight flight, at a given weight and configuration, there is a calibrated airspeed at which that critical angle of attack is reached. The slower we fly, the higher lift coefficient needs to be to still create the right amount of lift to offset the downward forces, and we can increase the lift coefficient by increasing the angle of attack - but only up to a point (i.e. the critical angle of attack).

If that's the speed we call "stall speed", then moving the CG to the rear does in fact decrease stall speed. The reason is that the downward forces from the tail decrease, so even though weight remains constant, the total downward force is reduced, and thus less lift is needed. That reduced amount of lift can be created by the wing (at the critical angle of attack) at a slower airspeed than larger amount of lift needed when flying with the forward CG, all else being equal.

- Martin
Click to expand...

Who are these people who suggest we never use this term? It’s not the FAA and it’s not the airplane manufacturers.

The FAA wants pilots to understand what affects stall speed. That includes CG.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
lift..... ;)
Click to expand...
Correct. Changing the CG changes the download on the horizontal stab, thus changing the amount of lift the wing has to produce. Moving the CG aft has the effect of reducing weight and vice versa. Since less lift is needed with aft CG, less induced drag is created, just as Clip said.
 
AffordablePlanesWhen said:
I am curious to know if there's any appreciable difference in cruise speeds and fuel efficiency if loading a small GA airplane (i.e. 182, Bonanza, Lance) near the aft limit vs the forward limit.

Does anyone here take this into account and load an aircraft one way or the other intentionally?
Click to expand...
My Mooney is easily atleast 5kts faster with a reward cg. I now make it a habit to carry something in baggage and to slide the seat all the way back during long long periods of cruise.
 
MackMooney said:
My Mooney is easily atleast 5kts faster with a reward cg. I now make it a habit to carry something in baggage and to slide the seat all the way back during long long periods of cruise.
Click to expand...

And your Mooney really benefits from rear CG on short field takeoffs.
 
MackMooney said:
fill me in, what does that mean ?
Click to expand...
A Mooney exhibits significantly better short field take off performance with aft CG loadings. Probably the most apparent of any SEL aircraft I have flown off short runways.
 
MackMooney said:
My Mooney is easily atleast 5kts faster with a reward cg. I now make it a habit to carry something in baggage and to slide the seat all the way back during long long periods of cruise.
Click to expand...

Pre long body Mooneys elevator position is slightly down in cruise, this is considered normal, you should check yours. I don’t think there should be a significant speed change just carrying something in the baggage compartment.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Pre long body Mooneys elevator position is slightly down in cruise, this is considered normal, you should check yours. I don’t think there should be a significant speed change just carrying something in the baggage compartment.
Click to expand...
Lots of airplanes have the elevator down some in cruise. The stabilizer is set for climb, not cruise, and its downforce has to be countered in cruise.

If the CG is farther aft, the elevator will be down more, but that doesn't necessarily mean more drag. It is reducing the downforce, which should reduce the induced drag.

Look out the back window of a 172 in cruise, especially when lightly loaded. Elevator will be down some. The balance tabs on it are angled so that they are streamlined with the stab in this condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top