I don't think that's a good answer, since if the 107 figure is wrong, that could end up putting him out of aft cg limit, and being too far aft is a lot worse than being too far forward. All the calculations volunteered above are useless if the cg on that sheet is wrong -- GIGO, and all that. The first step here is to confirm the accuracy of that 107 figure and if necessary correct it -- nothing else matters until that is done.
Not "golden" unless you're sure the 107 cg is right -- see "GIGO".
The fact that it's apparently impossible for the OP to load the plane within the forward cg limit with two normal front seaters and fuel (which is what I think he said in the first post) -- that just doesn't make sense. I've seen this before, and each time it turned out someone somewhere along the way had screwed up the empty cg computations and come up with a computed empty cg that was 2-3 inches farther forward than where it really was. That is an invitation to loading the plane out of aft cg limits while thinking everything is OK, and loading out of aft cg limits can kill you.
That would be a reasonable assumption if the computed empty cg wasn't almost 3 inches farther forward than the sample empty cg, which certainly is not due to the average size of the population either then or now. It's unusual, and suggests someone made a math error in the empty cg computations somewhere along the way. That sort of variance along with the inability to stay in the cg limits with even normal loads suggests something is wrong with the data on the current empty W&B sheet. Sure, it might really be that way, but there are enough red flags for me to say an audit of all the past empty W&B computations is in order.
The fact that it's official doesn't mean it's right, and if it's wrong, your airplane may not have acceptable pitch control/stability despite the numbers saying things should be OK. As I said above, I've seen them wrong before, and I'm sure I'll see them wrong again, and the laws of physics still apply no matter what someone writes on that piece of paper. This is definitely a "trust but verify" situation, and my trust in the accuracy of his W&B document is shaken by the factors already mentioned, so verification becomes essential.
Doesn't make it right, smart, or safe to use without verifying its accuracy if you have any reason at all to doubt that accuracy, and there appears to be reason for doubt.
Makes no difference. If that plane can't be controlled in pitch because the plane is out of cg limits, it's the pilot who gets killed, not the owner. And yes, pilots have been killed by loading out of cg before. You just can't say, "Well, that's what the numbers on the paper said" if those numbers don't make sense when you run a W&B problem.
