• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

PA-12 Weight in Tail Any Documentation?

To the statement that stowing gear aft isn't useful? Here's my W&B for solo flight in my 180 with Fluidyne wheel skis. Fuel load makes almost no difference.

IMG_0456.JPG

Add 40# in aft baggage?

IMG_0457.JPG

Not only does it make me legal but it makes a very noticeable change in how the plane flies.

Same experiment in my Cub. Solo is on the assumed forward edge of the envelope.

IMG_0458.JPG

Add 40# aft?

IMG_0459.JPG

It may not look like much but it's night and day different in control feel and cruise comfort.

If I want to go play flying I may adda weight at the tail spring but as long as I have a 65# dog that expects to go? Problem solved.

PS- my old short mount 160hp -12 flew better with some weight in back.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0457.JPG
    IMG_0457.JPG
    83.7 KB · Views: 215
  • IMG_0456.JPG
    IMG_0456.JPG
    90.8 KB · Views: 214
  • IMG_0458.JPG
    IMG_0458.JPG
    93.6 KB · Views: 175
  • IMG_0459.JPG
    IMG_0459.JPG
    93.8 KB · Views: 176
MY -12 with CC 0-360 conversion with no added weight was 12.4” and nose heavy, ran out of trim up, nose dropped at landing. Added 8# in tail and it was 13.5” and much better but add a passenger or 42# survival items in extended baggage and now 14.7” and no need to make trim changes as i slow and add flaps to landing. Weight added in the right place is good! Almost impossible to rear CG the plane.

I bet your plane at 9+”s will be scary nose heavy and really easy to get tail to jump up on braking. Mine was at the 12*” mark.
 
Folks

Putting a little survival bag in the baggage compartment does not do squat!! If you want to believe that old wives tale ....great.....I hope you believe in the tooth fairy too.

Yes, I am trying to get your attention.

Run the numbers. Lets say he has a 1200 pound empty weight (probably not far off for a 0-320 PA-12). To get his CG (based on the TCDS numbers).....
1148 pds on the mains at +1 = 1148 moment
52 pds on the tail at +200 = 10400 moment
Total moments = 11,548 divided by weight of 1200 = 9.62 on the empty CG (pretty close to his #9.69)

The CG range per the TCDS is 9.0 to 18.5

So lets add 20 pounds of survival gear in the baggage compartment 20 x 56(arm) = 1120
Moments 1148 + 1120 + 10400 = 12668 divided by new weight of 1220 = 10.38

You moved the CG less than 1" out of a 9 inch range. I call BS. You can't feel that in the plane. If I put you in the plane and did not tell you how it was loaded I bet you a steak dinner you are not good enough to tell the difference. There are a handful of people that fly 500 hours plus in a year in the same plane, (fish spotters and patrol line guys come to mind) that might be able to feel it because they are so intimate with the plane. You are not that good. It's a placebo, and a self fulfilling prophecy.

Someone suggested adding a quarter pound to the tail, or another leaf string. 1/4 pound will move the CG from 9.62 to 9.70. In a range of 9 to 18.5 that is totally insignificant.

Now lets play some more (take the survival kit out)
Airplane =1200 with 1148 on the mains and 52 on the tail gives an empty CG of 9.62 as noted above and pretty close to what his is at (I'm guessing)
Lets add full fuel 38gal = 228pds x 23arm = 5244moment
Pilot 200 pds x 6 arm = 1200
1148 + 5244 + 1200 + 10,400 = 17992(arm) divided by weight 1200+228+200 = 1628 = 11.05

So....in normal solo flight he is still in a pretty far forward CG

Max baggage on the TCDS is 41 pounds at 56 arm. If we max out the baggage with tools and survival gear his CG goes to 12.15 By maxing out the baggage we moved the CG one inch.
If we max out the allowable weight left, 81 pounds, and put it in the back seat, we get to 1750 (max gross) divided by 23,042(moments) = 13.16 That is as far aft as he can possibly legally load the airplane. Still not even to the half way point of the range.

In Cubs it takes roughly 10 pounds in the tail (at the tailwheel) to move the CG one inch. In a nine inch range one inch is not all that significant. So adding 20 pounds in a baggage compartment will likely move the CG less than an inch and it just does not change the "feel" that much.

I have removable weight in the tail of my Cub and I have played with the CG a lot. I have added up to 40 pounds of lead in the tail, and then test flown the aircraft to include multi turn spins. I am not a trained test pilot, nor am I am particularly good pilot, so take this for what it is worth. I would have to review the notes from my test flights but I can't remember much difference with 10 pounds of lead in the tail. It became noticeable when I got to 20 pounds, 30 pounds made a difference and the airplane flies great at that CG. When I hit 40 pounds it was starting to get a little lighter on the elevator than I personally liked, and I started to get auto-rotation coupling during the spins which was definitely uncomfortable.
Even with 40 pounds in the tail I was still about 3 inches from the aft limit. I did notice that the further aft you get the CG the more noticeable it becomes. IE moving the CG one inch from 9 to 10 is not noticeable. Moving it one inch from 16 to 17 is noticeable.

Run your own numbers and prove me wrong. A forward CG is most noticeable in the flare for a full stall 3 point. You will run out of elevator and not be able to get the tail down first. Do a bunch of full stall three points and pay attention to what is happening and how it is landing. Now put 20 pounds in your baggage compartment and go do it again and see if you can honestly tell the difference. I'll bet you can't.

Bill

(I am trying to get you fired up enough to really get to know your airplane. I want you to think "That Rusk guy is such a jerk.....I'm going to prove him wrong")

I can tell a difference when I take my Abe’s tie downs out of the back of the extended baggage and all my junk out from under the back seat and the seat cushions out. I can’t get on my brakes like I normally can. Did that at osh stol demo and realized I couldn’t get on the brakes almost at all. I’ve only had the cub stripped out like that twice for stol contests. Not much fuel and nothing in the back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I can tell a difference when I take my Abe’s tie downs out of the back of the extended baggage and all my junk out from under the back seat and the seat cushions out. I can’t get on my brakes like I normally can. Did that at osh stol demo and realized I couldn’t get on the brakes almost at all. I’ve only had the cub stripped out like that twice for stol contests. Not much fuel and nothing in the back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What brand of brake boosters are you using? I’ve run Steve’s and Cub Crafters boosters and have never felt like I’ve had enough brake on 35s and even on 31s. Used braided lines, different brake pad brands and Atlee extended gear. I’ve never felt like I was going nose over in a tail low position even with the brakes locked on landing.
 
What brand of brake boosters are you using? I’ve run Steve’s and Cub Crafters boosters and have never felt like I’ve had enough brake on 35s and even on 31s. Used braided lines, different brake pad brands and Atlee extended gear. I’ve never felt like I was going nose over in a tail low position even with the brakes locked on landing.

Dakota’s. They are a pain to put in on a covered cub, but hey pierce can do it for you no problem. They are by far the best. Add some parking brakes while you’re at it. I never have to add fluid or mess with them. Went from the north river boosters and got sick of adding and taking fluid out. Dakota’s will lock up a 35. They are great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Guess I need to try a set sometime. Never figured it was possible to lock up 35s. I guess I’ve been giving away several feet at STOL comps:p
 
Guess I need to try a set sometime. Never figured it was possible to lock up 35s. I guess I’ve been giving away several feet at STOL comps:p

Trade ya pstol flaps for brakes. Ha ha. Bring that thing out here and let’s trade for a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think I'll get a boat.

Then I can have people yell at me about free surface, metacenter, righting moments and transverse stability. "Never come about when going up river! You'll broach and capsize!"

Nah, mate; I keep a spare Danforth in the lazarette.
 
I took his statement to be about cruise speed, which is faster with aft CG. Yes stall speed can be slower as well.
 
Aft CG should be qualified. Slightly aft of neutral? I'll agree. Maybe even aft to the limit of a type certificated plane, but that limit is conservative, and in my perception performance at different CGs varies with different weights. Load it aft to the limit and to gross and see how slow it flies. Just don't do it too close to the ground. When heavy and aft loaded speed is your friend. Conversely when light and CG is on the forward limit speed is your enemy.
 
Just to give folks an idea of how I handled the bolt in weight for CG adjustment. I'm not saying anyone should do this, or do it this way, I'm just throwing it out as an idea.





IMG_4508.jpg
These are the lead plates. They are a trapezoid shape, about 5" x 9". Thickness determines the weight. I have 5 pounders and 10 pounders.



IMG_4509.jpg
When Javron built my kit, I had him weld in a couple of extra cross members to bolt the lead to



IMG_4510.jpg
Top side view

Hope this helps

Bill
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4508.jpg
    IMG_4508.jpg
    142.9 KB · Views: 1,029
  • IMG_4509.jpg
    IMG_4509.jpg
    144 KB · Views: 1,062
  • IMG_4510.jpg
    IMG_4510.jpg
    72.3 KB · Views: 1,042
My 2+2 was almost at the front of the CG. After reading Bill's post I strapped a 5lb piece of steel to the T3. I could tell it made a difference. I welded up a form, found some old lead pipe and cast a bunch of 2lb blocks . Under the horizontal stabilizer I have an inspection cover. I made up a little 1/8 plywood platform that I glued on the longerons. I put the 2lb blocks in a shaving kit bag. I started with 10lbs and went up from there. I ended up with 22 lbs back there. The plane flies better than it ever has, I can drag the tail wheel before the mains, couldn't do that before the weight back there. The blocks weight 2lb, not 2.8

IMG_20191030_103057.jpg

IMG_20191031_104935.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20191030_103057.jpg
    IMG_20191030_103057.jpg
    76.3 KB · Views: 178
  • IMG_20191031_104935.jpg
    IMG_20191031_104935.jpg
    120.3 KB · Views: 174
Bill, this looks like the most ideal way to make adjustments. Unfortunately I don't have those extra bars in place to attach to. I really lie the idea too of removable panels back in the area. Thanks for the response.
 
Skywagon and ChalieN are both correct. An aft CG permits a slower stall speed and a faster cruise speed.

The horizontal creates a downward force to balance the nose heavy airplane. The tail is in effect flying upside down creating a downward force. If say for example a 100 pound downward force is needed to balance the system, the tail must generate that force to keep the plane level. The wing then is required to carry that additional load of 100 pounds for the plane to fly. We worry about ounces when we build. We also know that lift generates drag hence less downward force (downward lift) by the tail creates drag requiring more power. Hence an aft CG requires less downward force by the tail and less drag, therefore more top end speed.

We concentrate on making these things fly slower, sorry I didn’t specify that I was talking about the stall speed Not clear on my part.

Keep in mind that as the CG is moved further aft the whole system becomes more unstable and too far aft can create an unrecoverable spin. A lesser issue is that It can even make the plane more unstable on landing.
 
Just like Bill Rusk did he has shelves welded in the tail to bolt weight in solid. That is the key. SOLID if it moves it could flex the tubes and crack brake them. Happened to me and on rebuild added the shelves.
After the time I went over in some heavy snow and my CG was forward, so on rebuild I found to get the plane to fly with little trim as I moved slower and added flaps, to make the plane “correct” I needed to add about 8# in the tail. Now many are screaming don’t add weight! Best thing I did. It now doesn’t need a lot of trim from take off 1 notch to 70 them off to cruise back to landing. 75 1 click. 60 2 click 50 3 click and not trimming needed to land.
Balanced aircraft, real joy to fly, safer on landing and ground, so a proper balanced plane are fun to fly even if heavy EWCG with 0-360 and all the mods of 1320# CG is 13.54 add the normal crop we carry, tools, ropes, etc and the CG is getting close to 14.2 or 79.8” depending on what number you use. This is where it likes to fly, then just add people, gear, etc. hard to get to true rear CG. Fun to fly!!!
It is in the 337 that I added weight in tail at rebuild, written by my IA-DAR in 2015
 
I guess I have 2 questions. Why not just trim as needed instead of adding weight to the tail? Downforce from the stabilizer will do the same thing as lead in the tail. Second question is has anyone really done stalls before and after adding weight to the tail and was there a noticeable difference in stall speed? (3 or more MPH) The reason I ask the second question is most every cub pilot I know would be sticking 20 lbs in the tail if it gave them a noticeable stall speed improvement I just don't see it happening.
DENNY
 
Denny, Trimming will relieve the stick pressure but not reduce the down force applied by the tail assembly. This in turn equates to an equivalent amount of additional weight which the wing must support. That extra lift requirement raises the stall speed by an appropriate amount.

If the CG is moved aft by the addition of a small amount of ballast at the tail, the stabilizer will be trimmed more in line with the wing and elevator in cruise by raising the leading edge, thus reducing drag and increasing cruise speed.

My Cub did not have enough up elevator travel to ensure a complete stall until I added lead to the tail. Then I was able to get a clean break. It would not spin without the ballast as it was elevator limited.

This scenario is not as effective in airplanes with a fixed stabilizer and trim tabs as the stabilizer and elevators are only streamlined at one CG and speed condition..
 
So did the plane fly slower or was it just a mushing stall vs clean break? I understand it does not reduce downforce (unless you trim nose down), that is why you would trim nose up to add downforce and drag. Say you need 20 lbs of downforce, you can get that with the lead or the stabilizer, the downside of the stabilizer is it adding drag, bad for speed. However, adding drag helps with landing. What I am getting at is until you have run out of nose up trim you should not need to add weight. Some planes may need this but if the OP has paperwork issues with adding lead to the tail, why not just fly it and use the trim wheel. I have seen lots of posts with people claiming they run out of elevator when they flair, when I ask how the trim is set most don't know or say it was whatever it was on downwind, some even say they use nose down trim. I don't want people to think I have anything against trying to get the CG balanced to reduce stabilizer drag at high speed, better braking, or if you have flare issues. I just think people have to use the trim wheel more. I try to fly literally hands off the stick most of the time so for me trim adjustment is something I do often without thinking about it much. No right or wrong just things to ponder.
DENNY
 
Due to the angle of attack and the inaccuracy of the airspeed in those conditions it is not possible to determine any difference in speed. Without the ballast there was not enough up elevator to get a clean stall break. With it there was a clean break. Thus during the spin scenario in the first case even though it appeared to be spinning the speed was high with the nose down 100+/- mph. With the ballast the speed was in the 30 +/- mph range with the nose down about the same amount.
I agree with you that the trim should be used first and that it appears that a lot of pilots use the trim very little. When it is not enough to make a clean stall break or land on the tail wheel it needs help in the form of ballast. As always the pilot should know what his approximate loaded CG is. When he operates within the certified limitations all should work as designed and approved. Since we have made all sorts of modifications most of our planes bear no resemblance to the approved version. As long as we maintain the proper CG there should be no issue. Heavy engines, props and forward mounted batteries have a tendency to move the CG forward, sometimes a bit too much.
 
No issues with anything you said Denny.

Without flaps pulled I do run out of nose up trim with out the weight in it, flying really light. With it in I have nose up trim yet at or near the limit.
Flare is only a wheel landing and almost impossible to 3 pt really slow if at all without the weight in tail.
Also the tail is very light when braking without the weight in it, and when just a few gallons of fuel it is really light on the tail/Nose heavy and if I try to land short and on the brakes it is not a fun ride to drive.
This is the best thing for my set up and the safest when flying light, as in: nothing is the extended baggage, no passenger, low on fuel, basically empty.
When heavy not an issue and I can just fit things in and go, give it 2-3 turns nose down trim and go.
When really light 7-8 gallons of fuel I give it 1 turn nose up and go.
Stall clean MPH 42-43, full flaps 38-39 by GS no wind stall it brakes really gentle.

This is a set up for mine that works and yes I added weight, but the plane flies really nice, next time I'm in Graham TX. Steve Pierce is going to drive it and tell me how he would change things if at all.

Doug
 
Skywagon/Doug
Thanks for the feedback, having seen Doug fly I can say I have to work hard to keep up with him in his 12. Like I said I am not against adding weight in the tail just want to point out that that is what the stabilizer is for. If I remember Doug has a long mount that would add to the weight issue. I am trying to get up the energy to start a post on the true effects of a 0320 vs 0360 on the nose.
DENNY
 
Skywagon/Doug
Thanks for the feedback, having seen Doug fly I can say I have to work hard to keep up with him in his 12. Like I said I am not against adding weight in the tail just want to point out that that is what the stabilizer is for. If I remember Doug has a long mount that would add to the weight issue. I am trying to get up the energy to start a post on the true effects of a 0320 vs 0360 on the nose.
DENNY

Short mount O-320 on a -12. End of story about best CG. Based on 42 years flying 12s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Denny

My bird is Short mount Charlie conversion. Yep I get a lot out of this bird, yes it would be very interesting to see what the GW and ECGW numbers are and how does it fly. Big question is-does it fly better with a passenger in, noticeable different?
Flaps used or No flaps used
Certified VS Experimental BIG differences as what we can do legally. RULES!!!
0-320 with a short or long mount, my understanding is that the long mount 0-320 are having the same issues as the Certified 0-360 short mount because of the big paddle prop, the Cato prop helps fix these things on both engine conversions, but not certified.
0-360 I think are all short mount but I'm sure I'm wrong.
 
Denny

I will have to spend a little time doing some homework to find the sources and references. But the stabilizer and trim do not compensate for CG. They are two different aerodynamic principles. The way I understand your argument is “if an aircraft has a forward center of gravity, if you just put a bigger elevator on it that fixes the problem, or use more trim”.
Elevator size and trim position do not fix center of gravity issues. Two different items. They are related. CG will affect the amount of trim required, but trim does not fix CG.

Bill
 
Denny

I suspect we are basically on the same page, just saying it differently.

An aft CG will lower stall speed. I can't find my notes from my test flights now when I did add lead but it was in the area of 3 to 4 knots. This was also a pretty critical component of the Breeden Cub but he got the aft CG by moving the engine and firewall back rather than adding lead.

"The aerodynamic center of an airfoil is the point along the chord where all changes in lift take place. The location of the aerodynamic center of an airfoil is not affected by Camber, thickness, or angle of attack. Compressible theory will predict the aerodynamic center at 25%." ( from Aerodynamics for Navel Aviators Pg 47).
The aerodynamic center (AC) is important and the most direct application is to the longitudinal stability of an airplane. The CG must be in front of the AC in order for the aircraft to have positive longitudinal stability. The further the CG is in front of the AC the more stable the AC will be. If the CG is behind the AC the aircraft will be unstable and may not be flyable without computer intervention, Like the F-16.
The further the CG is in front of the AC the greater the nose down pitching force from the wing and the greater the force required from the tail to overcome this pitching force.

"Angle of attack is the primary control of airspeed in steady flight" (Aero for Navel Aviators pg 27) The tail sets the AOA. Trim allows us to take the pressure off the controls (stick) and thus fixes the tail at a given value which offsets the pitching forces from the wing. So the tail sets the wing AOA which corresponds to a given speed. (basically you trim for a speed)

As we change the AOA the amount of pitching force change will be directly proportional to the CG. If the CG is at the AC there would be no corresponding pitch force change thus no required change in tail AOA to compensate. This would create a completely neutral stick which would not have any differing stick pressure regardless of AOA, speed G load etc. and it would be easy to both overload the aircraft, or stall it, with no control feeling at all. It would be most difficult to fly. BUT it would also require the least downforce from the tail and thus be the most efficient aerodynamically. Lindbergh did this intentionally with the Ryan M1 both for efficiency and also to force him to fly the airplane at all times to keep from falling asleep. Sailplanes frequently push the CG back very close to the AC to reduce drag as well. Then a long fuselage (leverage) allows for a small tail (less drag) to still handle the necessary pitch force requirements. High performance sailplanes are notoriously light on the controls.

A supercub tail can only produce so much force at a given speed. The slower we go the less downforce it can produce. Trim will affect that value as you correctly pointed out, but it still has a max value. Now add VG's under there and we get a slightly higher AOA from that airfoil thus producing more downforce. That tail has to overcome the wing pitching moment. The higher the AOA of the wing the greater it wants to pitch down, and the more force the tail has to produce to get it to that AOA and hold it there.
The further the CG is forward of that AC the greater these pitch down forces are. At some point the tail simply can't push the wing to a sufficient AOA to provide sufficient lift for the speed we want to fly. Two possibilities exist here. The wing will stall or the tail will stall. If the wing stalls that is probably not good on short final. If the tail stalls out before the wing then you get a mushing descent. Most of the time, with VG's the tail stalls before the wing and we get mushing descents. If we add power, we increase the airflow over the tail and we can drive the wing to a high enough AOA to get it to break and stall. Or we can add lead to the tail which brings the CG closer to the AC so the wing will not resist the pitching moment so much (less pitch down moment) and the the tail will now have enough force to drive the wing to a higher AOA, perhaps into a stall with a break, or if we have VG's to a higher AOA without a break.

An aft CG reduces the trim required for any given change. Lets say you are motoring along at 100 mph and you slow to 80 as you enter the pattern. With a forward CG the stick will get heavy quickly and it will take 2 turns on the trim wheel to get the stick to neutral again. If your CG is aft in the range the stick would not feel nearly as heavy for that same airspeed change and it might only take a 1/2 turn on the trim wheel.

Hope all this makes sense. Design for Flying by Thurston covers this in Chapter 1. Aerodynamics for Navel Aviators covers it between about page 25 and 51


Hope this helps

Bill
 
Last edited:
The OP has left the building, but this is interesting. Whether you add tail downforce with mass of steel or catching more molecules of passing air, the effective wing loading as you approach stall is the same.
All the hotrods I have built needed tail weight. One needed an aft battery, one a rear gas tank, one a steel rod right in the tailpost. Once the hangar next door was demillitarizing a TBF and had cast a pile of lead cylinders to replace the tailhook and tail gun. I cut off a piece and fixed it with big rig exhaust clamps. The most fun was a wedge of lead cast in a 3/4" plywood mold. It'll work once. A Surform grater will smooth it up.
Do what you gotta do. My first would have crashed had the motor quit, and I was 3 inches inside spec. The kit manufacturer then changed the old aft limit to the new sweet spot.
 
Back
Top