I entirely agree with your analysis. The downside of a rearward CG is that
stability is reduced, as you indicate, and the aircraft requires more skill
to fly.
This is an inherent feature of many homebuilt designs (Europa excepted), for
the deliberate purpose of improving performance. This coupled with small
and short tailplane (low tail "volume") is why many homebuilts have
near-neutral stability.
Duncan McFadyean
-----Original Message-----
From: David Cripps <david.cripps@spsystems.com>
Date: Thursday, February 22, 2001 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: Best CG location
>I would have thought that since the tailplanes are providing a downforce
>throughout the flight regime, that the optimum CG position for minimising
>drag is when the CG is at the fully aft CG limit. At this point the wings
>are producing the least amount of excess lift (and hence drag) to
counteract
>the tailplane downforce. However, I don't know how great the effect is in
>reality.
>
|