Peter Zutrauen wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I'm surprised that the gross weight for the long-wing has not been
> increased. Indeed in an older brochure for the MG, the GW was listed
> as 1400.
>
> Somebody (Andy?) please correct me if I'm incorrect in my assumptions
> but....
> **Assuming adequate power** this increased max gross made sense to me
> at the time since the increased wing-weight is 'self-flying' and thus
> shouldn't impact on the wing's g-loading rating (as those tests are
> obviously done leveraging on the exposed wing spar). In my thinking,
> any increase in wing weight should be added to the max gross weight
> of the short wing configuration...no?
>
> What is the weight difference of the two wings?
>
> If I'm way off on this, I'll be very interested in hearing the
> rational.
Surely this isn't just down to the weight that the aircraft can carry, but
must also be related to the load the wings cause on the airframe? I.e. the
weight increase mode implies to me that there is a leverage effect turning
on the spar and trying to push the wings into the airframe at the point
where the weight increase mod. bar is placed? So the max. weight the
aircraft can carry isn't just a factor of the load on the wings, but also
the 'other' effects on the airframe?
Cheers,
Mark.
|