I think you might find that the tie-bar is to counter aerodynamic forces
that are trying to pull the wings forward. Something to do with forward
bending moments at increased loading in the area of Va. Perhaps one of our
aerodynamicists can illucidate.
regards
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: <europa-builder@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Gross weight
> 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.
>
>
|