I agree that balancing the tail plane outside the aircraft is a lot better than
doing it in situ. Doing it that way, I discovered that my tail planes were
significantly
overbalanced. I removed a total of 365 grams from the mass balance,
part of which was due to the heavier Mod 70 balance arm. It is always nice to
have an opportunity to reduce your airplane weight.
Remi Guerner
F-PGKL, XS S/N395 monowheel, 912S, Airmaster, 493 hours
Carl
I could be corrected too but imho because the rest of the pitch control
system only moves fore and aft it won't influence balance, so I would
think balancing disconnected is OK. The rest of system will affect
natural resonant frequency but not the initial response due to G loading.
Tell me if I' wrong?
Graham
Carl Pattinson wrote:
> Roger,
>
> I am willing to stand corrected but my understanding is that the
> balancing should be done with the torque tube "in situ" and with the
> rest of the control system connected.
>
> The control system forward of the torque tube horn will have a bearing
> on the overall balance of the pitch installation. Disconnecting this
> IMHO will give a less than optimum setup.
>
> Carl Pattinson
> G-LABS
>
>
> 3. While the tailplanes and torque tube were out of the aircraft I
> decided to do a check of the mass balance and was surprised to find
> the assembly 78g too heavy at the weight end. I genuinely thought I
> had achieved a good re-balance in situ after mod 70 but the friction
> in the control system was enough to mask the imbalance. How many
> more Europas are like this and might it have contributed to the
> accident?
> Since correct mass balance is so critical and removal of the torque
> tube (albeit a pain) takes less than a day's work, it might be worth
> doing this at the same time as mod 73 - giving the advantage of
> peace of mind and also being able to use your own torque tube for a
> better layup than wrapping tape around plastic pipe as some have
> suggested?
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Roger Mills
|