> Could you go into further detail about "how" it flew better with a forward > CG than an aft CG?
Sure, the plane under normal conditions (no baggage) would require significant up trim to unload the stick, and when pulling power, would drop the nose unless you held onto the stick. "Lawn dart"is a description used more than once. Conversely, with plenty of stuff in the baggage compartment (at or near aft CG limit), the plane seemed to "float" in balance and handled much better and was faster to boot. A pure dream to fly. This was discussed often. It was considered by some to be good practice to ignore the front half of the CG envelope. It is possible that the CG envelope was shifted a bit forward than it should have been and in fact I spoke with someone in good authority that the aft limit was quite conservative and flying AT the published aft limit would in fact produce good results, and it did. > See http://www.n56ml.com/wb/index.html for more on the KR aft CG, which I'm > pretty sure is common to most aircraft. This story should scare you...it > certainly scared me! I actually had read that last year, another well written piece and in fact I am sure I saved it to PDF as well in my KR own knowlege base. _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. Please see LIST RULES and KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html. see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@list.krnet.org
