SlimHeader

× If you are studying for your BAK or PPL exams and need some help, please post your question here. Someone on the forum is bound to help you as soon as they can.

Aircraft Trim Sheet loading

More
4 months 4 weeks ago #1 by rhlmcg101
rhlmcg101 created the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
I was talking with a colleague over a beer recently on the subject of trim sheet loading. I was confused by the use of sloping lines in a trim sheet. From what my colleague said, sometimes they are guide lines (as in you have to follow the slope of the lines) and other times they are not. From my PPL studies, I thought that they were never guide lines. Can you help explain this for me, please ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 3 weeks ago - 4 hours 40 minutes ago #2 by John.Heddles
John.Heddles replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
We certainly can explain this for you.

The short (but, probably, unhelpful) answer is that your mate is correct. The nature of the long answer will depend on whether you two were talking in general or in respect of specific sheets ? If the latter, the long answer can be made somewhat shorter by covering the relevant specifics.

Probably, part of your confusion lies with the observation that, for most smaller aircraft trimsheets (which are what you probably have seen in GA aircraft), the only sloping lines are associated with the fixed arm trimlines .. where they are NOT guide lines.

However, if you can provide a bit more information, I'm sure we can sort out the problems for you.

Subsequently amended to include a list of loading systems reviewed in later posts for admin convenience. The referenced post is the first mention of the system and discussion may then involve a number of subsequent posts. If anyone wishes to post a loading system for comment, please remove references to any operators or WCOs so that we are looking only at the system for training purposes.

Post 06 Piper Turbo Lance II, B727-200 (AN -LR, and TN)
Post 14 Cessna 310R (skewed CG envelope)
Post 22 Gulfstream GII
Post 23 Piper PA-28-151 VH-PZE (defective loading system trimsheet)
Post 29 Piper Twin Commanche VH-ICS (defective loading system trimsheet)
Post 31 Piper PA-28-151 VH-PZE (defective loading system trimsheet) – alternative trimsheet to post 23
Post 39 Cessna172RG Cutlass (defective loading system trimsheet)


Specialist in aircraft performance and weight control.
Last Edit: 4 hours 40 minutes ago by John.Heddles.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 3 weeks ago #3 by rhlmcg101
rhlmcg101 replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
The conversation covered a few different aircraft. The main one which had me confused was a fairly complicated sheet with a lot more in it than I have seen before.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 3 weeks ago #4 by John.Heddles
John.Heddles replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
Suggest you post scans of the relevant sheets and we can go from there.

Specialist in aircraft performance and weight control.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 3 weeks ago - 4 months 3 weeks ago #5 by rhlmcg101
rhlmcg101 replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
W talked about several light aircraft sheets which appeared to be normal. They involved the loading positions having sloping lines. My colleague was not able to explain why these work the way they do.

Another sheet was a 727 which I have attached. This doesn't have the sloping lines for loading positions but does have sloping lines in the fuel area. There is an example diagram but it is not clear just why it works.

I will have to get a copy of the sheet which caused me the most confusion and post it later.
Attachments:
Last Edit: 4 months 3 weeks ago by rhlmcg101.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 2 weeks ago - 4 months 2 weeks ago #6 by John.Heddles
John.Heddles replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
A lengthy post, I’m afraid, but there’s no super short way to cover the problem you have raised. It would be far better to do this across the table or in a classroom setting but we shall work with what we have ..

We talked about several light aircraft sheets which appeared to be normal. They involved the loading positions having sloping lines. My colleague was not able to explain why these work the way they do.

I’ll take that to mean that you are somewhat comfortable with the smaller aircraft sheets. However, you should understand how the basics of the things work.

First, let’s start at the beginning .. not trying to teach Grandma to suck eggs .. rather making sure you are comfortable with the steps.

The normal longhand calculation involves a tabulation of loading arm entries each with the calculation –

Weight x loading arm = moment (you can make this an IU if you wish .. same principle applies).

Once each station is addressed, the weights and moments are summed (added to produce a total value) and the CG is determined by the simple calculation

CG = total moment / total weight

This is done for the zero fuel and loaded configurations. I presume that all of Bob’s students are familiar with this basic approach.

Now, just like with cuisinaire rods used in beginning number line studies, one can do the summations graphically .. normally we only do this for the moment as graphical summation of weights really doesn’t gain us much in the way of simplifying the process. Graphical summation of loading arm moments is what the trim sheet is all about .. the loading lines do both the sum (weight x arm) and the summation (moment 1 + moment 2 etc). This only works as the loading arm is constant .. ie it doesn't vary with the weight added.

If we have a look at the CASA PPL/CPL workbook ( www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_...ppl-cpl-workbook.pdf ) at page 10, we see a fairly standard, simple light aircraft trim sheet (I suspect this is one of Norm Overmeyer’s sheets from many years ago) labelled as Loading System Alpha. You will become familiar with the use of this sheet as you progress through your pilot theory studies with Bob.

If we look at a loading station, say, Row 1, we can compare the loading line ticks (on the 50kg line) with the IU scale at the top of the page and come up with a 50kg load corresponding to something in the order of -10.33 IU.

Moving to the left with additional load just means that the seat arm is forward of the datum used by the sheet designer. Note that, in general, trimsheets do NOT use the OEM datum from the POH. This is done to maximise the accuracy of the sheet in completion. As a result, it is very important that pilots do NOT try to apply “standard” data to a sheet. Just to note, the datum on this sheet is the CG appropriate to an IU of zero … ie somewhere near the aft limit of the CG envelope.

Using the sheet in the manner specified indicates that we come down from the start IU line and then move to the left one tick for each 50kg (ie -10.33 IU change to the total IU) and a part tick for a part of 50kg (and a similar proportion IU change). And so we continue on down the page

Now, let’s consider some errors associated with completing the sheet –

(a) The sheet is drawn to a background scale of IU, shown by the vertical lines between the loading arm lines. If the drop lines are not parallel to the grid, the calculation will be in error to some extent as the IU total will be changing a little between loading lines. Hence, it is best to use something like a Douglas protractor to run the sheet calculation. If you don’t have one to hand, an ID card is fine (and about the only useful value to ID cards).

(b) Generally, the drop line lands on a loading line somewhere in between two ticks so we have to do an interpolation to figure out the scale number (ie tick distance proportion) from which we are starting. There will be an error here and the only way we can minimise it for this style of sheet is by careful assessment of the scale.

(c) Similarly, the end IU change for the load generally will be in between two ticks and plotting it accurately will involve some degree of error. As with (b) the only defence is to exercise care with scale assessment.

Another sheet was a 727 which I have attached

You have cited the CASA ATPL training B727-200LR trimsheet (an old Ansett – an airline now gone - sheet). It will be convenient to compare this with a similar TAA (now the mainline domestic arm of Qantas) trimsheet (TAA didn’t operate LRs so that sheet is for the standard 727-200 .. the two are not all that much different for weight and balance – the LR has slightly higher weights and an extra auxiliary fuel tank).

The TAA sheet can be obtained with another download from the CASA website. The, now quite old, Pub 17 on Weight Control, although not directed at pilots, is a useful monograph and I recommend it for reading by pilots as part of their theory studies. The URL to locate the download is www.casa.gov.au/files/weightcontrolpdf and the trimsheet is at page 40.

This doesn't have the sloping lines for loading positions but does have sloping lines in the fuel area. There is an example diagram but it is not clear just why it works.

The value of comparing both the Ansett and TAA sheets is that, while they are, in essence, doing nearly the same job, they look somewhat different, use different stylistic approaches, and highlight the point that trimsheets can be made to look pretty well however the designer wishes.

Let’s have a think about the sloping loading arm lines. The Ansett sheet doesn’t use these (ie it’s much the same as the Loading System Alpha chart) but the TAA example does .. why ?

The sloping lines address error (b) in the previous discussion. They are just a draughting artefact which, in effect, “moves” the IU tick mark scale left or right so that the dropline has to hit a whole tick mark (ie one of the sloping lines). By this artefact, we make the loading line calculation start at a whole tick position and, in principle, error (b) ought now not to be a problem.

You can think of this in the following manner – where the dropline hits the sloping line, redraw the tick mark line horizontally and do the IU calculation in a manner similar to the Alpha sheet. It follows that these sloping lines CAN NEVER be guide lines.

Is one style better than the other ? … largely personal preference but the sloping line model wins on error minimisation.

The next set of sloping lines is for the fuel grid. The Ansett sheet uses a separate graph to calculate the IU change for fuel load while the TAA sheet incorporates the IU change directly into the dropline section of the sheet.

You can see that the fuel grids are similar (the LR has an additional line segment at the higher fuel weight to allow for the additional baggage hold auxiliary tank) by rotating the Ansett sheet 90 degrees clockwise and comparing it to the TAA sheet. Ignoring the last segment for the additional auxiliary tank, and scaling effects, the lines are the same.

So how do both sheets work ?

For the Ansett sheet, the fuel chart on the left is a simple graph of weight (along the bottom axis) against IU (along the vertical axis – but not shown explicitly). This (hidden) IU scale is then joined up with the main trim section by means of the diagonal grid to the right of the fuel chart .. ie the fuel chart vertical IU scale is mapped to the horizontal IU scale on the main trimsheet so that the fuel IU scale is the same as the trimsheet IU scale. So, in effect, the diagonal grid is there just to skew the main sheet IU grid to the left. The reason for this will become clear in the next paragraph.

So, when we are using the fuel grid in the Ansett sheet, we

(a) run the zero fuel dropline down to the top of the diagonal grid (the line marked “fuel reference line”)

(b) continue the dropline down to the CG envelope to figure the ZFW CG and, at the same time

(c) continue the dropline (from the fuel reference line) PARALLEL with the diagonal grid lines .. this is doing nothing other than skewing the dropline to the left while following the same IU scale value for the total IU at ZFW

(d) enter the fuel grid with fuel weight and then, from the intersection with the fuel line run across (and through) the unlabelled IU line

(e) where the two lines drawn in the diagonal grid intersect, continue the fuel dropline down to the CG envelope to figure the loaded CG.

In effect, what you have done is use the left hand fuel chart to do the weight to IU calculation and then use the right hand diagonal grid to do the addition of fuel IU to ZFW IU. This addition is done by moving the IU value from the fuel chart vertical axis to the main trimsheet horizontal IU scale.

It follows that, for any fuel calculation similar to this one, the diagonal grid sloping lines are ALWAYS guide lines.

The reason for this complexity is simply that the fuel loading arm is not constant .. ie it varies with weight (more strictly, volume).

The only other sloping line grid on this sheet is the MAC grid overlay on the CG envelope. This allows you to read off the CG (in this case as %MAC) from the intersection of weight and IU. You could take the view than this is a guide line grid as you have to move in alignment with the grid lines to read the MAC value.

Looking at the TAA sheet fuel grid calculation, the fuel weight by IU variation is drawn directly on the main trimsheet. By paralleling the grid lines, one calculates the IU change and does the IU total addition in one process.

Which of the Ansett and TAA approaches is the better ? Again, largely a matter of personal preference, although the Ansett approach wins, marginally, on error minimisation (albeit at the expense of sheet real estate).

Again the TAA sheet has a similar MAC grid overlay on the CG envelope.

A long-winded post .. if anything is not clear enough, please say so and I’ll add some more/vary the detail and we’ll eventually get the story across. Like all weight control stuff, nothing in the way of rocket science .. just requires a bit of care and good housekeeping.

When you get a chance to post the final sheet, we can have a talk about that one as well.

Specialist in aircraft performance and weight control.
Last Edit: 4 months 2 weeks ago by John.Heddles.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 2 weeks ago #7 by ray9ed
ray9ed replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
Surely the Boeing 727 is not relevant to PPL and CPL students ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 2 weeks ago - 4 months 2 weeks ago #8 by John.Heddles
John.Heddles replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
Indeed, the B727, per se, has little relevance to PPL/CPL. However, on this occasion, it is only the vehicle for a discussion which has a more general relevance.

The trimsheet considerations discussed will apply equally well to a light aircraft, in respect of the loading lines, and with other than prismatic fuel tanks, in respect of the fuel trim. There exist more than a few of the latter amongst the light aircraft brigade.

In the case on a non-prismatic shaped tank, the WCO designing the trimsheet will do one of three things -

(a) if the fuel load non-linearity is relatively minor, linearise (ie use a straight line) to represent the fuel trim. In this case, there should be an error analysis and associated constraining of the CG envelope, as presented, to account for the errors introduced by linearising the fuel line. This process usually is referred to as "curtailment", especially in US practice. One sees this in, for instance, some of the Beechcraft Types.

(b) present the fuel trim in the manner of the Ansett chart

(c) present the fuel trim in the manner of the TAA chart.

So, in this case, the B727 is relevant in a round about sort of way.

Specialist in aircraft performance and weight control.
Last Edit: 4 months 2 weeks ago by John.Heddles.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 2 weeks ago #9 by rhlmcg101
rhlmcg101 replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading

If we look at a loading station, say, Row 1, we can compare the loading line ticks (on the 50kg line) with the IU scale at the top of the page and come up with a 50kg load corresponding to something in the order of -10.33 IU.


How do you get this degree of accuracy ?

I would appreciate a little more detail on the fuel calculations, please.

Thank you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
4 months 2 weeks ago #10 by John.Heddles
John.Heddles replied the topic: Aircraft Trim Sheet loading
How do you get this degree of accuracy ?

First trick is to have a look at the trimsheet and compare the loading line with the top IU scale. By my counting, the row 1 50kg line has 61 units which extend over an IU range of 630IU.

630/61 = 10.33 approximately and, with the arrow pointing to the left, conventionally we assign the IU change to be negative, hence -10,33 IU/division.

As I recall, this sheet came up in discussion some time ago. I had a look through the US TCDS and figured that the most likely aircraft for the sheet was the Turbo Lance II and the probable IU equation is

IU = W x (FS – 2377) / 1000

Row 1 arm is FS 85.5. Converting this to metric and plugging it into the formula gives 50kg to be -10.29 IU so the two match up pretty well, I suggest.

I would appreciate a little more detail on the fuel calculations, please.


I'll need to run up a couple of drawings for explanation so please do let me come back on this one.

Specialist in aircraft performance and weight control.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.572 seconds