Jump to content

My approach to W&B and takeoff performance


Fry

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

the following is partly old, and then somewhat new. So please bear with me.

In order to speed up the W&B and performance considerations - which are very similar in most cases anyway - I have found a new workflow that I would like to introduce here. Of course, the specific values are from my aircraft (Mooney M20J MSE), also with the specific basic empty weight and CG, but the approach is adaptable to any other airplane.

1. The graphic approach to W&B: My loading scenarios are 99% of the time between a few "extremes", one extreme for example (i) only me in front left, relatively little fuel, or another (ii) myself front left, my wife front right, my son and the heavy mother-in-law in the back, and more fuel. And so on. All of these "extreme" loading scenarios are contained in a single image (the first attached image), and that can be printed on the back of a checklist, for example. There's a lot of information in there. For loading scenarios that are between two extremes, one can simply interpolate.


Bonus: the optimal approach speed for the remaining fuel can be read off the right side (in my case the "short field" column, because at my home base with a 600m runway it is important to use the correct, weight-adjusted approach speed). The numbers on the lines within the chart from full to empty fuel are placed in intervals of about an hour's flight.

For loading situations that are "exotic" and cannot be interpolated between these extremes, I have (like many others) a spreadsheet with which I can calculate and print out the same line (full fuel to empty fuel) for this situation.

Attached is the spreadsheet.

https://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/img/ud/2020/07/05/12/2556725/032334-WB1.jpg


So far so good. Now let's make it even simpler than that.

2. As you can see from the picture, it is almost impossible (in the case of the M20J) to miss the allowed region for the CG for any common loading scenarios (unless you put lead weights in the aft baggage area :-). The fuel tank that empties during the flight also does not shift the CG outside of the allowed region (something that Bonanzas sometimes do, I've been told).

Therefore, it is in practice sufficient to calculate the weight and check it is below MTOW. For that, I have designed a "rotating slide rule", using Excel, making fittings to the curves in the POH and a 3D printer.


Performance.thumb.jpg.537ff84177ab3b44963f1fee358eb08b.jpg

The calculator works from the inside out: Align the number of adults (80kg each) with the number of children or suitcases (30kg each), then read at the fuel level -> If you get into the red area, the plane is overloaded, otherwise OK. Example in the picture: 3 adults, 2 "children" (one of them is the baggage of 30kg), 46gal of fuel -> outside of red, so it's ok.

Bonus (i): at the weight, you can also read the final approach speed (in the example, 70kt).

Bonus (ii): going further out, If you follow the guide lines on the static middle ring with your eye (these lines are a nonlinear function, namely a logarithm, because from here outwards the game is no longer "adding" weights but "multiplying" influence factors). Then using outside temperature, pressure altitude and headwind component, you can read off the take-off run on asphalt (black) and grass (green) in meters. In the picture, taking the above mentioned 3 adults, "2 children" (= 1 child and a suitcase of 30kg), 46 gal fuel, and using 20 °C, 1000ft PA and 10kt headwind you arrive at 500m ground roll.

Needless to say, this is an approximation (as are the curves in the POH on which this is based), and the results tend to be conservative, still if conditions are marginal, please do use the tables of the official POH, think about reducing weight or wait for the next morning when it's cooler. Also, check full RPM, MP and FF is achieved at the beginning of the takeoff, be disciplined with takeoff abortion etc..

I have also attached the spreadsheet that has been used to calculate the "rotating slide rule". Unfortunately, it is not exactly self-explanatory and well structured (very different from how I work otherwise :-).

In the following, I describe the approach and hope that with these explanations, anyone who wants to go through this can either adjust the spreadsheet or completely rebuild it.

(i) First the inner part of the arithmetic wheel: this is computationally trivial (just add up the weight). You can use this part to understand the graphic creation in Excel. In the block from cell J8 you can find: in column J the number of adults (1,2,3,4), in column K the angle of the rotary knob (20 degrees corresponds to 80kg), in column L and M the X and Y Coordinates of the labels in the rotary wheel, and in the graphic (from line 79) you can see the arrangement of the numbers (1,2,3,4). The yellow input cell K9 is used to be able to turn the rotary wheel in the graphic (for testing in the Excel graphic). Columns N, O, P are the data for the first circle along which it is cut. And so on; the columns to the right give the data for the circles and labels that are always further out.

(ii) It gets more complicated with the performance part. The spreadsheet contains a calculation block at the top left from cell B9 with which you can try out the calculation. Yellow cells are input cells, orange cells are model parameters. The basic assumption of the fit is that the ground roll can be calculated as the product of a constant times four influencing factors (I have "stolen" this idea from https://www.eaa393.org/Cleco/Cleco03/to-m20e_3.htm, where you can also find the reasons for the somewhat odd numerical constants in the formulas; they contain unit conversions and the properties of the standard atmosphere).


At MTOW, sea level and 15 °C without wind, the ground roll of the M20J is according to POH

G_standard = 500m

If weight, PA, temperature or wind are different, the ground roll is approximated as a product

Ground Roll = G_standard * f_PA * f_T * f_M * f_W with the correction factors

f_PA = (1 - PA[ft] / 145442) ^ (- 5,255876 * k))

f_T = ((273.15 + Temp[° C]) / 288.15) ^ k

f_M = (actual weight / MTOW) ^ m

f_W = (1 + headwind component / rotation speed) ^ (- w)

 
(MTOW is 1315kg, rotation speed is 59kt in the case of the M20J MSE).
 
The parameters k, m and w as well as G_standard were determined from the curves in the pilot's POH using the Excel "solver" as well as trial and error. You can find this in the block from line 56, separately for the three topics PA + Temp, Weight and Wind. There, also the errors of the approximation are estimated and can be minimized using the Excel "solver". It makes sense to use a higher "penalty" for values undershoot than overshoot, to be conservative.
 
Of course, these fits have to be re-done for another aircraft, and their quality assessed accordingly.

In my case (M20J) I found k = 2.46889, m = 2.7268673 and w = 0.4047607 as a good fit.

(iii) Now for the graphics on the mechanical calculator.

 
Addition is simple. As described above, on the inside of the stator (above table in the spreadsheet to the left of column AC), 20 degrees correspond to exactly 80 kg, i.e. an additive weight.

But for the performance part, we have to multiply, therefore we have to change from an additive thinking scheme to a multiplicative (logarithmic scale). On the outside of the stator (above table in the spreadsheet to the right of column AM), we are switching from the additive (20 degrees = 80kg) to a logarithmic scale: here, 100 degrees correspond to a factor e in the ground roll, or an addition of 1 in the logarithm of the ground roll. (This means that 69.3 degrees corresponds to a factor of 2, i.e. a doubling of the ground roll).

Columns AC to AM are the labels of the stator with the approach speeds. There are also the guiding lines that translate the additive weight logic (20 degrees = 80 kg) into the multiplicative ground roll logic (69.3 degrees = doubling), i.e. draw the logarithm.

The above formula

Ground Roll = G_standard * f_PA * f_T * f_M * f_W

is equivalent to
 
ln (Ground Roll) = ln (G_standard) + ln (f_PA) + ln (f_T) + ln (f_M) + ln (f_W)

where all summation terms are reflected on the slide rule according to the relation 1 degree = addition of 0.01. (--> 69.3 degrees is an addition of ln(2) and thus a factor of 2 in the ground roll).

The calculations of the angles for the calculator labels can be found in the spreadsheet from column AS (temperature) to the right. Here, for example, are the temperatures and next to them (derived from the above formulas) the appropriate angles and the corresponding graphic coordinates for the labels.

(iv) For the physical production of the sticky labels on the computing wheel, I copied the graphic of the spreadsheet to PowerPoint and embellished it, for example, rotating the numbers at the correct reading angle depending on their position. Then the whole thing printed out on a sticker, sprayed with clear lacquer (to protect the printer color) and then cut out and glued on.

(v) The mechanical calculator / rotational slide rule itself is a 3D print. Attached are the STL files. All have to be scaled to 10%. The rotors (Rotoren) are inserted into the base plate (Grundplatte), and then the stators (Statoren) are glued to the ground plate for fastening.

If someone follows my approach and builds an similar slide rule, I would be happy about a comment here. Have fun.

Weight and Balance MULTI.xlsx Performancerechner Spreadsheet.xlsx Takeoff Grundplatte.stl Takeoff Rotoren.stl Takeoff Statoren.stl

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Europe, SkyDemon or Autorouter do W&B as well - but no takeoff performance.

The above explained approach has the advantage of being available immediately before takeoff without fiddling in my smartphone, and the same immediately before landing (to determine optimal final approach speed). Works well for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire GA industry approach to take-off performance and W&B is backwards. What can you not change? Takeoff distance, slope, obstacles. What can you change, environmentally? Temp or wind (by time of day or runway choice). What can you absolutely change? Weight. Why do we do a distance then a W&B calculation? Why should we not do one calculation? What is the maximum weight you can carry for takeoff and landing. We should not be expressing takeoff distance in feet or meters, but in pounds or kg of airplane weight. Few airline pilots can tell you what their takeoff distance is, but they can tell you to the pound what the maximum weight for the runway and given conditions. I've spent many a time waiting at the end of Rome or Athens burning off fuel or waiting for wind, to "make weight".

I would also caution against using "standard weights" for adults and children. There is insufficient sample size to do so. The FAA ran into this problem (despite warnings from me and others) when they decided to allow standard weights to be used in the rewrite of Part 135 back in the early 1980s which resulted in a number of crashes. Statistically you really have to get into 50 seats to be accurately using "standard weights". Insufficient sample size plus magnitude of error if used in a 4 seat airplane makes standard weights problematic and downright dangerous.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I would also caution against using "standard weights" for adults and children. There is insufficient sample size to do so.

Misunderstanding. The tool presented above is NOT meant to be universal. By no means. I have used the values that are suitable for me. E.g., my weight is 80kg. Also, the basic empty weight of my airplane is in there.

The idea is to do the work ONCE, and afterwards have a tool that helps me do a quick check on W&B and takeoff performance in only a few seconds.

@201erWhy am I not surprised you're from Germany?

Well, my car is from Germany, my airplane is from Texas, my 3D printer from China, my camera from Japan... you get the idea. Global sourcing. No country first.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fry said:

@201erWhy am I not surprised you're from Germany?

Well, my car is from Germany, my airplane is from Texas, my 3D printer from China, my camera from Japan... you get the idea. Global sourcing. No country first.

I just use an AOA indicator to nail the optimal approach "speed" every time without doing any math or charts.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, 201er said:

I just use an AOA indicator to nail the optimal approach "speed" every time without doing any math or charts.

Of course, that is the best solution of all.

Which AOA do you have, and how expensive was it to install?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Fry said:

Of course, that is the best solution of all.

Which AOA do you have, and how expensive was it to install?

Mine is a Safeflight that was installed in the 80s and came with my plane. I love that it is analog with a needle so you can see rate of change in addition to an indication. I'm not as good at math and spreadsheets like you so I just fly with the ball on the inclinometer and the needle on the AOA centered for consistent approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fry said:

Misunderstanding. The tool presented above is NOT meant to be universal. By no means. I have used the values that are suitable for me. E.g., my weight is 80kg. Also, the basic empty weight of my airplane is in there.

The idea is to do the work ONCE, and afterwards have a tool that helps me do a quick check on W&B and takeoff performance in only a few seconds.

@201erWhy am I not surprised you're from Germany?

Well, my car is from Germany, my airplane is from Texas, my 3D printer from China, my camera from Japan... you get the idea. Global sourcing. No country first.

My apologies, it was not clear to me looking at your slide rule that it is only for you or that it accounted for the actual weight of each adult passenger.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GeeBee You are certainly right that not every adult weighs 80kg, but this is simply my choice of a practical unit. It would be a piece of cake replacing the "number of persons" scale by a scale in "kilograms". I just find it easier to think in "number of persons with about my weight". Consider it a little deviation from the metric system. It is not a major political statement that this is "right" or "better". Just personal preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever works for you is awesome, I’m just glad when people are in the habit of doing a W&B and thinking about how that affects approach speeds.

The takeoff distance is still important for us because we’re single engine.  The airline guys figure theirs based on losing an engine and still either taking off or stopping as appropriate.  For us, it’s more about figuring a takeoff distance and then using a personal pad to make sure it’ll work on our 50year old airframe.  Losing an engine isn’t in the charts!

personally, this is my 1 minute w&b solution.... foreflight.  And yes, F models and most Mooney’s are awesome!

19B9A837-B458-4E7D-8B9C-E850FD846091.thumb.png.49ecf1e6150104a9714dff618d237c1c.png

8516AD27-AF90-497E-BF63-340D763DB08E.thumb.png.e3400a5121fba66b9204b388dda5562c.png

B18E86C4-8D06-4668-ADF8-FF9B4B2E9CA4.thumb.png.07317f41809c48cd642c97ef8334f0a5.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

W&B is one of my favorite things about the Mooney, coming from an F33A that would change as you burned off fuel.

I know how to calculate the max UL and max weight for my 252. I know that it will lift that weight off the ground in well under 3000 ft at whatever DA (I've experienced it at 11,800 DA). It is virtually impossible to load my Mooney out of CG. 

So as long as I'm not over gross weight, and I've got at least 3000 feet of runway, we're good to go.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work, Fry!

There are so many variations involved with Mooney flying...

Most of mine were the two vs. four people variety... (always the same people)

Then how much fuel to bring... (always the same MGTW)

Then I also had the same short runway calculation.... (Always 5B6, 2300’)
 

The only thing that comforts speeding on the ground while looking at trees, at 65kias... Is...

Having the calculations done... :)

Thanks for sharing how you get it done.

Best regards,

-a-

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, steingar said:

The only W&B I've ever seen for my Mooney is a statement in the POH not to put the heavy guys in back.  

Actually, this means you're missing the Flight Manual Supplement portion of your aircraft records.  It should be a signed, factory document with the original weight and balance for your airplane and an original equipment list.  It will also include weight and balance examples, loading charts, and graphs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Actually, this means you're missing the Flight Manual Supplement portion of your aircraft records.  It should be a signed, factory document with the original weight and balance for your airplane and an original equipment list.  It will also include weight and balance examples, loading charts, and graphs.

Mooney is the only plane I’ve seen that comes with a custom w&b manual for each plane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Actually, this means you're missing the Flight Manual Supplement portion of your aircraft records.  It should be a signed, factory document with the original weight and balance for your airplane and an original equipment list.  It will also include weight and balance examples, loading charts, and graphs.

I've never seen it, ever in any of the documentation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ross Taylor said:

Well @Fry - this is damned nice work.  The level of detail, the thought you put into it, and the creativity in execution is quite impressive.

Thanks Ross. Glad you like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost finished with my PPL training I was abandoned by my CFI for a Falcon job.  Can’t blame him at all, his stories about some students scared me for him. I got a new CFI who has been teaching 4 years that I wanted to work on my W&B since I knew what my old one weighed and we always departed with full tanks. I told my new CFI how I calculated it as she said it looked off.  I told her it’s rude to ask a woman her weight so I just assume that all adults weigh 200lbs.  Let’s just say I was 100% high on that......   but that 172 popped off the ground like an angel headed home!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.