NY480B Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 I fly an Enstrom 480B and have been mulling over why VNE decreases so much as a function of rearward center of gravity. Sea Level 0*C 2400lb gross weight VNE is 125k ias at full forward center of gravity, and 105 at full rearward. A couple of possibilities occur to me but none feel quite right:1) Not VNE but actually estimate of how fast you will be going when you run out of forward cyclic. Experience has proven this not to be true.2) Structural stress on mast given relatively forward tip plane path and relatively rearward mast orientation. Possible but attitude indicator shows decent nose down attitude at VNE speeds i.e. doesn't seem that severe an angle. 3) Flapping limitations given relatively forward tip plane path and relatively rearward mast orientation. Possible but as above, angle doesn't seem that severe. 4) Drag created by non-aerodynamic positioning of fuselage means you are putting more stress on the transmission at same speed. Certainly true, but I am only pulling about 55 torque when I hit VNE w/ rear center of gravity, and there are configurations that have you pulling in excess of 65 torque with more forward center of gravity while still below VNE. Only takes certain amount of energy to maintain fixed altitude at fixed weight, so everything else has to be forward pull I reckon. Transmission is capable of handling it. Thoughts? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 Misprint in the POH... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBuzzkill Posted September 26, 2013 Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 Probably due to the increased angle of attack on the retreating blade in order to counteract the rearward CG. The further aft that goes the more lift you need to be making on the retreating blade to keep the tail up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY480B Posted September 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2013 Huh. Heard back indirectly from factory. Evidently the answer is... a variant of number 1. No issue with retreating blade stall (at lower altitudes) or with structural stress. Just that they don't want you to run out of forward cyclic in case you hit a gust and need some nose down to stabilize. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroscout Posted September 27, 2013 Report Share Posted September 27, 2013 Huh. Heard back indirectly from factory. Evidently the answer is... a variant of number 1. No issue with retreating blade stall (at lower altitudes) or with structural stress. Just that they don't want you to run out of forward cyclic in case you hit a gust and need some nose down to stabilize. I was kind of surprised. The least likely cause you listed ended up being the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted October 4, 2013 Report Share Posted October 4, 2013 I was kind of surprised. The least likely cause you listed ended up being the answer.I was just jealous he is flying my fav ship.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.