What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Get the Lead out

vic syracuse

Well Known Member
Advertiser
Mentor
This week while performing a pre buy inspection on a gorgeous RV-9A I happened upon a big block of lead bolted to the tail area underneath the vertical fin! This RV-9A had a 180 HP Lycoming with a fixed pitch prop, of which I have seen and flown a few of. Nothing out of the ordinary stood out to me in this airplane that should indicate a need for ballast in the tail.

In looking at the W&B paperwork it became clear to me that they had added the weight to get the aircraft CG inside the envelope while it was on the scales. I'm sure most of you know this, but the only time the aircraft is required to be within the recommended CG envelope is while it is flying, not while it is empty.

The seller, who was not the builder, agreed to remove the lead while I was there. We weighed the lead at 19 lbs. 14 oz.! I received a note from him that he has since flown it without the lead and he "likes it much better." :) He is going to reweigh the aircraft to establish a new empty weight and CG.

This is the second aircraft on which I have found heavy lead ballast in the tail for the same reason. If any of you have done this as well, please go back and remove it. For those of you who are non-builder-owners, I would encourage you to remove your tail fairings to check for any added ballast in the this area. Anyone peforming Condition Inspections who is not familiar with RV's may have assume it belonged there.

This much weight that far aft will definitely change the flight characteristics of the airplane, adding a huge polar moment of inertia that could bite you badly when least expected, such as in a spin. It's also requiring a lot of extra work from the tailwheel (if so equipped) and may make it harder to correct from inadvertent excursions during crosswinds or other circumstances.

Vic
 
Last edited:
Thanks

Vic,
Thanks for posting this info. Personally, I have not seen this in the few Rv's I have worked with or on. But thanks for explaining why someone might think they needed it and what the down side of having it would be.
Very good info. I always learn stuff from your posts and CI's and your Kitplane articles.
 
Wow, almost 20lb back there is huge. I would be interested to see the W&B form before the weight was removed. It would be useful for my AMT students and we could play with some loading conditions.

If you could PM me the gear weights and ballast arm that would be great. I'm always looking for real world examples for my students.
 
This week while performing a pre buy inspection on a gorgeous RV-9A I happened upon a big block of lead bolted to the tail area underneath the vertical fin! This RV-9A had a 180 HP Lycoming with a fixed pitch prop, of which I have seen and flown a few of. Nothing out of the ordinary stood out to me in this airplane that should indicate a need for ballast in the tail.

In looking at the W&B paperwork it became clear to me that they had added the weight to get the aircraft CG inside the envelope while it was on the scales. I'm sure most of you know this, but the only time the aircraft is required to be within the recommended CG envelope is while it is flying, not while it is empty.

The seller, who was not the builder, agreed to remove the lead while I was there. We weighed the lead at 19 lbs. 14 oz.! I received a note from him that he has since flown it without the lead and he "likes it much better." :) He is going to reweigh the aircraft to establish a new empty weight and CG.

This is the second aircraft on which I have found heavy lead ballast in the tail for the same reason. If any of you have done this as well, please go back and remove it. For those of you who are non-builder-owners, I would encourage you to remove your tail fairings to check for any added ballast in the this area. Anyone peforming Condition Inspections who is not familiar with RV's may have assume it belonged there.

This much weight that far aft will definitely change the flight characteristics of the airplane, adding a huge polar moment of inertia that could bite you badly when least expected, such as in a spin. It's also requiring a lot of extra work from the tailwheel (if so equipped) and may make it harder to correct from inadvertent excursions during crosswinds or other circumstances.

Vic

Hey Vic, Did you also remind him that a new phase I is needed for that kind of W&B change? (5 hr. min.)
 
In looking at the W&B paperwork it became clear to me that they had added the weight to get the aircraft CG inside the envelope while it was on the scales.

That's pretty dumb, but it's not just an EAB thing. Here at 08A we once had a Seneca show up at the paint shop with a 50 lb bag of sand in the tail.
 
sand

I have heard that before...Many moons ago, at a little flight school, they trained in Seneca 1s. They had a problem with students not being able to hold the nose up on landing. After several broken nose gears and the resulting prop strikes, they started putting sand in the back to relieve the problem :)eek:). That didn't last long and they sold the senecas and bought seminoles instead...
 
Note to self...

This much weight that far aft will definitely change the flight characteristics of the airplane, adding a huge polar moment of inertia that could bite you badly when least expected, such as in a spin. It's also requiring a lot of extra work from the tailwheel (if so equipped) and may make it harder to correct from inadvertent excursions during crosswinds or other circumstances.

Vic

Don't be a fool, Schreck! You have already fought this fight and proved the sceptics wrong. Just bite your tongue and ease on down the road. ;)
 
You'd be surprised how common this misconception is

... I nearly didn't get an FAA (not DAR) signoff because my empty CG was outside the envelope. I told Mr. Shields I would happily add a placard right then and there stipulating a minimum pilot + passenger weight of 40 pounds (or whatever trivial amount there brought it into the envelope). He thought it over, and relented.
 
This week while performing a pre buy inspection on a gorgeous RV-9A I happened upon a big block of lead bolted to the tail area underneath the vertical fin! This RV-9A had a 180 HP Lycoming with a fixed pitch prop, of which I have seen and flown a few of. Nothing out of the ordinary stood out to me in this airplane that should indicate a need for ballast in the tail.
Vic

Vic, it is my understanding that Vans engineered the RV9(A) for a maximum 160 HP Lycoming. In this case the builder has opted for a more powerful (and heavier) engine and then thrown some lead in the tail. This sort of stuff must drive Vans nuts !!!! :rolleyes:
 
Vic, it is my understanding that Vans engineered the RV9(A) for a maximum 160 HP Lycoming. In this case the builder has opted for a more powerful (and heavier) engine and then thrown some lead in the tail. This sort of stuff must drive Vans nuts !!!! :rolleyes:


Yep. Couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, I see a lot of RV-9's with the 180 HP engines in them. None of them have had the lead in the tail, though.

Vic
 
In the "as discovered" condition, seems to me there would be a significant payload limitation. Was the airplane within the envelope with both seats full, max baggage, and minimum fuel?
 
Back
Top