Rollover in Quebec

[knunut]

Decal reads "FQCC" French Quebec Camping Club ??

[Papa smurf]

No FQCC is short for : federation quebecoise de camping caravaning.
It is a grouping of people interested in all forms of camping. They have over 40 000 members mainly in Quebec. I am a member myself mainly because you can get great insurance at a decent rate with their partner Aviva. For those of you who can read French or are just curious their web site is fqcc.ca

[Papa smurf]

[QUOTE=ROBERT CROSS;1824571]Papa smurf did the detective work....can we agree these photo's are of the same rig?

There is so few Airstream in Quebec that the chances that there is two exact same model both being towed by the same car and both having that Komo carrier in the back are slim to none. Nevertheless if you can find a similar set up I will gladly buy you a beer if we ever meet. On the other hand if you can not how about you buy me a bottle of Champagne

[Tn Traveler]

Originally Posted by A W Warn

Looks like the Komo carrier is pretty heavy.
(or is the weight spec the capacity?)

http://www.ecarriershelving.com/?category_id=31

It surely does. Take a look at the 4 strong firemen carrying it out of the weeds. Looks to be fully intact with maybe the load still inside. I saw no sign of scattered contents. If not the cause that box was probably the contributing factor.

[DavidsonOverlander]

Originally Posted by knunut

Decal reads "FQCC" French Quebec Camping Club ??

... since it's a French organization, the name would be in French.

Fédération québécoise de camping caravaning

[wulfraat]

Worst.
Idea.
Ever.

[OTRA15]

Thanks wulfraat.

Every 10 pounds hung on the back reduces the tongue weight by about 10 pounds.

A simple and almost fatal error.

[DanB]

Originally Posted by OTRA15

"Every 10 pounds hung on the back reduces the tongue weight by about 10 pounds."

First, What I'm asking isn't aimed to question or defend this setup. This quote above just called to the amateur physics calculator in me!

I'm wondering how true this basic "formula" is. I'm going to just throw out some general percentages for conversation purposes.

Isn't the average pivot point of a dual axle trailer at about the 2/3rds point? given this along with fact that we are not dealing with a true pivot point, a 3 foot span of "non-pivot" between the axles exist, I bet we are closer to 2:1 ratio.

For example: 10 pounds on the rear of a 30' trailer: 10#x10 feet (rear of axle) = 5#x20 feet (front of axle).

Sure would be interesting to take a trailer to a scale for some testing.

What I'm realizing is that does not only have to do with those folks putting bikers, coolers, and golf carts on their bumper, but also dummies like me that throw the suitcase on the rear bed, 4 heavy bag chairs and 10 gauge fifty foot extension cords in the trunk. I'm sure it all adds up quickly.

Maybe I need to re-think where things go.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by OTRA15

Thanks wulfraat.

Every 10 pounds hung on the back reduces the tongue weight by about 10 pounds.

A simple and almost fatal error.

This isn't...exactly....true. The number depend on the ratio of the distance from the weight hung on the back to the center of the axle to the distance from the coupler to the center of the axle. I have a spreadsheet which calculates this (among other things) and with my particular model, if I hang a 20 pound object 30" rearward from just inside the rear compartment door, it reduces TW by 13 pounds.

[OTRA15]

Check wulfraat's recent photo.

The back of that large box is about equidistant from the center of the two axles as the hitch ball IMO.

Close enough for a ballpark talking point for people to get it IMO.

Keep It Simple Stu . . .

Formulas and too many words mask the fact that this large box was a bad idea entirely, and a one-to-one weight ratio makes the point very clear, in ways that the average person can relate to.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by OTRA15

Check the photo.

The back of that large box is about equidistant from the center of the two axles as the hitch ball IMO.

Close enough for a ballpark talking point for people to get it IMO.

Keep It Simple Stu . . .

Formulas and too many words mask the fact that this large box was a bad idea entirely.

Oh, no doubt it was a bad idea. I just believe in accuracy. We don't have any measurement nor weight specs, but most if not all US trailers have their axle centers rearward of overall length. Not so much for European trailers. Also, we have no idea how the rest of the trailer is loaded as well. There's no mask here, just room for clarity of statements...and I ain't stupid....just ignorant in many areas, but when I need accuracy in these kinds of things, I take the bother to learn and find the indisputable math and physics answers. Neglecting that is the stupid part, IMHO. Doesn't matter whether we are talking about (over)loading the AS or (over)loading the TV in any physical aspect.

[RandyNH]

Originally Posted by OTRA15

Formulas and too many words mask the fact that this large box was a bad idea entirely, and a one-to-one weight ratio makes the point very clear, in ways that the average person can relate to.

I'm not sure where you thought you were posting, but this is the AIRSTREAM forums, I do not believe there is even a single "average" person here. I believe everyone to either be an engineer or in school to be an engineer, hence complicated formulas are just snack food (for thought)

[DanB]

I believe half the people here are below average. (think about it.....!)

[GeeSag]

Here is some fun:
So for all those above me, please help correct me......
F= m*(α*(Ri-R)+ω*ω*(Ri-R)+a)

So where m goes has a huge impact more so than just front to rear tongue weight.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by GeeSag

Here is some fun:
So for all those above me, please help correct me......
F= m*(α*(Ri-R)+ω*ω*(Ri-R)+a)

So where m goes has a huge impact more so than just front to rear tongue weight.

Fun? I'm tired already! (BTW, I'm not above you) Yes this certainly comes into play...significantly...but there would be a whole bunch of variables to add to the calculation, which I don't even want to think about.

[mojo]

A lot of pontification here...

Stick a Sherline scale under the tongue of the trailer as you load it...or go to the Cat scales.

[Gearheart]

Even if he balanced it out by putting more luggage in the front, the mass of that big booty would go a long way to contributing to a tail wagging the dog situation. You would not believe the engineering skull sweat that goes into determining where stuff goes inside the trailer and how much it is allowed to weigh. It blows my mind that people think of gutting out a trailer and redesigning the interior with exotic solid woods and stone counter tops, their only concern being how it will look and affect functionality when they are done.

[J. Morgan]

A little common sense and practical experience goes a long way.

I did a gut and refit of my trailer, no exotic material like stone or tile, but my first attempt made the rear of the trailer too heavy. This was apparent early on, (upon the first tow past 60 MPH) so I rebuilt the bath a lot lighter.

A little here, a little there adds up...

I weighed the stuff I took out, it surprised me.

In the course of this ordeal, I learned that if the rear of the trailer is too heavy, (well aft of the axles) no amount of weight on the tongue will restore stability. I learned this via practical experiment.


Gradiens super tenui glacie.

[AWCHIEF]

Attached is what the the FAA has to say about weight and balance. Very good read even for this non Internet engineer.
Part of my military training and qualifications consisted of doing W&B calculations for aircraft loading. Also spent ten years living and cruising in a 32 ft sailboat where proper W&B was critical to a safe fast sail. Much of this can be directly related to our Airstreams.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...83-30_Ch04.pdf

[OTRA15]

Thanks for this resource, Michael. The part you attached is about static weight -- basically up and down -- but nothing about the effect of heavy loads fore and aft on "yaw" or "sway" while the aircraft is in motion. Might there be another section relating to these kinds of dynamic forces on a plane in flight?

The resource posted by markdoane in Post #180 in the Out Of Control Sway thread here:

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f238...ay-152451.html

had a very good discussion of yaw, the link for which follows:

http://caravanandmotorhomebooks.com/caravan-dynamics/


Thanks again,

Peter