John Wojnaroski writes:
> >
> > > Some want to work spins, prop contact points, etc. But a LOT of
> accidents
> > > occur because the PIC failed to do a proper weight and balance,
> overloaded
> > > the A/C, and/or exceeded the CG limits. Something to consider - how
> about a
> > > weight and balance sheet to fill out before one can start engines ( it
> could
> > > be a file ), but no tickee no engine start.
> > >
> >
> > Surely it would be more realistic if the engines would happily start
> > without filling out the weight and balance, but a random and possibly
> > dangerous CG would be assigned...
>
> No, no, you misunderstood. there is a published weight and balance by the
> manufacture that sets the CG for an empty airplane (with engines) and fore
> and aft limits that should not be exceeded as you add cargo, fuel, and
> people. The weight and balance is for the variable parts, not the engines.
> Before a flight the PIC (Pilot in Command) should check and make certain
> that the limits are not exceeded by performing a weight and balance check as
> per the flight manual.
>
> The randomness I referred to was the variance of equipment due to use and
> aging, not the physical location or geometry of the airframe. Requiring a
> weight and balance is just a little thing to promote safe flying and such.
>
Well I *think* I understand just fine :-)
I'm pretty sure you said "Something to consider - how about a weight
and balance sheet to fill out before one can start engines"
What I am saying is that if the PIC fails to specify where all the
passengers and luggage are located and check they are within weight
and balance then they should still be allowed to start-up and
takeoff, but the Sim will randomly assign the passengers and luggage
location and weight possibly dangerously.
As for your comments about engine randomness, I've refrained from
answering so far since I just know I'll end up typing for ages, but
here goes anyway :-) I have thought about this in the past. All
engines *are* slightly different even straight from the factory, when
the full range of ages and conditions are taken into account then yes
there will be variation in time to start, fuel consumption, maximum
power output, RPM drop during the preflight switch to one magneto,
tendency to foul the plugs when run too rich, lean limit for stable
operation etc. What I had previously considered was that small
errors could be put on each of these things and possibly others.
However, in order that the user could get used to his particular
engine, just as a driver or pilot does in real life, I think that the
random element should be put on when the sim is first run and stored
in a file somewhere for each separate aircraft type. Hence the
random variance would be assigned once, and then the user will get
used to his or her particular engine for that model. Most sim users
are unlikely to clock up enough hours to cause any long-term drift in
performance. If someone wanted to reset their engine ("send it for
overhaul") or run it with nominally 'correct' values (ie
unrandomised) there could be command line switches for this. The
random element would follow something like a normal distribution, so
most users would get performance very close to book values, but a few
might have more noticable differences.
This is just a thought that's been in the back of my head for a while
though, I've no intention of implementing any of this in the near
future!
Cheers - Dave
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
