--- Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:25:58 -0400 > "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Jon S Berndt writes: > >> > >>Yes. The one foggy point in my mind is what > problems (if > >>any) might be associated with a floating CG (i.e. > from > >>fuel burnoff, etc.). > > > >IMHO You need two (2) CG's. > > > >1) the 'reference' < static > CG usually determined > from > >manufacturer > > specs or something similar for use in FGFS for > > >reference purposes. > > > >2) The 'actual' < dynamic > CG of the aircraft, as > > >determined by vehicle > > loading for use in the FDM > > > > Yes, this is one thing that was thrown about some > weeks > ago in the discussion. I think it's the only real > way to > go.
I think a fixed reference point on the aircraft that has nothing to do with the center of gravity would be much better. Less potential for confusion that way. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
