So Jon S Berndt says: > 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 you would need a whole bunch of "input" CG's that go together to make one "output" CG. The static CG of the aircraft (that of the airframe itself) is just one of those input CG's. Its position is given by the manufacturer (as an offset to the reference point of the aircraft?). Added to that are the CG's of the fuel tanks, that change in magnitude but not (or very little, as the fuel level drops) in position, those of the crew, the passengers and their luggage (that change in neither magnitude nor in position, unless any of them go walkabout inside the cabin), and the CG's of stuff hanging off the aircraft such as bombs and missiles, that don't so much move as suddenly disappear. The weighted (literally, according to the weight they represent) average of all those CG's is the actual, dynamic CG. ... I think. <Okay, back to lurk mode> Regards, - Jacco -- Think about it: | In Real Life: Jacco van Schaik If the wheel had never been | Mail me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] reinvented, we'd still be | Spam bait: postmaster@localhost driving on logs... | See also http://www.frontier.nl/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
