> Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > >..dude. This is another "common wisdom"? I can understand 'not > >allowing it with paying passengers'. But I won't ever put my ass in > >a spam can driven by some clueless burger flippers who has never > >been _allowed_to_learn_ how to get out of trouble. > > > >..the IMHO appropriate way, is produce a "report on violation on > >regulation with a big nice fat fine to pay." > > > > > > Crashes generate obscene forces. Many of these high end simulators are > connected to motion platforms. People don't want to break their hardware. >
This is quite correct. The MD-83 sim cab has a 5000lb counterweight to help balance the weight of the flight deck itself. It's on a hydraulic hexapod that's driven with a 4" diameter main feed hydraulic line that's at 2150 PSI. It can fling that 10,000lb+ simulator cab around like it weighed nothing. It is mounted to a 10 foot thick concrete pad that is isolated from the rest of the building foundation by a 1 inch thick rubber seal. This prevents the vibration and motion of the simulator from collapsing the building. g. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
