> 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.
Flightgear-devel mailing list