Re: [Flightgear-devel] Weight Balance data...
Lee Elliott wrote: I think the others have said that there's no immediate need for it but I can't see how it could be a bad thing. While it may not be needed now, it offers more options and possibilities and should be possible with a low overhead. As long as any scheme could be easily integrated, without any maintenance overhead, it sounds like a good idea, to me - if someone wants to do it:) One of the biggest problems is that the moments of inertia usually are given for the whole airplane. Modelling every single instrument would require to recalculate the moments of inertia beforehand, and recalculate them later on. I'm not looking forward to recalculate the moments of inertia because of some instruments that won't change the moments too much after all. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Weight Balance data...
On Saturday 15 November 2003 08:50, Erik Hofman wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: I think the others have said that there's no immediate need for it but I can't see how it could be a bad thing. While it may not be needed now, it offers more options and possibilities and should be possible with a low overhead. As long as any scheme could be easily integrated, without any maintenance overhead, it sounds like a good idea, to me - if someone wants to do it:) One of the biggest problems is that the moments of inertia usually are given for the whole airplane. Modelling every single instrument would require to recalculate the moments of inertia beforehand, and recalculate them later on. I'm not looking forward to recalculate the moments of inertia because of some instruments that won't change the moments too much after all. Erik I was thinking that as the mass of an instrument doesn't change over time, it could be done once at start-up and then effectively forgotton about. I won't be doing it though:) ...so I'm happy to leave the decision to others. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Weight Balance data...
After looking through the various instrumentation files, I noticed that there is no weight data associated with the instruments. For those that don't know, each instrument that goes into the panel is labeled with its weight. This is done to make sure that an accurate dry weight can be calculated. Is there any interest in getting that detailed on the WB calcs? When duplicating a real-world instrument, the weights are easily available and a generic weight could be assigned to avionics that don't model a specific real world model/brand. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Weight Balance data...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:20:42 -0800 (PST) Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any interest in getting that detailed on the WB calcs? When duplicating a real-world instrument, the weights are easily available and a generic weight could be assigned to avionics that don't model a specific real world model/brand. The only problem with that I think is that it won't do much good unless the entire aircraft is itemized, and most of the components' weights won't be known or knowable. I don't think it would buy us anything in noticable dynamic effects. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Weight Balance data...
Gene Buckle writes: After looking through the various instrumentation files, I noticed that there is no weight data associated with the instruments. For those that don't know, each instrument that goes into the panel is labeled with its weight. This is done to make sure that an accurate dry weight can be calculated. Is there any interest in getting that detailed on the WB calcs? When duplicating a real-world instrument, the weights are easily available and a generic weight could be assigned to avionics that don't model a specific real world model/brand. I don't think we need to worry -- anything semi-permanently installed in the plane (seats, gauges, radios, intercom, etc.) is already included in the published empty weight and moment (which is ammended by an AME [Canada] or IA [U.S.] whenever anything is installed or removed). In a 172 or Cherokee, even the oil is already included in the empty weight. In fact, some things are easily removeable -- most avionics pop out of their trays so that you can bring them in for repair, take them home, etc., without any signoff from an AME/IA. I have also removed and reinstalled VOR and ADF heads, which are a little trickier, but mostly because of the limited working space on the floor under the panel (I needed an AME signoff to reinstall them, but not to take them out). In theory, pilots should ammend the WB whenever they take anything out temporarily or put it back in, but in practice, the weight is so small and so close to the CG that people don't seem to bother. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Weight Balance data...
Is there any interest in getting that detailed on the WB calcs? When duplicating a real-world instrument, the weights are easily available and a generic weight could be assigned to avionics that don't model a specific real world model/brand. The only problem with that I think is that it won't do much good unless the entire aircraft is itemized, and most of the components' weights won't be known or knowable. I don't think it would buy us anything in noticable dynamic effects. Thanks Jon. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Weight Balance data...
On Friday 14 November 2003 19:20, Gene Buckle wrote: After looking through the various instrumentation files, I noticed that there is no weight data associated with the instruments. For those that don't know, each instrument that goes into the panel is labeled with its weight. This is done to make sure that an accurate dry weight can be calculated. Is there any interest in getting that detailed on the WB calcs? When duplicating a real-world instrument, the weights are easily available and a generic weight could be assigned to avionics that don't model a specific real world model/brand. g. I think the others have said that there's no immediate need for it but I can't see how it could be a bad thing. While it may not be needed now, it offers more options and possibilities and should be possible with a low overhead. As long as any scheme could be easily integrated, without any maintenance overhead, it sounds like a good idea, to me - if someone wants to do it:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
