Thanks for posting this, Baron. I stole just a quick glance at that page
and indeed found my old metric friends hanging out: kg, kN, mm, and so
forth. Caught a couple of oddities, though.
They're working too hard at this dual indication thing:
Mass flow (768) 898 kg (1,981 lb)/s, (772) 919 kg (2,027 lb)/s.
What the heck is that? Well, it turns out that the "(768)" and "(772)"
refer to engine models. But they insert the parenthetical pound (lb)
indications in the numerator of a fraction instead of relegating it to
its own fraction. And the dual use of parentheses confuses the issue. If
required to include non-metric units, I would have written: 768: 898
kg/s (1981 lb/s), 772: 919 kg/s (1017 lb/s).
The clumsiness of non-metric units and styles is revealed in another
example:
Specific Fuel Consumption
16.538 mg/Ns (0.584 lb/h/lb)
The metric indications make much more sense to me from an engineering
standpoint. It's obvious how one could integrate a thrust-time curve and
estimate fuel consumption for a typical flight profile using the metric
units.
I didn't see a handy "comments" button and didn't feel like looking too
hard for one at this time.
Jim
"Carter, Baron" wrote:
>
> More info on the engines:
>
> http://newsite.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jae/jae010213_2_n.shtml
....
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
