> I realize that it is useful to agree to the nose as VRP in purpose to > take the load off the 3D model designer to determine the empty weight > CG. This is a valid argument.
Yes, thank you. This is the primary reason for using the nose as the VRP, IMHO. > Adopted to the current case this means: The longest distance from > whichever CG you take to the edges of the aircraft is _always_ smaller > than the longest distance from the nose to arbitrary edges. This > results in smaller relative 'errors' in case some details don't get > modelled as exact as it probably could be. In this case, you could also say that using the empty weight CG might actually _mask_ an error, where as using the nose would be more likely to expose an error (when doing ground ops). > Consinder the case as an example that the flight model (not the FDM) is > built upon data from an early design of some aircraft - because access > to this data is easier. On the other hand, the 3D designer takes recent > pictures as a basis for his model, because old picures from the early > design are hard to find. If you take the empty weight as VRP then > chances are that the 3D model fits to the flight model with a smaller > error because probably during development the shape of the nose has > changed, a different radar was chosen (military aircraft), later > production models got a different propeller with a different spinner > (light aircraft) or whatever reason it might have had. Yes. True. How many aircraft do we now model where this is the case? Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
