You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: docs/aircraft/a380x/feature-guides/loading-fuel-weight.md
+9-20Lines changed: 9 additions & 20 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -9,19 +9,6 @@ description: Detailed overview of fueling, weight setup, and CG management in th
9
9
10
10
This section provides information on the A380X weight configuration and insight on how to utilize and reference onboard/sim features to configure the aircraft appropriately for departure.
11
11
12
-
[//]: #({==)
13
-
14
-
[//]: #()
15
-
[//]: #(There are differences when using our Stable version vs. Development version.<br/>)
@@ -62,23 +49,24 @@ This section provides information on the A380X weight configuration and insight
62
49
63
50
### Center of Gravity
64
51
65
-
An acceptable range for takeoff CG in the A380X is between 15-45%. The CG is balanced during the passenger loading process.
52
+
An acceptable range for takeoff CG in the A380X is between 28-44%. The CG is balanced during the passenger loading process.
66
53
67
54
Trimming the aircraft for takeoff is usually optional and technically not required. Please reference our the [FBW Checklist](../../../pilots-corner/a380x/a380x-sop.md) to set the appropriate trim should you wish to.
68
55
69
-
Anything less than 25 % CG is considered FWD load, and anything more than 25 % is considered an AFT load. While opting to choose between either CG configuration (aft/fwd), please consider the information below.
70
-
71
56
!!! info "Notes on Differing CG Configurations"
72
57
73
-
There are a few arguments worth considering when it comes to favoring an AFT CG or FWD CG. Generally, an AFT CG would provide for better aircraft performance (lower stall speed, drag, and angle of attack for a given lift coefficient) but generally worse for pitch stability.
58
+
There are a few arguments worth considering when it comes to favoring an AFT CG or FWD CG. Generally, an AFT CG
59
+
would provide for better aircraft performance (lower stall speed, drag, and angle of attack for a given lift
60
+
coefficient) but generally worse for pitch stability.
74
61
75
62
Most operators would favor an AFT CG loading for fuel consumption benefits when considering the lifetime of the fleet and how easy the benefits can be obtained.
76
63
77
64
??? info "Aircraft CG Envelopes"
78
65
## Aircraft CG Envelopes
79
66
80
-
Our dynamic CG and payload chart provides the relevant visual information during the planning and execution of passenger/cargo loading. Fully understanding how the
81
-
longitudinal CG envelope affects the aircraft can be difficult. Below is a great deep dive on understanding the chart and what the information provided indicates.
67
+
Our dynamic CG and payload chart provides the relevant visual information during the planning and execution of
68
+
passenger/cargo loading. Fully understanding how the longitudinal CG envelope affects the aircraft can be difficult.
69
+
Below is a great deep dive on understanding the chart and what the information provided indicates.
@@ -284,7 +272,8 @@ If you imported your SimBrief OFP from the main page on the EFB, the values in t
284
272
285
273
**ZFW MAC %/CG and GW/GWCG**
286
274
287
-
When utilizing the cyan switch button you can see the ZFW MAC %/CG and corresponding GW/GWCG reflect the correct percentage based on the appropriate calculation.
275
+
When utilizing the cyan switch button you can see the ZFW MAC %/CG and corresponding GW/GWCG reflect the correct
276
+
percentage based on the appropriate calculation.
288
277
289
278
!!! tip ""
290
279
In the example below you can note that the fields for ZFW and ZFWCG have been swapped to GW and GWCG respectively.
@@ -99,9 +83,10 @@ The list below will be updated as best as possible. If you have any questions, p
99
83
100
84
??? info "Q: Will there be a performance calculator?"
101
85
102
-
We aim for the outmost accuracy with our projects, and as such we want to hold on making a performance calculator that could potentially provide bad data.
86
+
We suggest using the (free) simBrief calculator for the time being, as it has been found to provide acceptable
87
+
outputs for the current configuration of the A380X.
103
88
104
-
We suggest using the (free) simBrief calculator for the time being, as it has been found to provide acceptable outputs for the current configuration of the A380X.
89
+
We might implement a performance calculator in the future, but it is not a priority at the moment.
105
90
106
91
??? info "Q: Will hardware and gear from the A32NX work on the A380X (e.g. FCU Hardware)?"
0 commit comments