Weight and balance, ballast, trim when flying alone

How much does it pitch to the side if you don't put offsetting weight into
the passenger seat and how does it compare to the normal variation caused by
fuel burn from a single side at a time? If you do the math I think you will
see that the moment caused by the fuel burn changes is much higher then the
moment caused by the weight of the passengers so close to the centerline.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
John writes:

What is your expectation from your simulator experience?

I expect it to reasonably simulate weight and balance issues, which it
does,
but not having flown the real thing, I don't know how accurate the
simulation
is. I've read that MSFS tends to exaggerate the W&B effects of unequal
amounts of fuel in the tanks, for example, although I always keep fuel
loads
balanced.

Do you need to laterally balance the plane in MSFS?

Yes.

John writes:

How much does it pitch to the side if you don't put offsetting weight into
the passenger seat and how does it compare to the normal variation caused by
fuel burn from a single side at a time?

I never burn fuel from a single side at a time, so I cannot comment on that.
Both the Bonanza and the Baron let you draw fuel from both tanks, and that's
how I leave it set.

If you are heavy and alone in the plane, it has a distinct tendency to bank
towards the heavy side. The Bonanza does this, anyway, so it's harder to
notice, but the Baron will do it, only not as obviously. When I first started
flying these aircraft I noticed odd banking tendencies and it took a while for
it to dawn on me that the aircraft was simply loaded unevenly.

If you do the math I think you will
see that the moment caused by the fuel burn changes is much higher then the
moment caused by the weight of the passengers so close to the centerline.

No doubt, but I don't alternate tanks.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John writes:

How much does it pitch to the side if you don't put offsetting weight
into the passenger seat and how does it compare to the normal
variation caused by fuel burn from a single side at a time?

I never burn fuel from a single side at a time,


You never burn anything , fjukkwit.


Bertie

On Jan 15, 9:20 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
I never burn fuel from a single side at a time, so I cannot comment on that.
Both the Bonanza and the Baron let you draw fuel from both tanks, and that's
how I leave it set.

If you are heavy and alone in the plane, it has a distinct tendency to bank
towards the heavy side. The Bonanza does this, anyway, so it's harder to
notice, but the Baron will do it, only not as obviously. When I first started
flying these aircraft I noticed odd banking tendencies and it took a while for
it to dawn on me that the aircraft was simply loaded unevenly.

You can run one tank dry in a Bonanza and have the other at 35 gallons
and only need 1/4 twist of the aileron trim to keep things balanced. I
haven't tried draining one side tank and tip tank, though, but that's
not the recommended procedure IAW the STC, so I won't be trying it.

I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.

If you're "flying" in MSFS, the aerodynamic positive stability
tendencies are exaggerated to make it less off putting for non-pilots.

I can always tell when I'm flying with a MSFS Pilot -- they flare
high, fixate on the instruments, and have poor coordination.

The real value to a real pilot of MSFS is practicing certain (albeit
limited) procedures, lesson preview and review, approach practice, and
assistance in acquiring an ear for ATC communications.

You're not really flying, though.

Dan
http://trainingforcfi.blogspot.com/

,

I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.


Just looked, and the MSFS Baron does NOT have a BOTH selector position.
The real one doesn't either, neither does the Bo.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

Just looked, and the MSFS Baron does NOT have a BOTH selector position.
The real one doesn't either, neither does the Bo.

The Dreamfleet Bonanza has such a position, for reasons previously explained.

The Dreamfleet Baron has a system that feeds each engine from its respective
tank(s), with the option of a cross-feed if required. As far as I know, this
is the same as the real thing.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert writes:

Just looked, and the MSFS Baron does NOT have a BOTH selector
position. The real one doesn't either, neither does the Bo.

The Dreamfleet Bonanza has such a position, for reasons previously
explained.



Actually it has it to dumb it down for idiots like you.


Bertie

writes:

You can run one tank dry in a Bonanza and have the other at 35 gallons
and only need 1/4 twist of the aileron trim to keep things balanced.

1/4 twist = 1/4 rotation of the knob (90 degrees of rotation)?

If that's true, then I suppose the weight of the pilot must be far less
significant in comparison.

I doubt there is a Bonanza flying with a "Both" selection.

I've seen pictures of selectors with a "both" position, although apparently
they don't come that way from the factory. Odd that such a position isn't
standard. Dreamfleet puts such a selector in its Bonanza (one of the very few
departures from reality) because MSFS supposedly exaggerates fuel imbalances.
I always leave it in that position.

If you're "flying" in MSFS, the aerodynamic positive stability
tendencies are exaggerated to make it less off putting for non-pilots.

They may be for the default aircraft, but not necessarily for add-ons, which
handle very differently from the default aircraft. The best add-ons make such
a large difference that it's like flying an entirely new simulator.

I can always tell when I'm flying with a MSFS Pilot -- they flare
high, fixate on the instruments, and have poor coordination.

I can always tell when a real pilot of small aircraft is flying the sim,
because he doesn't know what most of the instruments are for, can't fly safely
in IMC, and can't land the plane without an accident because he depends on the
seat of his pants for everything.

The real value to a real pilot of MSFS is practicing certain (albeit
limited) procedures, lesson preview and review, approach practice, and
assistance in acquiring an ear for ATC communications.

You're not really flying, though.

It's good enough for me, and it's very practical.

You're not really flying, though.

It's good enough for me, and it's very practical.

Practical? That implies usefulness. An airplane can be flown somewhere
to accomplish something.

No matter what you "fly" in MSFS, you remain in place.

"Useful" and "Practical" only apply in support of some other function.
A manure shovel is not practical or useful in surgery, but it is very
practical and useful in a barn or a newsgroup.

MSFS may be entertaining, or even quasi-informative, but "practical"
is not an appropriate adjective.

Dan

writes:

Practical? That implies usefulness.

Yes, it does.

An airplane can be flown somewhere to accomplish something.

No matter what you "fly" in MSFS, you remain in place.

Travel is not my objective. In fact, it's one of the things I don't like
about flying for real. One of the practical aspects of simulation is that I
don't have to actually go anywhere when flying.

MSFS may be entertaining, or even quasi-informative, but "practical"
is not an appropriate adjective.

Speak for yourself.