Skip to main content
18 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 15, 2017 at 16:09 history edited Farhan CC BY-SA 3.0
adding RTOW
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:59 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://aviation.stackexchange.com/ with https://aviation.stackexchange.com/
Sep 15, 2016 at 6:36 comment added Jan Hudec @Terry, also note that the metric system actually has similar set of variations with units like kilopond = kg·_g_ and even hyl = kilopond·s²/m, but these systems have fallen into disuse and SI became almost universal except for few uses of CGS, which is just scaled by powers of 10, and various natural units in particle physics and cosmology. While in imperial both mass-pound and slug are widely used.
Sep 15, 2016 at 6:22 comment added Jan Hudec @Terry, I think it's more a domain thing. "Engineering" system has pound for both mass and weight and live with g coming up in Newton's second law, "Gravitational" system uses pound for force and slug = lbf·s²/ft for mass and "Absolute" system uses pound for mass and poundal (pdl) = lb·ft/s² for force. The first is most common, but impractical for physics, which is why the other two are used there.
Sep 14, 2016 at 19:42 comment added Terry @JanHudec We may be looking at a generational thing. As I remember both my high school and college physics (1950s and 1960s), we were taught that in the English (Imperial?) system that the unit of mass was the "slug", the unit of force the "pound". The equivalent metric units were the Kilogram and the Newton. There was no mention of a "force pound."
Sep 14, 2016 at 16:35 comment added Jan Hudec @Terry, As far as I can tell, "pound" is a unit of mass (defined as 1 lb = 0.45359237 kg) and there is a "force pound", abbreviated lbf, that is a unit of force defined as 1 lbf = 1 lb × g (g is gravity of Earth), allowing people to be sloppy with their dimensions.
Sep 13, 2016 at 20:21 comment added FreeMan I believe MLW should refer to footnote #3, so I changed that. Please revert if I'm incorrect
Sep 13, 2016 at 20:20 history edited FreeMan CC BY-SA 3.0
fix footnote
Sep 13, 2016 at 18:53 history edited Farhan CC BY-SA 3.0
Minor text edits
Mar 13, 2015 at 12:33 vote accept Farhan
Mar 10, 2015 at 19:22 vote accept Farhan
Mar 12, 2015 at 19:28
Feb 27, 2015 at 19:53 history edited Farhan CC BY-SA 3.0
added 733 characters in body
Feb 27, 2015 at 19:45 comment added Terry @SentryRaven Since the U.S. is still (foolishly in my opinion) not using the metric system as our standard, I doubt that we will anytime soon use M instead of W since pounds are a unit of force, not mass. Also, I think the SKYbrary entry could be better written. As it is now, it would likely be interpreted as saying the aircraft's mass in pounds does not vary by altitude when, in fact, it does ever so slightly. The change, of course, is insignificant for aircraft weight purposes.
Feb 27, 2015 at 19:15 history edited voretaq7 CC BY-SA 3.0
Note "Licensed Empty Weight" (obsolete term but shows up in old AFMs) & "Basic Empty Weight" (the GAMA term in light plane POHs)
Feb 27, 2015 at 19:11 comment added voretaq7 Also related (and alluded to above) are the two most common "load" figures: Useful Load (the maximum gross takeoff or operating weight minus the operating empty weight), and Payload (what the aircraft can carry in cargo/passengers/personnel when loaded with the fuel required to make the planned trip).
Feb 27, 2015 at 17:44 comment added SentryRaven Also: +1 for image attribution and going Q&A style. ;)
Feb 27, 2015 at 17:40 comment added SentryRaven AFAIK, they are no longer called weights but masses. The PPL training and examination material no longer uses MTOW but only MTOM: maximum take-off mass. The skybrary also refers to MTOM. Maybe leave a little remark in your otherwise very nice answer?
Feb 27, 2015 at 17:32 history answered Farhan CC BY-SA 3.0