Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Simple method to find CG. (interesting method)

Collapse

Zenm Tech Pte Ltd

Collapse

Visit Zenmtech at rc.zenmtech.com

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by pixeldixel View Post
    .......
    Sama-sama

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by joe yap View Post
      .....and if you read my first reply on this thread, I only brought up to the author's attention that not to confuse the CG of a stationary object with the CG of an airplane. I didn't even mentioned that his method is wrong, and so what is actually the problem now?

      joe, the underlined portion is EXACTLY what the problem is!
      you are complicating matters by saying that CG of a stationery object is different from CG of an airplane. Which is equivalent to say that the CG of an object is DEPENDENT on whether an object is moving.

      This is VERY WRONG and i need to correct this before the rest of our bros here got misleaded. Esp when this type of comment comes from guru like yourself, who has got great influence on what you say.
      We are talking about CG, not CP

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by chiadennis View Post
        I am sorry if I offended any daddyhobbist with my PM curtain. My pure intention is to provide practical knowledge of this hobby. I may know some technics and I may learn from others. I do not confuse others with unproven methods or theories.

        Which part of my forum did I put down on 7 channel transmitter? I simply say if you are keen on certain model discipline, some radio have better features.

        I would like to take a poll if my words have been offensive?

        1. GIWM
        2.
        3.
        I certainly don't think any of your posts have been offensive in any way and most certainly you are not hiding behind anything as you're using your real name in your nick anyway.

        I think the problem here is that some people are 'sourgrape' with the respect and status accorded to a few experienced bros here, so they go all out to discredit and challenge them.

        It is really sad that some people do not see that respect are given to these bros for their positive contributions to this forum in the form of build threads and advise ...ie: 'treasure' ...I for one am grateful to these experienced bros for sharing.

        On the other hand, I cannot find a single positive contribution from the Troll !
        Seriously running out of ...Storage space !

        Comment


          #34
          joe, pls dont hide from this.
          waiting for your clarification to post #32.
          This is important. Your words carry weight. Would hv adverse consequences if wrongly said.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by GIWM View Post
            joe, pls dont hide from this.
            waiting for your clarification to post #32.
            This is important. Your words carry weight. Would hv adverse consequences if wrongly said.
            Mate don't be condescending.
            F5D Stratair Viper Triple Carbon
            F5D Stratair Demon
            F5D Jibe
            Jiri Bachinski Escape Pylon
            Voodoo S400
            Kyosho Phantom 70 Reno racer
            La Racer 56

            Comment


              #36


              "Always fly with a responsible attitude. You may think that flying low over other people’s heads is proof of your piloting skill; others know better. The real expert does not need to prove himself in such childish ways..." - the Multiplex Build Manual

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Sunstorm View Post
                Got it! ;)
                F5D Stratair Viper Triple Carbon
                F5D Stratair Demon
                F5D Jibe
                Jiri Bachinski Escape Pylon
                Voodoo S400
                Kyosho Phantom 70 Reno racer
                La Racer 56

                Comment


                  #38
                  pathetic silent consensus?

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Off topic.. But thought I should share some information about forum troll.

                    In response to this thread I decided it was time to sit down and compile a clear definition of a troll followed by some examples, links and ways to deal with them. Please feel free to add your thoughts. I am not the original author of much of this material, in fact most of it is blatently borrowed from the sites linked at the bottom. I am merely the one who compiled the information for this thread. ----Definition---- An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Let me feed him one last time.


                      This is the most constructive reply I can think of, which benefits everybody who reads it.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        I want to say ...

                        Joe Yap is one of the nicest guy in this forum.

                        that's all ... out ...

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by skyfool View Post
                          Joe Yap is one of the nicest guy in this forum.

                          that's all ... out ...
                          Agreed. I value his advice.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by joe yap View Post
                            Let me feed him one last time.


                            This is the most constructive reply I can think of, which benefits everybody who reads it.
                            thanks joe.
                            also got something to share here

                            notice that in the computation of the cg of an aircraft, there is no dynamic terms in the equations. It is purely based on mass distributions.

                            We should be trolling for such ideas in the web and share, rather than calling each other a troll.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by joe yap View Post
                              Don't get confused. Centre of gravity is just a reference for every object, where all the difference masses within the same object can be representated as a single vector, and it is the same in static and dynamic conditions.For an airplane, what we are interested is to find a practical range of positions to conincide with the C.G. through the distributions of the masses, as such it'll provide inflight stability. The practical range is pretty much determined by the actual C.G., and all the dynamic forces acting on the various parts of the airframe, like wings and stabilizers. Fuselage do affect the dynamic loads as well, especially for airframe with wide 'lifting body', but for ease of calculations, they are often being left out. This practical range is NOT the CG itself, but rather a reference position where you should try to adjust the actual CG to fall within.

                              Having said all these, I think the main interest of most of us here, is to try to find out the practical range of position of each individual model airplane, where you want to C.G. to fall within, and this is by another form of calculations, and not the ones shown earlier.

                              Any difference?

                              Comment


                                #45
                                no sir, that BOLD portion indicated by you is fine.

                                So I presume we can conclude that the cg of a stationary object is the same as the cg of a plane, due to the fact that no dynamic terms are involved in the equation. And that cg is not dependent on whether an object is moving or not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X