It should be 3,500 lb in USA terms.
Maybe the 15570 is really 15.57 kN with an extra zero?
Anyone know?
Regards,
Ray
It should be 3,500 lb in USA terms.
Maybe the 15570 is really 15.57 kN with an extra zero?
Anyone know?
Regards,
Ray
Google:
input: "15570 N in lbf"
result 3500. pound force
Caution pound FORCE (lbf) not pound mass (lbs),
since f = m * a, (factor 9.81N/kg ~ 10 - the factor which you were probably missing),
(lbf is a force, lb is a mass unit)
Similar issue would be weight in N and mass in KG. Weight depends on the gravity (9.81 N/kg on Earth's surface), whilst mass would be constant. But a lot of people say aircraft weight = ...kg, which is incorrect. Therefore nowadys we lern abbreviations like MTOM instead of MTOW or MLM (max landing mass) instead of MLW at the university. In the Aerofly FS 2 there also is no such thing as a weight parameter. We only use "Mass" and calculate the gravitational force from that.
And yes that is 15.57 kN per engine: 15570N / ( 1000N / kN ) = 15.57 kN, no zeros required?!
Excellent. Thanks. Jan.
Ray
Google:
input: "15570 N in lbf"
result 3500. pound forceCaution pound FORCE (lbf) not pound mass (lbs),
since f = m * a, (factor 9.81N/kg ~ 10 - the factor which you were probably missing),
(lbf is a force, lb is a mass unit)Similar issue would be weight in N and mass in KG. Weight depends on the gravity (9.81 N/kg on Earth's surface), whilst mass would be constant. But a lot of people say aircraft weight = ...kg, which is incorrect. Therefore nowadys we lern abbreviations like MTOM instead of MTOW or MLM (max landing mass) instead of MLW at the university. In the Aerofly FS 2 there also is no such thing as a weight parameter. We only use "Mass" and calculate the gravitational force from that.
And yes that is 15.57 kN per engine: 15570N / ( 1000N / kN ) = 15.57 kN, no zeros required?!
Wow Jan
I'm impressed!!!!