Metric VS Empirial
- Thread starter Plendakor
- Start date
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
drew_drummer
Dancefap
ratsapprentice
God can gtfo
MarcusGHedwig
Member
HCL
Holy Crap! Lions!
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
There are only 3 countries in the world which didn't adopt the metric system. Go figure
@ratsapprentice : thank you so much
@ratsapprentice : thank you so much
DeclanWhite
Senior Member
ratsapprentice
God can gtfo
Sweetnothing
¯\(º_o)/¯
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Honestly, this is a major issue in my field :
The non metric units fuck up my daily work life a lot. I mean, in my books, I get to use shit like "use center pumps ON if the center tank has more than 936 kg of fuel" because the plane is a Boeing, designed in lbs (and there must be a round number there) which is used absolutely nowhere else than in the US when it comes to airports and fuel. Since lawyers dictate the world, the books in europe use the direct conversion and procedures cannot be changed to "use the pump if the center tank has more than 950kg of fuel" because that would potentially cause a problem in court one day and if it's written in the book it would be the pilot's fault anyway, which is always convenient.
The engines being Rolls Royce, they are graded in Newtons (maximum 26KN in my case). Mines display a % of some rotor speed, while some others (US ones) would have a different system which displays the exhaust gas temperature in... Farheneit. The only place in the world where you would read a temperature in a plane, on a weather report, or engine data, in something else than Celsius, will be in the USA.
My twin engine aircraft at school was american too. beechcraft 58. Procedures were written in lbs and galons, while the rest of the world uses kg and liters when it comes to fuel. We were very careful when converting units because you can fuck up quickly and get less fuel than expected because of your conversion between liters (what you get), kg (what the aircraft needs, a mass of combustible), and gallons (what the rulers in the planes wing display, or the planes book uses). At least in my plane, since there is no indication except on a computer, they made it in tons per hour, so the only conversion we do is liters to kg, which is the simplest level you can get (correction for pressure and temperature)
I'm not even talking about the 4 different speeds considered in aerodynamics (different levels of corrections of altitude/pressure/adiabatic correction to compared speeds in different conditions) which don't need to be made more complicated than they already are.
When we fly, we talk in knots which are miles per hour, but these are nautical miles per hour, which are different than the miles per hour used in your car. Altitude is in feet, but we use landing distances in meters. Horizontal distances in the air is in DME which is nautical miles diagonally between a beacon and the aircraft (the closer you are to the beacon, the more pythagore has to be taken into account). Retardedly, some rules use the... imperial mile. Like "freezing condition operations are mandatory when visibility is less than 1 imp mile" which is rounded to 1600m. Why they would not even use the Nautical mile is beyond me.
Gliders, even american ones, and aerobatic planes, have metric system instruments so when you are gliding you count in km/h for your speed, and meters/s for the vertical winds you are trying to catch. At least they are consistent and this is more or less a constant in the whole modern gliding world
I mean, what a mess ! So yeah I dream of a world which uses the metric system exclusively, and "many" people killed themselves because of conversions between those units especially in mass calculations, and fuel.
The non metric units fuck up my daily work life a lot. I mean, in my books, I get to use shit like "use center pumps ON if the center tank has more than 936 kg of fuel" because the plane is a Boeing, designed in lbs (and there must be a round number there) which is used absolutely nowhere else than in the US when it comes to airports and fuel. Since lawyers dictate the world, the books in europe use the direct conversion and procedures cannot be changed to "use the pump if the center tank has more than 950kg of fuel" because that would potentially cause a problem in court one day and if it's written in the book it would be the pilot's fault anyway, which is always convenient.
The engines being Rolls Royce, they are graded in Newtons (maximum 26KN in my case). Mines display a % of some rotor speed, while some others (US ones) would have a different system which displays the exhaust gas temperature in... Farheneit. The only place in the world where you would read a temperature in a plane, on a weather report, or engine data, in something else than Celsius, will be in the USA.
My twin engine aircraft at school was american too. beechcraft 58. Procedures were written in lbs and galons, while the rest of the world uses kg and liters when it comes to fuel. We were very careful when converting units because you can fuck up quickly and get less fuel than expected because of your conversion between liters (what you get), kg (what the aircraft needs, a mass of combustible), and gallons (what the rulers in the planes wing display, or the planes book uses). At least in my plane, since there is no indication except on a computer, they made it in tons per hour, so the only conversion we do is liters to kg, which is the simplest level you can get (correction for pressure and temperature)
I'm not even talking about the 4 different speeds considered in aerodynamics (different levels of corrections of altitude/pressure/adiabatic correction to compared speeds in different conditions) which don't need to be made more complicated than they already are.
When we fly, we talk in knots which are miles per hour, but these are nautical miles per hour, which are different than the miles per hour used in your car. Altitude is in feet, but we use landing distances in meters. Horizontal distances in the air is in DME which is nautical miles diagonally between a beacon and the aircraft (the closer you are to the beacon, the more pythagore has to be taken into account). Retardedly, some rules use the... imperial mile. Like "freezing condition operations are mandatory when visibility is less than 1 imp mile" which is rounded to 1600m. Why they would not even use the Nautical mile is beyond me.
Gliders, even american ones, and aerobatic planes, have metric system instruments so when you are gliding you count in km/h for your speed, and meters/s for the vertical winds you are trying to catch. At least they are consistent and this is more or less a constant in the whole modern gliding world
I mean, what a mess ! So yeah I dream of a world which uses the metric system exclusively, and "many" people killed themselves because of conversions between those units especially in mass calculations, and fuel.
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Metal Overload
Member
- Sep 8, 2005
- 1,778
- 0
- 36
Trevoire520
Member
DullElysium
Member
Metric... I hate the fact that I got axis pedals. Just lost a screw and some bearing balls. Not easy to find those here.
But metric system doesn't go well with singing "a million kilometres away".. Or something like that
But metric system doesn't go well with singing "a million kilometres away".. Or something like that
Nimvi
Member
DullElysium
Member
People sing about distance too. Atleast some do in the pop genre.
Edit: or did i get something wrong?
Metric... I hate the fact that I got axis pedals. Just lost a screw and some bearing balls. Not easy to find those here.
But metric system doesn't go well with singing "a million kilometres away".. Or something like that
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
