@Microlight Hey Thanks for your update. I respectfully disagree regarding the load station amount. Even a simplified model of the 10 load stations would be better than the current implementation. The aircraft weight and balance documents allow for zone loading with the included change in moment as seen in figure 7 in the analysis? Would 10 loading stations exceed the technical capabilities of calculating the CG location for the simulation?
Additionally the aircraft is fully certificated to fly at the boundaries of the CG envelope as a normal operation with no additional procedures or consideration. For example in the CRJ-200 the aircraft is routinely operated at the maximum fwd cg, this is primarily a consequence of someone at bombardier thinking it was a good idea to certify the baggage hold to 3500lbs which necessitating taking the CL600 airframe and adding fuselage plugs in-front of the wing. Sometimes the aircraft was only within FWD cg limit because through the application of ballast in the aft cargo bin, sometimes in excess of 1000lbs.
So I disagree that a) just because the operation is close to the limit that it isn't realistic and b) that the current system is the best possible system because otherwise you would need to account for every seat, that is a straw man fallacy. Is there a fundamental technical limitation the CG cannot be made accurate to align with the weight and balance of the aircraft?
Thanks,
Crash
Edit: Additionally simply saying, "no we aren't planning on taking the time to update the code base" is also a justifiable reason. Cost benefit analysis are a driving force in decision making and planning.
