Cargo weight wrong
-
Hello!
Perfect update but have some weight issue.
Regarding to POH, 850 have rear 100kg and aft 35kg compartment. In sim we have nose baggage for 227kg! and rear 32kg. I think that tablet image, weight, allocation and mass and balance should be reconfigured before publish update to MSFS Store.
-
I found one issue, which was the maximum settable baggage compartment weights on the tablet interface, but configuration files, and tablet image otherwise seem correct. Is that what you are referring to? I've clarified the manual to include the forward nose baggage compartment maximum payload, which is 110 lbs. The unpressurized aft compartment was an option for the TBM 850, to the best of my knowledge.
-
Real life TBM have regarding to POH two baggage compartments. In your renderition is front baggage compartment which have over 227kg which is impossible because it''s size. It;s too small, it's rather meant for storing oil, fluids, cloths, accessories. or for holding towbar the front wheel not for 227kg baggage. I think tablet have baggage options copied from Duke. That's why I'm wondering if the weight and balance in this aircraft are represented correctly, since we can add such a large weight to the nose of the aircraft, but there is no rear, additional storage compartment.
However, the rear cargo space has only 32 kg capacity, whereas it should have 100 kg.So currently, if we don't load any baggage into the front compartment (yes, this small front opened box), the center of gravity of the aircraft is shifted all the way to the rear limit. Check the tablet image attached.
Sim w&B:
Real w&B:
-
I think what may be the issue here is that, at least per the POHPerformance site @SebAvi linked and which I use as well, there are two versions of the TBM850, L and G, the former with the avionics as depicted in this sim airplane and the W+B/cargo compartments as depicted by the POH screenshot provided by @SebAvi m, the latter with G1000 avionics and the W+B/Cargo compartments as depicted in the sim airplane.
Perhaps the TBM850G layout/W+B was inadvertently used in this model, rather than the TBM850L layout/W+B.
-
Hello
@Black-Square any ideas when this issue will be corrected? Thanks!
