Methinks you are embarked on a course of disaster at the moment ...
Does anyone out there have a sample MD-82 loadsheet ?
Be VERY careful pinching other loading systems or trying to use them for design work if you don't have a really detailed knowledge and understanding of how loading systems are designed and what limitations are inherent in the various methodologies. Each is tailored to a specific Type, model, and configuration and, indeed, one can generate 10 quite different trim sheets (or other loading systems) for the same aircraft .. all looking quite different and using quite different numbers .. but all giving accurate and acceptable results.
.. do please be wary of traps for young players unless you know what you are about with design of trimsheets.
I have a sample from Transmeridian.
Consider posting an image and we have something concrete for discussion.
They use the Adjusted Weight method
what, pray tell, is that ?
along with tables for each combination of pax, fuel, cargo.
one would ask why ? For this class of aircraft a conventional trimsheet wins out over load tables every time.
I plan on designing a computerized version that plots the ZFW,TOW, and LDW within the envelope using a y-axis of weight in lbs and an x-axis of index units, and including % MAC lines.
ie a computerised version of a trimsheet. Generally a waste of time as the graphical bits are not necessary with the computer's number crunching power. Be very wary when drawing pictures that you understand which lines are straight and which lines are curves.
While at it does anyone know the formula to calculate the Adjusted Weight using % MAC.
Again, tell us what Adjusted Weight might be and we might have some chance of leading you along the road
Adjusted weight = 82300 + 34.9 = 82334.9
First, why would one round up the BW in such a fashion ? Second, this non-equation constitutes adding apples and oranges to end up with garbage. First requirement for any equation is that the units make sense. This purports to add weight and a non-dimensional number to get something undefinable.
Does this sound right ?
Afraid not ...