MTOM Vs MTOW
 

Does anyone in aviation still use MTOW anymore?

Only the ones that still use millibars instead of hectopascal's. :roll eyes:

What's the actual numerical difference between the two? Isn't there another one, MAUW?

....all jet aircraft I have flown in the last 16 years

MTOW 579000
MLW 395000
DOW 297124

TOD:ok:

If I can remember my schoolboy physics: Mass & Weight are equal unless we relocate to somewhere where gravity is different from 9.8 m/s/s.

Mass will remain constant, however the weight can change between places due to slightly different accelleartion due gravity.

The difference is minuscule, unless you are talking of huge items.

for example, an item that weighed 9.803 Tonne in New York would, would weigh 8.800 tonne in Denver. A difference of 3 grammes.

Mass v Weight
 

I believe 'MASS' is the SI unit so strictly speaking is scientifically correct whereas WEIGHT is in common usage and has no scientific standing.

G.

#6 "..... an item that weighed 9.803 Tonne in New York would, would weigh 8.800 tonne in Denver. A difference of 3 grammes."


I worked in tons, cwt, lbs, oz. in my school days, but I didn't realize that basic subtraction had changed too.

It was quite obviously a typo. Calm down.

Just one B73?

Both entirely correct scientifically Geoff, and entirely acceptable for load and balance; however, you should use 'Newton' as the unit if you are using weight in the SI.

I've got a feeling that the pedant who insisted on the change has screwed up though. When working out moments for C of G calculations, I think you should be using force x distance so in pedant land, you should go back to multiplying Newton x arm rather than kg x arm.

Anyhow, far more importantly, the Scotland v Australia match is about to start,time to open another beer. Sad to see you out Ireland, good luck Scotland.

Cheers

Tees

RVDT, actually it's where they still use Inches of Hg rather than Hectopascals.

.................... and "subtlety" is still apparently lost.

Tees
 

Looks like Australia had the MASS and Scotland couldn't bear the weight - what a match though - pity the ref screwed up. There will be ructions about that.

G.

Does any of this affect the price of fish? I think not therefore I am going back to sleep.

Well, it all depends whether you buy your fish by mass or force Hugh. As 76 fan points out, if you are paying by the kg you are better off buying your fish at the equator than the poles :ok:

Cheers

TeeS

...also the velocity: the contemporary IRS accelerometers detect the lower 'weight' at 500 KTAS and 35K' alt. I'm sure if you bought fish in that situation, you would save .00000001 of a 'p' or .0000000075 of a 'c' (approx).

TOD

When one works with kg, one works with mass.

When one works with pounds, one works with weight.

When one works with tonnes, one works with mass.

When one works with tons, one works with weight.

All very simple. If one is using imperial units and wishes to work with mass, one must utilize the humble slug.

An engineering professor in one's dark past felt in an ideal world the gravitational constant would be '1'. That would speed up all engineering calculations. Then some fool pointed out that gravity varies and the class was forced to shake of their ennui to discuss.

TC: always asking controversial questions and then disappearing. :ok:

I do not think we should put too much weight behind the use of mass. For instance, if I went to Mass in an RC Church would I weight more or less than if it were an Anglican church?

Weighting up all the options and issues, I think we should be using "Mass" because it is easier to spell and takes less keyboard characters to write meaning electronic files would weight less when mass is used throughout.

Mass is also better when used in an emotive sense. For instance, many people enjoyed the sci-fi "B" movie the "Quatermass" but would they have even gone to see a film called "Quaterweigh"?

Also what would happen to the word "Massive Jugs" if replaced with "Weightive Mammaries" ?