On Aug 8, 2022, at 7:19 PM, Corbin via groups.io <c_geiser@...> wrote:

That is the fuel burn rate.  Not the weight.  You need to look at the actual formula and weights down below.  The fuel burn rate is 5 gallons per hour.  That is not the weight.  Look at the actual W/B down below.

Corbin

On Aug 8, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

This is the spreadsheet you originally sent. I have highlighted cell column4/row8. The colors show which cells are reference in the formula. You can see the value is multiplying fuel volume by fuel burn.

<image001.png>

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Corbin via groups.io
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 4:57 PM
To: Q List <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Mission Changed - Time to Sell My Q200

 

The answer is always in the formula and cell references.  That formula is using fuel burn rate for the time component in the W/B.  The header name of “Weight” is just through to baggage.  

 

It is a relative reference for the fuel burn calculation below.  He needs to look at the actual formula for the weight of the fuel further down in the W/B.  For example, the first row shows 11 gallons of gas and 66 lbs which is the 10 gallons entered above in the cell he is looking at plus the 1 gallon of unusable fuel for a total of 11 gallons.  The weight shows 66 lbs.  The second row shows 10 gallons at 60 lbs and so on and so on.  As time goes on (first column) the rate that fuel burns if 5 gallons per hour.  This is how the total fuel in main decreases as time passes.  The weight is updated by multiplying the gallons times 6lbs.  If the relative reference, using fuel burn was not calculated then the time component in the first column would be inaccurate.

 

The screenshot shows what I am referring to quite easily.  

 

 Corbin

On Aug 8, 2022, at 5:44 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

 

Hi Corbin,

 

I think Chris is looking at the results of the formula in column 4 (starting condition moment calculation), where it apparently multiplies the fuel quantity in gallons by the weight per gallon and appears to indicate that the weight per gallon in that formula is 5 lb./gallon.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Corbin via groups.io
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 4:34 PM
To: Q List <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Mission Changed - Time to Sell My Q200

 

Chris,

 

Look at the formula itself in the W/B.  6 lbs is used for a gallon of gas. See screenshot below.

 

 

 

On Aug 8, 2022, at 1:25 PM, Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:

 

 Corbin ------  I may be missing something. I see the fuel burn at 5 GPH

In the W&B it  says column 3  fuel main 10 gallons  column 4 says 50lbs

Next down for the header it says column 3 ---------- 4 gallons column 4 is 20 lbs

 Take care--------------  Chris


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

 

-- 

Corbin 
N121CG 

 

-- 

Corbin 
N121CG 

-- 

Corbin 
N121CG

That is the fuel burn rate.  Not the weight.  You need to look at the actual formula and weights down below.  The fuel burn rate is 5 gallons per hour.  That is not the weight.  Look at the actual W/B down below.

--

Corbin 
N121CG

Well, remember that I pointed out that "Weight" stops at "baggage".  It is clearly not using 5lbs but I guess nobody looks at the actual data in the table.  Scary.

Corbin 
N121CG

On Aug 8, 2022, at 7:49 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:



I built the original spreadsheet template, including the columns below that you are referencing, which I am well aware of. Details can be trivial, as in this case, but not always and it is important to be rigorous.

 

Note that in the spreadsheet you originally sent… in the columns below, zero-time weight is 1192 and your header weight is listed as 20 pounds. In the next row, the header weight jumps to 30 (10 pounds heavier), and the total weight jumps to 1196 (4 pounds heavier). As I mentioned before the zero-time values come from the section above. This is why you have this discrepancy in your columns section. I have corrected your spreadsheet formulas (to include your 1 gallon unusable in the header) and I am attaching that corrected version here. You will see that the starting weight is 1202 in the corrected version (not 1192).

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Corbin via groups.io
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:28 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Mission Changed - Time to Sell My Q200

 

Well, remember that I pointed out that "Weight" stops at "baggage".  It is clearly not using 5lbs but I guess nobody looks at the actual data in the table.  Scary.

Corbin 
N121CG

I built the original spreadsheet template, including the columns below that you are referencing, which I am well aware of. Details can be trivial, as in this case, but not always and it is important to be rigorous.

Note that in the spreadsheet you originally sent… in the columns below, zero-time weight is 1192 and your header weight is listed as 20 pounds. In the next row, the header weight jumps to 30 (10 pounds heavier), and the total weight jumps to 1196 (4 pounds heavier). As I mentioned before the zero-time values come from the section above. This is why you have this discrepancy in your columns section. I have corrected your spreadsheet formulas (to include your 1 gallon unusable in the header) and I am attaching that corrected version here. You will see that the starting weight is 1202 in the corrected version (not 1192).

Well, remember that I pointed out that "Weight" stops at "baggage".  It is clearly not using 5lbs but I guess nobody looks at the actual data in the table.  Scary.

Corbin 
N121CG

Jay,

Please use defined names and named ranges when building your spreadsheets and formulas. It is soooo much easier to follow a spreadsheet formula that reads “=MainTankUseableFuel+1” than it is to follow a formula that reads “=R[-6]C[-3]+1” or “=C8+1” or, worse “=$C$8+1”.

Thank you,

David J. Gall

I built the original spreadsheet template, including the columns below that you are referencing, which I am well aware of. Details can be trivial, as in this case, but not always and it is important to be rigorous.

Note that in the spreadsheet you originally sent… in the columns below, zero-time weight is 1192 and your header weight is listed as 20 pounds. In the next row, the header weight jumps to 30 (10 pounds heavier), and the total weight jumps to 1196 (4 pounds heavier). As I mentioned before the zero-time values come from the section above. This is why you have this discrepancy in your columns section. I have corrected your spreadsheet formulas (to include your 1 gallon unusable in the header) and I am attaching that corrected version here. You will see that the starting weight is 1202 in the corrected version (not 1192).

Well, remember that I pointed out that "Weight" stops at "baggage".  It is clearly not using 5lbs but I guess nobody looks at the actual data in the table.  Scary.

Corbin 
N121CG

Good point, David. However, it is not my spreadsheet It’s ancestry only started it’s long evolutionary journey as my spreadsheet. I don’t use numerical column references, unless I am writing it in macro code running in the background.

Cheers,

Jay

Jay,

Please use defined names and named ranges when building your spreadsheets and formulas. It is soooo much easier to follow a spreadsheet formula that reads “=MainTankUseableFuel+1” than it is to follow a formula that reads “=R[-6]C[-3]+1” or “=C8+1” or, worse “=$C$8+1”.

Thank you,

David J. Gall

I built the original spreadsheet template, including the columns below that you are referencing, which I am well aware of. Details can be trivial, as in this case, but not always and it is important to be rigorous.

Note that in the spreadsheet you originally sent… in the columns below, zero-time weight is 1192 and your header weight is listed as 20 pounds. In the next row, the header weight jumps to 30 (10 pounds heavier), and the total weight jumps to 1196 (4 pounds heavier). As I mentioned before the zero-time values come from the section above. This is why you have this discrepancy in your columns section. I have corrected your spreadsheet formulas (to include your 1 gallon unusable in the header) and I am attaching that corrected version here. You will see that the starting weight is 1202 in the corrected version (not 1192).

Well, remember that I pointed out that "Weight" stops at "baggage".  It is clearly not using 5lbs but I guess nobody looks at the actual data in the table.  Scary.

Corbin 
N121CG

Jay,

Understood – I was referring to its ancestral beginnings. Did you originally build it using defined names? If so, someone went to a lot of work to strip them out. <shrug>

David J. Gall

Good point, David. However, it is not my spreadsheet It’s ancestry only started it’s long evolutionary journey as my spreadsheet. I don’t use numerical column references, unless I am writing it in macro code running in the background.

Cheers,

Jay

Jay,

Please use defined names and named ranges when building your spreadsheets and formulas. It is soooo much easier to follow a spreadsheet formula that reads “=MainTankUseableFuel+1” than it is to follow a formula that reads “=R[-6]C[-3]+1” or “=C8+1” or, worse “=$C$8+1”.

Thank you,

David J. Gall

I built the original spreadsheet template, including the columns below that you are referencing, which I am well aware of. Details can be trivial, as in this case, but not always and it is important to be rigorous.

Note that in the spreadsheet you originally sent… in the columns below, zero-time weight is 1192 and your header weight is listed as 20 pounds. In the next row, the header weight jumps to 30 (10 pounds heavier), and the total weight jumps to 1196 (4 pounds heavier). As I mentioned before the zero-time values come from the section above. This is why you have this discrepancy in your columns section. I have corrected your spreadsheet formulas (to include your 1 gallon unusable in the header) and I am attaching that corrected version here. You will see that the starting weight is 1202 in the corrected version (not 1192).

Well, remember that I pointed out that "Weight" stops at "baggage".  It is clearly not using 5lbs but I guess nobody looks at the actual data in the table.  Scary.

Corbin 
N121CG

No, I did not use defined names in that original spreadsheet, but I also did not use “relative column” nomenclature. I suspect that someone imported it into OpenOffice or something similar and it got changed that way. I initially built it just for my use for quickly calculating weight and balance, by component, as they were added to the structure.  I was changing it frequently as I was building.  Consequently it grew and took on a bigger role as time went on.

As you point out, defined names usage is a better practice. I really just tossed it over the fence so people could see how I was doing things. Never expected it to have such a big footprint.

BTW, I have no unusable fuel number in my original spreadsheet, since all of my fuel is usable….save for a few drops… maybe .0073 pounds. 😉

Cheers,

Jay

Jay,

Understood – I was referring to its ancestral beginnings. Did you originally build it using defined names? If so, someone went to a lot of work to strip them out. <shrug>

David J. Gall

Good point, David. However, it is not my spreadsheet It’s ancestry only started it’s long evolutionary journey as my spreadsheet. I don’t use numerical column references, unless I am writing it in macro code running in the background.

Cheers,

Jay

Jay,

Please use defined names and named ranges when building your spreadsheets and formulas. It is soooo much easier to follow a spreadsheet formula that reads “=MainTankUseableFuel+1” than it is to follow a formula that reads “=R[-6]C[-3]+1” or “=C8+1” or, worse “=$C$8+1”.

Thank you,

David J. Gall

I built the original spreadsheet template, including the columns below that you are referencing, which I am well aware of. Details can be trivial, as in this case, but not always and it is important to be rigorous.

Note that in the spreadsheet you originally sent… in the columns below, zero-time weight is 1192 and your header weight is listed as 20 pounds. In the next row, the header weight jumps to 30 (10 pounds heavier), and the total weight jumps to 1196 (4 pounds heavier). As I mentioned before the zero-time values come from the section above. This is why you have this discrepancy in your columns section. I have corrected your spreadsheet formulas (to include your 1 gallon unusable in the header) and I am attaching that corrected version here. You will see that the starting weight is 1202 in the corrected version (not 1192).

Well, remember that I pointed out that "Weight" stops at "baggage".  It is clearly not using 5lbs but I guess nobody looks at the actual data in the table.  Scary.

Corbin 
N121CG