Ingineer wrote: TonyWilliams wrote:
Ingineer wrote:There are a lot of factors that are needed to "accurately" calculate range. For instance, cooler denser air will increase energy consumption, so you have to take that into account as well. For the same reason that Nissan was unable to create an accurate range estimator, we also have that problem
Nissan didn't even include air density in their calculations, so to suggest they couldn't figure it out isn't quite accurate.
We can fly around the world and figure to within a very close tolerance air density. It's not rocket science anymore.
I use a simple rule of thumb on my chart of 1.5% increase in economy per thousand feet increase of density altitude. I also subtract 1% per 4F loss of battery temperature below 70F.
Hopefully with scan gauge, we can refine those.
I didn't suggest Nissan couldn't figure out how to add air density, I do however assert that Nissan couldn't figure out how to make an accrate range display. That system would really have to be psychic, or know the exact destination, route, traffic, and be in total control of the car. (Even then, it would still have some error)
What I'm saying is I don't want to try to make another inaccurate range display, I'll leave that calculation to the wetware upstairs. I want to give that wetware as much accurate information as I can at high resolution and at a fast rate.
Even with the best Flight Management system, it still takes a little grey matter and experience to make it all work with airplanes, like it does every day, thousand of times per day, all over the world, in all weather, temperatures, weights, etc.
A computer is the best method to give us all the data, and processed data at that. I understand you don't want to do a range function, but computers don't need to be psychic to give a plausible solution. Your grey matter can determine to what degree that processed data is accurate.
Surely, you wouldn't suggest that computers that calculate range on existing equipment (if reasonably accurate) should be turned off to revert to grey matter calculating? I can assure you that aviation wouldn't then goes years between major crashes, like it does now.
So, to the LEAF. We all agree that the GoM is a piece of dog doo doo, and perfection is never going to happen, so I'll bet something in between is. You call that inaccurate; I call that a huge improvement.