Wow, what a beautiful model. Shiny blue steel, perfectly animated.
Many thanks!
m. :-)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon S Berndt) [2002.06.18 09:31]:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:07:04 -0500 (CDT)
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Melchior FRANZ writes:
Wow, what a beautiful model. Shiny blue steel, perfectly
animated.
Many thanks!
I'd be interested to know what is being talked
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I have a lot of problems flying it well from the mouse. It doesn't
seem to respond well to elevator input ... you get an initial bump
and then pitch oscillations ... I don't know if that's realistic or
not. I'm sure Andy can provide a suitable explanation for why it
Andy Ross writes:
I'm not sure I understand. A given stick position corresponds very
closely to a given angle of attack. If you change the stick
position, the aircraft will seek to the new AoA. If you change
the stick position very rapidly, it will seek rapidly, overshoot,
and
Andy Ross writes:
I'm not sure I understand. A given stick position corresponds very
closely to a given angle of attack.
Nope, only for a given airspeed. The balance between tailplane and main
wing, for a given elevator position, is speed dependent. Thus phugoids.
If you change the
David Megginson wrote:
For anyone who'd like further reading on phugoid oscillations, see
Alex Perry wrote:
Nope, only for a given airspeed. The balance between tailplane and
main wing, for a given elevator position, is speed dependent. Thus
phugoids.
I think I should clarify. First off,
Andy Ross writes:
David Megginson wrote:
That might be overstating the case. Smooth inputs are necessary on
a C172 as well, especially if you're trying to stay within small
tolerances (i.e. +-5kt airspeed or +-50ft altitude).
True enough; graceful control input is always
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:04:04 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
inherently unstable, and if they're modelled correctly we won't be
able to fly them at all by direct controls: we'll need to work though
a fairly
David Megginson wrote:
Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
inherently unstable, and if they're modelled correctly we won't be
able to fly them at all by direct controls: we'll need to work though
a fairly sophisticated FCS.
The F-4 is stable. It's actually much
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:04:04 -0400, David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
inherently unstable, and if they're modelled correctly we won't be
able to fly them at all by direct controls: we'll need to work though
a fairly
Jon S Berndt wrote:
... Typically, the closer the CG is to
the aerodynamic center, the quicker and easier you can
yank the plane around (and possibly break your neck). It
wouldn't surprise me that the A-4 is so maneuverable. It
would be nice to get input from a real A-4 driver or find
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:37:16 -0700
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The advantages to having an unstable aircraft are that you can hold it
at a much higher peak AoA.
IIRC, the F-16 is neutrally stable throughout much of its
flight envelope. The main advantage for having a neutrally
stable
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
IIRC, the F-16 is neutrally stable throughout much of its flight
envelope. The main advantage for having a neutrally stable or unstable
fighter aircraft is agility, quickness in manueverability.
It's a chicken an the egg problem. Any aircraft can have quickness in
C. Hotchkiss writes:
Nimble. Hmm. Wasn't the F16 so responsive that it became the first
fighter to put its pilot to sleep if he yanked to hard on the
controls.
People can pass out at as little as 6Gs, can't they? It takes 4Gs to
start a loop in an aerobatic plane, so it shouldn't be that
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:37:27 -0500, Jon S Berndt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:04:04 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
inherently unstable, and if they're modelled correctly we won't be
able to fly
Charlie Hotchkiss wrote:
Nimble. Hmm. Wasn't the F16 so responsive that it became the first
fighter to put its pilot to sleep if he yanked to hard on the
controls.
Certainly not the first. GLOC has been an known issue from the very
early days of aviation. There was an experimental fighter
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:53:41 -0400, David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C. Hotchkiss writes:
Nimble. Hmm. Wasn't the F16 so responsive that it became the first
fighter to put its pilot to sleep if he yanked to hard on the
controls.
People can pass out at as little as 6Gs, can't
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 15:53, Andy Ross wrote:
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
IIRC, the F-16 is neutrally stable throughout much of its flight
envelope. The main advantage for having a neutrally stable or unstable
fighter aircraft is agility, quickness in manueverability.
It's a chicken an the egg
Rick Ansell wrote:
From memory G-Induced Loss of Consciousness (GLOC) is the 'new'
problem - this is caused by the rapid onset of G. Blackout is
progressive and therefore gives a warning. GLOC is sudden and occurs 4
to 6 seconds after the manoeuvre. Its insidious as short periods of
rapidly
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:36:54 -0700, Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Rick Ansell wrote:
From memory G-Induced Loss of Consciousness (GLOC) is the 'new'
problem - this is caused by the rapid onset of G. Blackout is
progressive and therefore gives a warning. GLOC is sudden and occurs 4
to 6
Robert Detmers wrote:
Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally. It just means that
the plane would eventually diverge if the pilot did nothing to stop
it.
Not in pitch, certainly? An aircraft that is unstable in pitch, if
you pulled the stick a little bit and got the nose going up
It's a chicken an the egg problem. Any aircraft can have quickness in
maneuverability with large enough control surfaces. But you can't
make the control surfaces too large and still intercept nuclear
bombers at Mach 2.
True .. though not so much Chicken and Egg as balanced design
Rick Ansell wrote:
This is my reading to, but the two are usual treated/described as
separate and 'GLOC' was certainly heralded as a new hazard in the
80's. (Back when I religiously read Flight International from cover to
cover each week!)
I hadn't realized this was a new(ish) term. I've
For extra credit, record a pilot grunting or huffing sound and
play it at high G's.
guffaw
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Andy Ross writes:
Actually, it wouldn't be too terribly hard. Write some filter code
that reads /accelerations/z-g or whatnot and sets /pilot/gloc-norm
between 0 (no effect) and 1 (out) based on the 5 second rule and a few
recovery heuristics.
It's been a while, but I think that Battle
- Original Message -
From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] blue angel
Robert Deters wrote:
Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally. It just means that
the plane would eventually
Robert Deters wrote:
Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally. It just means that
the plane would eventually diverge if the pilot did nothing to stop
it.
Rob:
I think most people, when thinking of stability think:
If I made an exact paper airplane of the aircraft in question and
Robert Deters wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
Robert Deters wrote:
Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally.
Not in pitch, certainly?
Yes in pitch. Besides, I think you are confusing static stability
and dynamic stability.
Er, normally one interprets an unqualified use of stable as
28 matches
Mail list logo
