David Weinshenker wrote:
>
> Pierce Nichols wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 00:15, David Masten wrote:
> >
> > > I had figured that to yaw left decrease left engine thrust and increase
> > > right engine thrust simultaneously. Since opposite motors generate
> > > torque in the same direction this should mean no (little) torque change.
> >
> > Neither the strategy you propose nor John's strategy eliminate
> > cross-axis coupling. Both strategies still produces coupling to the roll
> > axis when maneuvering in both pitch and yaw at the same time.
>
> Hmmm... suppose we make alternate "pitch" and "yaw" inputs (i.e.,
> assuming that the roll axis is initially vertical, we can pulse up
> the left front/left rear engines to yaw to the right, then pulse the
> left rear/right rear pair pitch forward). Neither of these two impulses
> will apply a roll torque - why should their combination? (That would involve
> pulsing right rear and left front with unit impulse, and pulsing the left rear
> with 2x unit impulse. Since right rear and left front are "roll direction A"
> and left rear is "roll direction B", we still have zero net roll input, no?
>
> Another way of looking at this is to assume that the left rear is providing
> a "yaw right/pitch forward" impulse, while the LF/RR pair provides the
> counter-torque to its roll effect (in a manner that's roll-pitch neutral).
^^^^^^^^^^
oops, that should have been "yaw-pitch neutral", not "roll-pitch". -dw
>
> -dw
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
