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 sophisticated FCS. Not, AFAIK, the F4 - F16 and many later aircraft. The FCS on the F16 keeps you within 'safe' limits, giving 'carefree' handling in rapid combat maneuvers. It does _not_ however give _careless_ handling - a number of aircraft were lost when a 'gap in the coverage' was found. 90 deg of bank at low level and letting the nose drop towards the ground is not good in any aircraft. Aircraft with this sort of FCS can be spotted by the continuous movement of control surfaces during the taxi - the FCS is trying to 'fly the bumps out of the concrete'. Military aircraft can be handful at times, for example in the Lightning (UK Jet) the turn onto finals was done in the pre-stall buffet in order to keep landing speeds within limits. Traits like this gave it its nickname 'Frightening'. Rick -- David Farrent and Dougie O'Hara on the Cold War role of the ROC: 'What a world of sorrow is hidden in those few words - "[Post attack] crew changes would have been based on crew availability."' _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
