Tony Peden writes: > > My suggestion is that c172.xml (and --aircraft=c172) would disappear > > altogether, and we'd have c172p.xml and c172r.xml instead. > > I don't really object to that -- except that I wonder how many folks > will be able to really tell the difference. Surely, even in the real > thing, the differences are fairly subtle. I'm also not so sure that we > have the fidelity that making that distinction implies.
It's worth thinking beyond the basic aerodynamics, though. For example, the stock 172P has an O320 engine instead of the 172R's IO360, so the engine startup sequence and inflight engine management (once we model them correctly) are significantly different. The 172R climbs more aggressively and flares longer than the 172P, but it also has a smaller useful load. Most noticeably, however, the 172R's IO360 is derated to 2400RPM, while the 172P's engine develops the more typical 2700RPM, so all of the power settings are different. I agree that a first-time user will have trouble telling the two apart by their handling, but then, a non-pilot first-time user would have trouble distinguishing the flying characteristics of the 172 from those of a PA-28 or Musketeer anyway. The nice thing about modelling the two 172s is that we are representing the 172 just before and just after the long hiatus in U.S. small-aircraft production. The 1980 172P and the 1997 (?) 172R are quite different birds in many ways: the 172P represents the end of a long, continuous cycle of 172 development dating back to the 1950s, while the 172R represents a new plane that Cessna built to resemble the old 172s. I've noticed that many flying clubs and schools require a separate check-out for the 172R. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
