On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 05:27, David Megginson wrote: > 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.
Good point. > The 172R > climbs more aggressively and flares longer than the 172P, but it also > has a smaller useful load. That's fairly subtle. > 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. I hadn't considered differences in procedures ... that's a valid point of distinction and something that pilots would (or, at least, should) notice. Does the R have a 40 deg flap detent? > > > 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 > -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
