On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:23:40 -0700 Russell Suter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say this is an industry standard. FG is the first sim I've
seen that uses this coordinate system. The one I've seen the most is ...
You may be thinking of the Body frame system used in the EOM. This is not necessarily the same as the frame where things are defined structurally or the frame in which the aero reference point, landing gear, CG, etc. are defined by the manufacturer.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a bad system, I'm just not sure I agree it is an industry standard...
There are several examples of this being the coordinate system of choice.
All Space Shuttle diagrams I have ever seen in my current work on shuttle simulators show the frame X positive back, Y positive right, Z positive up.
When I worked on the Link USAF F-16 simulator, the coordinate system laid out in the mass properties description was the same.
If you go to the Boeing web site and look at the diagrams online for the airliners and read the documentation on their site, that is the coordinate frame used.
Several textbooks I have also feature aircraft points of reference in that frame.
IIRC, pilot handbooks also have been known to feature this frame.
IIRC, point specifications for aircraft in NACA documents also use this frame (for instance the X-15).
Here's another example of how location increases aftward: http://www.p51.wjackparker.com/P51_Mustang_Maintenance_Manual/c_sec1/sec1_0003.htm
Waterline, Buttline, Station points as_far_as_I_have_seen (and as described above) are *always* specified in this frame.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
