Andy Ross wrote > David Megginson wrote: > > Once we support ground reactions with a moving surface > (like the deck > > of a ship), why not just model the catapult as a faster moving > > surface? > > Because the gear don't simply rest on the catapult to be > pulled along via friction, they're actually bolted to it > during the launch.
Hmm, bolted? Don't forget that the cat force is adjusted for the aircraft type and launch weight. It would have to be modelled as a spring > force acting on the nose gear to be correct. Even that's not > quite good enough, since on real cat shots the gear is > artificially compressed to keep the nose from tipping > backwards during the shot. Not exactly, and not in all cases. The F4K had an extending front leg which raised the nose into a take-off angle. When the cat was tensioned for a Buccaneer the nose wheel came off the deck, and a retractable tail bumper came into play. With a nose wheel tow, when the cat is tensioned a downward force is applied to the nose, since the attachment point is above the oleo. When the cat is fired more downward force is applied, as well as forward. > All of this would have to be > modelled; none of it shares any meaningful behaviour with > ground friction. Quite, but I believe that this should all be reasonably straightforward to simulate. > And arrestor wires have their own complexities. They need to > be "tuned" to the landing aircraft weight to produce the > right amount of deceleration. This is a manual process on a > real carrier, but we'd have to fake it somehow. > Do we need to model that? We know the mass of the aircraft, just apply a suitable decelerating force at the hook attachment point if the hook engages a wire. Regards Vivian _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
