On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:19:09 -0500
Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll check my algebra again,

Checked; I can't find a mistake.  As a third check, I ran it through
Maple and got the same result.  It appears to have the correct
limiting behavior for both pitch --> 0 and roll --> 0 independently.
And the problem seems straightforward to me.  The compass needle
is constrained to move on the horizontal plane in the aircraft's
reference frame; the question is simply what's the (perpendicular)
projection of the magnetic field vector onto that plane, and what
direction does that point?  You can move the plane by from
level flight towards the north pole by yaw, then pitch, then roll;
or you can do the opposite transformations on the magnetic field
vector itself (same order, but opposite value of angles), and
get the same relative orientation of the field vector to the
aircraft.

So I think this is analytically correct.  What's the weird behavior?
For what part of parameter space?

-c

-- 
Chris Metzler                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
                (remove "snip-me." to email)

"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear

Attachment: pgpWXAX5R5Qip.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to