On Saturday 16 October 2004 13:10, Paul Surgeon wrote: > Does someone have a list of "flyable" aircraft for FlightGear? > About the only aircraft that handles in a realistic way is the > 172. > > What I would love to see done is all the incomplete aircraft > stripped out of FlightGear. It leaves a sour taste in one's > mouth when you try all the aircraft and just get one mess > after another. > It would be better if there was only 1 good aircraft in > FlightGear than add a whole bunch of useless ones that just > drag the reputation and quality of FlightGear down. > How did most of these aircraft make it into official releases > anyway? > > I know these are some rather hard remarks but I can't find one > decent jet to fly in FlightGear and it's frustrating. > > Paul
I must admit that I come to FG more as a 3d modeller than a pilot or aerodynamisist but where I can get the numbers I try to make the fdms meet them. For example, the B-52F currently takes off and lands within 10 kts of the real speeds, throughout the weight range, and seems to display the realistic porpoising behaviour if not landed correctly - the info for this coming from a pilot/instructor who had 6600 hrs on B-52s (all models except the 'E'). When I've got the time and energy I'd like to update it further to pull it right into line, and with the info kindly provided to me it should be possible. As the pilot/instructor pointed out to me though, I'm never going to be able to simulate the > 200lbs of rudder pedal pressure than can be required in engine out situations:) As to whether it handles correctly in other flight regimes I can only guess but the characteristics seem appropriate. The English Electric Canberra that I've just done is taking off and landing within about 6 kts, as far as I can ascertain, but I don't have a good source of info for this - just personal accounts on the web from people that have flown them. Once again, the behaviour in other flight regimes is open to question but as before, the characteristics seem right for the design. As for the YF-23 - who knows? I've made quite a large number of assumptions on this a/c due to the dearth of performance data and personal accounts available. However, the geometry, weights and powerplants are all in the right ball-park so it's flying something like an a/c with those specifications and design. Providing you ignore the FCS that the YF-23 was fitted with, of course:) Ultimately, the degree of accuracy is dependent on the information available and with quite a few of the a/c I've done I've had to incorporate a lot of guesswork, based on what I've learned on a/c where there was less guesswork:) The biggest reason for not doing proper panels for the a/c I've done is that I don't know how most of the instruments should be used to fly an aircraft authentically and as a consequence I find it difficult to contemplate working on something I don't really understand. The great thing about being able to include such incomplete a/c in cvs is that it makes it possible for people who _do_ understand the stuff that I don't to do something about it, as happened with the Sea Hawk - Vivian took the a/c I'd done, added the speed-brakes and an accurate 3d cockpit, and gave the fdm some tuning, resulting in a better FG a/c. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
