Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Flight Test: Passed
Congratulations! Had no doubts... For an IFR interested VFR student, what's an MDA, and what does it mean to bust it by 20 ft? I'd guess at minimum designated altitude? Maybe if I ask enough questions, I'll have you on the road to CFI/CFII... ;) -Matt David Megginson wrote: I passed my instrument flight test this morning -- thank you all for the positive karma you sent my way. We did the test in the real thing, hard-core IFR with a 400 ft ceiling and rain. My visual contact with the ground during the entire test was probably less than two minutes. A narrative follows for people who like that kind of thing (everyone else can stop reading now). The ground work went fine, but I wasn't worried about it. After startup and clearance copying, we taxied to 04, and I double-checked the ceiling with ground before switching to tower (when the DFTE asked earlier, I told him that 400 ft would be my personal limit). At that point the DFTE took the foggles from me, said that I obviously wouldn't be needing them, and put them away for the rest of the flight. We took off, and in a few moments, the world vanished into white all around us. We were cleared up to 6000, then direct to the Ottawa VOR to start a simulated cross-country to North Bay. At the VOR, I turned onto V316, intercepted it promptly, and was stabilized on course and groundspeed by 2 DME (not bad, since we were 1 mile above the VOR to start with). I then hauled out my E6B, calculated a revised ETA and fuel burn based on my current DME groundspeed, and then just sat back and relaxed the rest of the way out to 9 DME. Ottawa Terminal then cleared us back to the VOR for a hold north on the 360 radial. I flew back the 270 radial (90 TO), then turned sharply to intercept my inbound radial outbound with reverse sensing for a parallel entry (I like doing it that way, so that I get DME groundspeed readouts to plan the rest of the hold). We did a couple of laps in the hold, then I asked terminal for a couple of vectored approaches (no full procedures in hard-core IFR, since I'd mess up their very busy airspace). They vectored me around for a while, then set me up to intercept the NDB 07 (at which point the examiner failed my DME, just to keep me honest on the stopwatch work). The approach went fairly well -- I did bust MDA by 20 ft, but caught it and recovered in less than a second, and the DFTE didn't mention it in the debrief. My compass precessed a few degrees during the descent, so I ended up a bit away from the runway when we got a glimpse of the ground straight down through the mist just before going missed, but there's nothing to do about that. Tower handed me back to terminal, who vectored me south to bring me around for the ILS 07 to a full stop. I asked for a bit of time to prepare, but they had a boatload of arrivals about to hit (all airliners), so I agreed to go straight to the approach and just asked not to be vectored too close into the NDB on final. They brought me around for an intercept 8 miles out and then asked for maximum approach speed, so I opened the throttle, pushed the nose down, and shot on in at 110 kias. The needles stayed nicely centred all the way, but I did feel my first unease in IMC when I thought of how fast I was flying and how close to the (invisible) ground I was as I got closer to DH. The runway came into view less than a mile back, just as I was calling out advisory visibility, and 50 feet above DH the DFTE said OK, you're visual, go ahead and land. Fortunately, 07 is an 8000 ft runway, since I was at 110 kias and 250 ft almost over the threshold and the runway was wet and slick. I brought up the nose and dropped flaps, but I didn't want to do any serious braking on the wet surface, so I let the plane roll on past the intersection with 14/32, ending two or three miles on the far side of the airport from our destination on the North Field. We had a long taxi back, but the DFTE didn't say anything about whether I'd passed or failed, and the 20 ft MDA bust started to loom larger in my mind. When I came inside (wet) for the debrief, he chewed me out for not putting on carb heat every 15 minutes or so in IMC (not part of the test, fortunately), then filled out the examination form in front of me from memory. The NDB approach was one of the last items, and it was only when I saw him give me a 3/5 for that that I was fairly certain I'd passed. He then shook my hand, told me that I was a good, safe, competent IFR pilot, and endorsed my license. Well, that's it for now. We have to retake the IFR flight test every two years in Canada, so I'll be back up in Summer 2005. 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Incoming!!!!!!!!!!!!
David Megginson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What way does Flightgear use? Static tables or real time calculations or something other? Both, sort-of. Unlike X-Plane, FlightGear does not limit you to a single type of physics engine. JSBSim works with static coefficients, and YASim works with geometry. I happened to come across the following article, and kept thinking about its application to flightgear. I wonder if this is the foundation beneath YASim? http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htm -Matt 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Flight Test: Passed
Thanks for the explanation, David. From everything I've heard so far about IFR flying, it's a game of Simon Says. And Simon's on various frequencies that you need to keep up with. David Megginson wrote: Matt Fienberg writes: For an IFR interested VFR student, what's an MDA, and what does it mean to bust it by 20 ft? I'd guess at minimum designated altitude? MDA is Minimum Descent Altitude. Non-precision approaches (such as NDB, VOR, LOC, LOC-BC, and GPS) provide only horizontal course guidance. For altitude, you pass a series of step-down fixes (such as a DME distance or a radial from another navaid), where you're allowed to descend to a new altitude limit before levelling off again. The last levelling-off altitude is the MDA, and you cannot go below that until you actually see the runway. 500 ft AGL is a typical MDA, but it can vary by an enormous amount. Precision approaches (such as ILS) have a decision height (DH) instead -- that's the lowest you're allowed to go on the glidescope without seeing the runway. When you hit DH without visual contact, you go missed immediately, without any levelling off. DH is usually 200 ft AGL, lower for a specialized Cat II approach. Here's an easy way to remember: from the side, a precision approach looks like a ramp, while a non-precision approach looks like a staircase. Maybe if I ask enough questions, I'll have you on the road to CFI/CFII... Nope. 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: IFR Flight Test Tomorrow
From what I can tell, you know your stuff. No luck necessary. Go get the certificate you've worked so hard to earn. Just promise a full report that even us VFR people can understand. Best of luck anyway. ;) -Matt David Megginson wrote: Since I've dragged you all through my training this far, I'd like to mention that I'll be taking my IFR flight test tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00z). In Canada, at least, this is the hardest of all the flight tests, even worse than commercial, instructor, etc., and it's typical to get a partial failure on the first try and have to retake that part of the test. Still, I'm going to at least try to pass the whole thing in one go, and I would be grateful if my fellow fgfs developers will think of me at 12z tomorrow and send any prayers/best wishes/positive karma/Jedi force (as appropriate) my way. On a related note, while I've had over 3 hours of actual at altitude now (including a VOR hold inside a fast-growing cumulus cloud), I've never had the chance to do an approach to anywhere near minima in actual IMC because the weather has been so good this spring and summer. This morning, fortunately, the airport clouded over to an 800 ft ceiling while we were in the air, so our final ILS approach was for real -- 800 ft is not that exciting for ILS, but it was still fun not being able to see the runway until the last minute and a bit, and not having to wear the stupid foggles. 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First solo!
David Megginson wrote: Matt Fienberg writes: Please excuse the off-topic post... But I'm too proud to hold back. Completed my first solo flight as PIC tonight at 13.9 hours. Congratulations! Why, thank you (all)! First landing was pretty uneventful, aside from the pilot giving a wahoo! that could probably be heard from miles away. Upwind wheel first, then downwind, then nose. Pretty smooth. Probably my best landing yet. (Who needs that extra baggage in the right seat?) Did tower know that it was your first solo? Around here, the schools always quietly phone tower in advance, and tower ensures that you get an easy circuit and congratulates you afterwards over the frequency just before handing you off to ground (so that all the big airliners get to hear as well). From what I've heard, that's common at many towered airports. Yes, my instructor told me that he'd call the tower to let them know. I got no indication from the tower that anything was different though. On the second of three touch and goes, I couldn't radio in at midfield since there was an ongoing discussion between tower and an incoming Bonanza on an instrument approach. Finally, I hear him clear the Bonanza to land on 29er, and then he immediately calls me to let me know I'm number two. At this point, I'm still about 1000 AGL, now venturing out over the city of Worcester... I panicked a little bit, and later heard that my instructor did too... Speech was very clear over the radio, so maybe the phone call had some effect. Not that they'd disrupt an instrument approach to get a solo 152 to touch and go ahead of them My instructor was just glowing when I got back. I think he was more excited than I was. He made some comment about seeing his kid taking his first steps. I now call him Dad. He was very impressed with my progress, and we both attribute much of it to FlightGear. It's certainly paying off. He's now thinking about getting FlightGear in the office, partly to play with, and partly to teach/demonstrate. Great stuff. PIC 0.6. Hmmm... not so impressiveyet. ;) That number will increase rapidly. Did you go through any post-solo rituals? In the U.S., I know, the instructor often cuts off your shirt-tail after the first solo. At the Ottawa Flying Club, they throw a large garbage pail full of ice water on you, even in the winter (I got two, just for good measure). All the best, and congrats again, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First solo!
David Megginson wrote: Geoff Drake writes: I did my first solo about five years ago and as you have just found out there is nothing quite like it!!! I too looked over at the empty seat and grinned. I'd just like to mention that while first solo was great, the highlight of the PPL training (for me) was the first solo cross-country. The best is still ahead ... I can't wait! Thanks! 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First solo!
David Megginson wrote: Matt Fienberg writes: Actually, I do fear the response. I know the language (and am learning the new lingo...) and still have trouble. My hearing was easily good enough to pass the medical (can you hear me now?), but I have a lot of trouble picking out voices from a crowd. Buy some foam earplugs: put them in your ears first, then put on your (presumably PNR) headset, then turn the radio up a bit. The foam earplugs work mostly on background noise, so you'll have less background rumble and clearer radio. That's an interesting idea. I'll give it a try. Thanks! -Matt 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First solo!
Alex Perry wrote: From: Matt Fienberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Winds were [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is not a big deal, but I did fall victim to it *every* time. (With and without the instructor.) Every turn from downwind to base ended past the point where I needed to start the turn to final. Every turn to final overshot, and I needed to correct quite a bit. Lucky you don't have two runways. Tower can get quite sarcastic at your expense if you keep overshooting the turn. When you make the turn and are lined up for L when you should be R, they might change your clearance because they're not sure you can make it back to R in time to land. Later, they'll clear you for L and, when you overshoot that turn too, apologize that they don't have a third runway to the left of L. Etc. Well, there are two runways, 29/11 and 33/15, but not parallel... Overshooting 29 on left traffic doesn't leave you with too many options... Congratulations. Did you like the improved climb performance ? Of course... Anything's better than a 152 at full weight... ;) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First solo!
That number will increase rapidly. Did you go through any post-solo rituals? In the U.S., I know, the instructor often cuts off your shirt-tail after the first solo. At the Ottawa Flying Club, they throw a large garbage pail full of ice water on you, even in the winter (I got two, just for good measure). I've seen some pictures of torn shirts on the wall, but I think those were PPL, not first solo, although I could be wrong... No, there was nothing more than a couple of Polaroids. One goes on the instructor's wall, the other for the student. I might have welcomed the ice water. It was about 85 degrees, and at 7PM, I was staring into the sun on both departure and final legs on runway 29... Although the pools of sweat may have had nothing to do with temperature at all... ;) -Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First solo!
David Megginson wrote: Matt Fienberg writes: Yes, my instructor told me that he'd call the tower to let them know. I got no indication from the tower that anything was different though. On the second of three touch and goes, I couldn't radio in at midfield since there was an ongoing discussion between tower and an incoming Bonanza on an instrument approach. Finally, I hear him clear the Bonanza to land on 29er, and then he immediately calls me to let me know I'm number two. At this point, I'm still about 1000 AGL, now venturing out over the city of Worcester... I panicked a little bit, and later heard that my instructor did too... Speech was very clear over the radio, so maybe the phone call had some effect. Not that they'd disrupt an instrument approach to get a solo 152 to touch and go ahead of them Please remember that your 152 VFR has the same importance as a Bonanza IFR (or a 747, for that matter), unless the other flight happens to be a medevac, a declared emergency, or something similar. The tower chooses priorities based on safety and traffic flow, not aircraft size or IFR/VFR. This is true. But I'm glad that the controller didn't give me any special treatment. When I finally did get a visual on the Bonanza, he was cruising in. He'd have had to slow quite a bit to get me in first. What's the phrase, head for the numbers? Maybe he took the first solo phone call into account and decided to be nice and make me number 2... I've often had tower ask a big airliner on an IFR approach to reduce to minimum approach speed so that I can slip in in front (as a courtesy, I usually increase my approach speed to about 110-120 kias so that there's not any serious delay, and so that I feel less guilty for holding up 200-300 passengers). So it was you that made me late...!;) Well, it can take several minutes for the wake to dissipate, so the quick drop in advance does save you quite a bit of time... 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] RE: OT: First solo!
Matthew Law wrote: Congratulations! Thank you! I'm sure the rest of the training will be over in no time and it's good to hear that FG is proving helpful. I'm intending on investing in a yoke and pedals over winter when the weather robs me of some regular training and I've already noticed the realism of the flight models in flightgear over other flight sims. Especially when adjusting final with throttle etc. Unlike you, my last lesson I'd rather forget - second attempt at circuits and first time on runway 18 at EGNF. With a TORA of 382 metres it is apparently the UK's shortest licensed and also feels like the UK's bumpiest too! Oh, and a 30 deg crosswind for good measure!!! Don't give up. Everything that I've heard says that training in more difficult enviroments does generate better skills. (Ever see a western US skier come to ski in New England? I thought not... They learn in powder, and can't adjust to the sheet of ice we call a slope.) I'm not familiar with the term TORA, but I'll assume thats a runway length of about 1250 ft, if my I'm doing the math in my head correctly... I have the luxury of two runways to chose from of 7000' and 5000'. And they're in great condition. KORH had commercial airline traffic until very recently. If I want to work on crosswind landings, I can always request the other runway. I wonder how I'll do at a short runway... Actually, I won't find out anytime soon. The rental agreement says a minimum of 2500'. Keep at it, and mirror your real flights on Flightgear. Set yourself up on long final, reduce to 1500 RPM, drop in your flaps, and hold 65 KIAS. Adjust pitch to control your airspeed, and adjust power to keep that threshold steady on the windshield. When you know you've got the threshold made, drop out power to idle, and lift the nose slightly to counter act the power drop, and slowly level it off. Odds are, if you're bouncing consistantly, that you're flaring too high, but at the right speed. (I'm assuming you're not ballooning... If you are, and that's why your bouncing, you're not burning off enough speed before the flare.) Cross wind landings are tough without rudder pedals. Sideslips can certainly be done with the mouse, but it's a hard thing to juggle. For that, the best thing is to just experiment on long final, and see how the aircraft reacts with crossed controls. Have your instructor run the length of the runway 10' in the air, and slew the aircraft from side to side simply by adjusting the bank angle. It's a really enlightening experience. I bounced in every time and almost took the far fence with me on one of the touch and go's. I've got a long way to go yet... :-( Hopefully, the short and soft field location will make me a better pilot. My instructor (in a futile attempt to stop me getting downhearted) mentioned that students and low time PPLs from larger airfields often have trouble landing on 18 and that I'd get it eventually. Perhaps I'll be a 100 hour PPL graduate! You'll get there. Who cares what the number is. Can't expect to do it in minimums in such a harsh environment. Good luck, Matt F. Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] OT: First solo!
mentioned that in flying in Flightgear, I thought to myself, what's that? There's no water south of the tower. Well, sure enough, as I'm turning downwind today, I notice that that water really is there... I mentioned it, and he was floored. And following the powerlines out to the Qaban reservior to Orange (KORE), too. He was really getting excited about it. One of the guys there took a look at flightgear after hearing me at a prior lesson, and I think they were put off by the installation procedure... Maybe I'll have to do it for him In any case, I'm so glad I got started, and I can't wait to get up in the air again. Flightgear is fun, but there's just no substitute for the real thing. So all you guys flying the simulator--- get your seat in a 152 seat, and put Flightgear to real use! Trust me, you'll all love it. (No, I won't finance it ;) Regards, Matt Fienberg PIC 0.6. Hmmm... not so impressiveyet. ;) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instant replay system
Wow. This is *great*! And after nobody responded to my request that it wasn't even on bottom of the priority list Thanks! -Matt Curtis L. Olson wrote: I have implimented a first stab at an instant replay system and have just commited it to CVS. The system continuously records your flight data and allows you to play back your flight. Saving flight data at full resolution can quickly burn up a lot of RAM, so at the moment, only the most recent 60 seconds is stored at full resolution. The next most recent 10 minutes is stored at a resolution of one snap shot every 0.5 seconds. The most recent hour of data is stored at a resolution of one snap shot every 5 seconds. (We might need/want to tune these values a bit as we use the system more.) However, this gives the most resolution to the most recent portion of the flight, and can save up to an hour's worth of flight data without using a huge amount of memory. Each snapshot is time stamped with the simulation time. During replay, the system finds the two snapshots that straddle the replay time and linearly interpolates between them. This way, we can record the data as best as is possible given the current rendering speed, even with varying frame rates with possible lost frames and aren't forced to take extraordinary measures to get a consistent sampling rate. Then when the data is replayed, this interpolation scheme gives us smooth playback even if the recorded frame rate is wildly (or slightly) different from the playback frame rate. This also gives us smooth interpolation for older data that is recorded at a slower rate. And we can play back the recorded flight at a rate that has a 1 to 1 match with real time. This scheme would also allow us to smoothly fast forward the replay, or replay in super smooth Slo-Mo-Gear (patent pending) :-) We could probably also rewind as well as fast forward if we really wanted to. For the moment, I have bound the r key to the instant replay function. This will replay whatever is in the buffer. Upon completion, you are left in pause mode at the point where you activated the instant replay. Just unpause and you can continue the flight. This whole thing is just crying for a gui/dialog box to control it all. Any volunteers? I'm guessing that all the kinks are not yet quite worked out. You'll likely run into one or two ... The sim is put into pause mode while the buffer data is replayed. This has some side effects because many subsystems do not run when the simulator is paused. This needs to be looked at a bit more. Specifically some of the viewer code isn't run. You can switch views with the v series of keys, but you can't rotate a particular view with shift-number pad, and the chase views don't track quite right in replay mode. Also, I don't and can't and won't record everything. This means things like AI or multiplayer traffic, weather conditions, and other things are beyond the scope of this system at this time. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aero-matic Q:
David Culp wrote: I built a c152 directory inside data/aircraft, and put the c152.xml there. I put the engine file (lycoming_O-235-L2C.xml) and the prop file, (c152-prop.xml) both in the data/engine directory. Is this correct? Yes. You also need a c152-set.xml file, which you'll have to make by hand. Cool. I'll give it a shot tonight when I get home. I started up fgfs with the attribute --aero=c152, and well, it certainly had some affect... It took off on its own... sitting at idle, the engine was running at 1500 rpm, and full throttle was almost all the way around to the zero mark I've looked through the files, and the numbers (those that I can understand...) seem reasonable. This is a 110 hp engine! Could you include the engine and prop files so I can check them out? Aero-Matic gives all piston engines a default idle RPM of 700. Was the 1500 RPM also found under the property /engines/engine/rpm ? The numbers in the file all look reasonable to me. I did see the maximum hp was 110, and the idle power was 700 in the files. I didn't look through the property tree, and I can't really do it now from work. I've got a VNC connection to the home machine, and it doesn't take kindly to animation... ;) I'll cut paste the small engine and prop files. Thanks for the help: ?xml version=1.0? !-- File: lycoming_O-235-L2C.xml Author: Aero-Matic v.0.1 -- FG_PISTON NAME=lycoming_O-235-L2C MINMP 6.0 MAXMP 30.0 DISPLACEMENT 176 MAXHP110.0 CYCLES 2.0 IDLERPM 700.0 MAXTHROTTLE1.0 MINTHROTTLE0.2 /FG_PISTON = xml version=1.0? !-- Generated by Aero-Matic to fit a 110.0 horsepower engine -- FG_PROPELLER NAME=prop IXX0.77172648454995 DIAMETER 55.586868953018 NUMBLADES 2 MINPITCH 23 MAXPITCH 23 MINRPM700 MAXRPM 2700 C_THRUST 11 1 0.0 0.936 0.1 0.927 0.2 0.918 0.3 0.909 0.4 0.828 0.5 0.738 0.6 0.063 0.7 0.049 0.8 0.036 0.9 0.020 1.0 0.004 C_POWER 11 1 0.0 0.0594 0.1 0.0585 0.2 0.0576 0.3 0.0558 0.4 0.0540 0.5 0.0522 0.6 0.0495 0.7 0.0432 0.8 0.0342 0.9 0.0225 1.0 0.0090 /FG_PROPELLER -Matt Dave Culp -- David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aero-matic Q:
David Culp wrote: Part of the problem is that the first version of Aero-Matic had a bug that gave prop thrust values off by a decimal place. The first six values under C_THRUST should be shifted one decimal place to the right. Or, you can get a new prop file from Aero-Matic, which is now fixed. That should help keep your C-152 on the ground at idle :) Dave Culp Ah. That'd do it. Thanks, I'll play with it tonight. -Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aero-matic Q:
Matt Fienberg wrote: David Culp wrote: Part of the problem is that the first version of Aero-Matic had a bug that gave prop thrust values off by a decimal place. The first six values under C_THRUST should be shifted one decimal place to the right. Or, you can get a new prop file from Aero-Matic, which is now fixed. I'm assuming you meant divide by 10 with a shift of the decimal point to the left... ;) That should help keep your C-152 on the ground at idle :) Dave Culp Ah. That'd do it. Thanks, I'll play with it tonight. -Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aero-matic Q:
David Culp wrote: Part of the problem is that the first version of Aero-Matic had a bug that gave prop thrust values off by a decimal place. The first six values under C_THRUST should be shifted one decimal place to the right. Or, you can get a new prop file from Aero-Matic, which is now fixed. That should help keep your C-152 on the ground at idle :) David, I apologize for the question without RTFM'ing... Now that I've found the correct webpage with the 0.2 version of Aero-Matic, I see there's all kinds of information on how to use it along side. Having said that... I modified the numbers by hand, tried it, then ran it through 0.2, and tried it again. Both methods produced the same result (although there seems to be far more information in the 0.2 version files). Despite the parameters showing 700 RPM for idle, the model comes up at ~1325, and at full throttle, laps around right to the 0 point. Could you (or someone familiar with the process) give the following files a try and see if you see something different? I haven't gone through all of the numbers in the files, since I really don't know what most of them mean... But I don't see anything that really looks out of whack... I bring it up with just the --aero=c152 parameter, and haven't yet done anything with the c152-set.xml thing... So it graphically shows the default c172, slightly below ground level. Maybe it's still relying on c172 information? Is the throttle control different on the 172 in its range? I'm assuming it runs from idle at 0 to full throttle at 1... Any thing else come to mind? Thanks, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Congratulations! Great feeling, isn't it? I started about 6 weeks ago, in a 152, and had a very similar experience... Didn't do any stalls on the first flight, but I was kind of shocked when he had me do the taxiing and the takeoff by myself. (Maybe that's the difference between an intro flight and lesson 1.) He did nothing but the radios. (Class D airport - KORH) I lost a lot of altitude on my first turns despite the fact I knew enough to expect to have to add back pressure... A 60 degree bank is one *steep* turn. For a PPL in the states, they ask you to demonstrate steep turns, but at 45 degrees. If I remember correctly, a 60 deg turn causes a 2G load on the wings. I was absolutely mortified when my instructor didn't take the controls on final approach. He actually expected me to land it! I was under strict voice control... Carb heat on, reduce power to 1500 RPM, keep it lined up, add some power, steady.steady drop the nose a bit, power all the way out No, really, all the way keep the nose down MATT! LET THE NOSE DOWN That's it Yes, we do want to reach the ground level out a little more back pressure. LIFT THE NOSE! keep it steady [THUD] Beautiful! Flaps up, and steer with your feet. About 20 seconds of sheer terror. And in retrospect, I've got about 25 landings under my belt, and that one was actually pretty good, although I didn't like it at the time In any case, it really is a blast, and I too highly recommend an intro flight (if not lesson 1...) for anybody who enjoys flying a sim (or playing around)... (Do not ask to flight beneath bridges...!) Martin, if you decide to continue on for you PPL, I can recommend a good ground school program in Cleared for Takeoff by King Schools. (Resold by Cessna, too.) It's something like 26 CDs; you simply watch the video, and answer some questions. It's windows based, however, and very much geared to the US, which may or may not be useful to you... Any how, good luck! And welcome! -Matt Martin Spott wrote: Inspired by others on this list I had my first flight with controls in my hands on a C172. This was the first flight I ever had on such a small plane. I once sat in a BN2 as a passanger but I must admit that sitting in a 10 seater, even though it was a great excitement sitting behind the co's seat (no co present on this flight), wathing everything that's going on, was far not that much a great experience as the flight yesterday. The Instructor took of from EDLN runway 13 and handed the controls over to me after reaching 1500 feet. I had about 10 minutes time to head south and get the feeling how to fly at a constant altitude - I didn't really 'manage' it but it worked quite well for the first time (watch the horizon !). After reaching the 'playground' over an open mining of brown coal we had time for a little 'programme'. Standard turn right (I overshot by about 15 seconds), standard turn left, another standard turn (much better than the first one). The next excercises were shown by the instructor before I had the chance to do them myself - I had to handle carb heating and throttle, the instructor dealt with the mixture. So I had a few narrow curves with 60 degree bank (how would you call this in English ?) and two stall recoveries (hey, you lost only 100 feet !). _This_ was really a pretty nice experience after all. During our programme a pair of Tornados came by way below us, VFR at about 150 feet. After 25 minutes I headed for the airport the instructor took over for approach. EDLN is an airfield with (small) airline traffic, so you have to follow certain procedures that are quite new to me. But I think I'll be able to learn that stuff. Hey guys (and gals), do that yourself, it is really worth it ! And don't forget to watch out, especially remember the position of the horizon anytime, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Very true... But it's the wing load that cause your stall speed to increase... Seat cussion load causes other problems ;) David Megginson wrote: Matt Fienberg writes: If I remember correctly, a 60 deg turn causes a 2G load on the wings. ... and on your seat cushion. 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Just gotta rationalize If I go for my PPL, I need to stay healthy. If I don't, I'll just keep my butt on the couch, eat, and gain weight. Well, we don't what *that* to happen. We all know how expensive healthcare is... Therefore, the cheap solution, is to simply get my PPL... ;) -Matt Martin Spott wrote: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know how much free time you have, but if you price it out, it could turn out that it's cheaper to come to North America to do your PPL training (I'm pretty sure the hours will be recognized in Germany though you might have to redo the flight test and written exam -- check, of course). I already considered this as a valuable idea. _But_: I don't earn money as long as I don't work. I'm sort of freelancer Unix sysadmin and I'm in the situation that I have to earn the necessary 9.000 Euro before I can spend them for the PPL. If I take three weeks off then I'm loosing about the same amount of money that I save by doing flight training in north America I'll have do ask my dad ;-)) When I went to Canada for holidays (twice) I thought about adding some time for the PPL but that didn't work out because of monetary reasons. Aside of this, I can't stay away from my customers for more than three weeks, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aero-matic Q:
Can somebody explain what to do with the files that the aero-matic script produces? I entered the small amount of information for a C152, generated the three files, and modified the propulsion xml names as described on the webpage. Now what? I built a c152 directory inside data/aircraft, and put the c152.xml there. I put the engine file (lycoming_O-235-L2C.xml) and the prop file, (c152-prop.xml) both in the data/engine directory. Is this correct? I started up fgfs with the attribute --aero=c152, and well, it certainly had some affect... It took off on its own... sitting at idle, the engine was running at 1500 rpm, and full throttle was almost all the way around to the zero mark I've looked through the files, and the numbers (those that I can understand...) seem reasonable. This is a 110 hp engine! Am I going about this the right way? Thanks, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Views
I agree with this completely. I do the same. I was wondering about an additional feature... Other than recording entire flights, I've never seen what my own [attempted] landing looked like Would it be possible to add a feature where the simulation would immediately be paused, and rewinded for say, 5 seconds to give an instant replay? When the replay catches up to simulation time, simply return to the paused state? Then, during the replay, I can watch from a chase or tower view, etc. Yes, my entire world was affected by my purchase of a TiVo. ;) -Matt Lee Elliott wrote: On Sunday 13 July 2003 10:54, David Megginson wrote: Erik Hofman writes: I mean we now have a tower view, we might come up with a final Approach view and someday somebody will come by and asks for a windsock view. Those are really candidates for a view selection dialog. Two truly useful ones would be a ground-chase view and a nearest-airport view. When you're flying anything but a circuit, the control tower view gets useless very fast. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ I think a ground chase view would be great. I'd also like an air chase view that follows bearing but that shows gust and turbulence effects but something like that has been proposed, I think;) As for putting some of the views in menus - hmm... I'm less keen about that because when I change views I want to do it quickly and often I'll only want to check a view for a second. For example, when landing I'll often quickly switch between the cockpit, the two chase views and the tower views, using different magnication and orientation settings for each view, and spending less than a second in most of them. I suspect this would be tricky to do if some of them could only be accessed via a drop down menu - the moment would have passed and I'd have had to move one of my hands from the js or kb to grab the mouse. Setting up the views with some of them in a menu would be ok by default if it was still easy to add the extra entries to the kb list. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] looking for a job
For those of us using FlightGear to supplement our training for a PPL, a Cessna 152 would be a great benefit... Not quite the 747 complexity, but maybe a good starting point... ;) I had planned on 172, but my instructor convinced me that it'd be *significantly* cheaper to learn in a 152, then upgrade in just a few hobbs hours. I'd be happy [to try] to help with the FDM, although I'm not sure I'm capable at this point. Although I remember reading something about a wonderful aero-matic script... Maybe I'll take a shot when I get a few minutes to experiment. My FG is probably 2-3 months out of date to begin with. -Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I´m new here und I´d like to do anything for the great FlightGear projekt. I began to make a panel for B-747, I could make panels for any other aircraft, perhaps 3d-cockpits or even models, just say me what you need. Best regards Ilja ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 5 projector wrap around display.
Years ago, while working for CAE-Link (formerly Singer Link, now part of Hughes Training) there was a gentleman working in the visuals group who was able to produce the illusion of full motion video at roughly 4 hz, IIRC, using some synchronization from an eye-tracking device. Never did get to see it myself, but I understand it worked quite well. Further, it was high resolution directly where the user was looking, and low resolution elsewhere, and apparently the user wouldn't notice it. I imagine anyone else in the room would go into seizure. ;) But it was one way to generate a huge field of view which was computationally simple, and comparitively cheap. (Granted, I have no idea what an eye or head tracker costs, or if it disrupts your field of view...) -Matt Curtis L. Olson wrote: From the FWIW department ... Today I was able to get FlightGear running on a 5 projector wrap around display. Here is a picture of the facility (when it was running other software): http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/Facilities/simpics/screenandcar_small.jpg There are 5 forward channels each covering 42 degrees fov for a total of 210 degrees field of view. Each projector is running at 1024x768 resolution so this is a 6020x768 pixel display system. Our once hot PC hardware is now pretty sub-par in terms of performance so I was only getting 20-30 fps (sometimes less) which was disappointing. This subpar performance leads to jitters and tiny mismatches between adjacent screens which largely goes away if you can run all the channels locked at 60hz. (Oh, and at the moment there is really no possibility of removing the annoying vehicle in the middle and replacing it with a C172 cockpit.) :-P Even so, it was pretty neat to fly in such an immersive environment. I initially started in the Wright Flyer and it was fun to look out through the wings and struts and wires surrounding me. I might try again and use a laptop inside the vehicle for flight controls (rather than sitting at the console on the perimeter of the sim.) We also have a rear channel which I could fire up as well. So that's it, nothing more to see here, please move along ... I just thought I'd mention it in case someone finds it moderately interesting or in case anyone has been wondering about setting up something similar themselves. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] KSFO Terminal ???
D Luff wrote: On 6 Jun 2003 at 9:00, Norman Vine wrote: Innis Cunningham writes: So any windows people managed to fix this. Does it mean also if the file can be textured it will show?. I would love to add some buildings but untill we get this little problem sorted it will be a bit hard to see what I have built LOL. I haven't updated my files since just before the FGFS - SimGear reorganization but the SFO terminal shows just fine with my executable so if the terminal is not showing this is recently introduced problem. I've never seen the terminal on my Cygwin built exe, I've always seen it (since it's introduction) on my Linux built exe. Perhaps this is purely a Cygwin problem since yourself (MingW ?) and Fred B (MSVC) don't seem to have it. Is there anyone on the list who has seen the terminal on a non-MingW Cygwin build? Cheers - Dave Yup. Cygwin from CVS, and I see a plain white building. I'm not sure what Ming is, but I'm pretty sure I'm not using it... ;) -Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] build identification
It seems that you guys get hundreds of build-related and/or platform problems to diagnose, and you spend way too much time having to get people to identify their configurations... Something I've done in the past is to generate a string of information at compile time that identifies when and how something was compiled. This could include OS, compiler versions, cvs tags, datestamps... well, basically, anything you feel is helpful for debugging. A menu pick or a command line option could produce the text string that users could cut and paste into the e-mail post for help. I found it very helpful to capture a compile date and cvs tag into a chip design that verification people could use to direct me to a particular verilog code base to reproduce and debug problems. Obviously, fewer variables there, but you get the idea. What I did was use the make file to generate the string in a `define statement (substitute #define for C...) into a single line source file prior to each compile. Any application here? Or is there too much to capture and save? (Or does an existing log file already have this?) -Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
