RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
From: Lee Elliott On Thursday 18 November 2004 21:03, Martin Spott wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: um, yes - the TSR-2 probably isn't the best a/c for carrier stuff. The FDM needs really an overhaul because the take-off performance isn't right - it currently lifts off at a lower speed if reheat isn't used :( - and it was designed to have a good stol performance, [...] It was designed for ?? STOL performance ? _These_ small wings !? Oh man, I must have missed a lesson ;-)) Martin. Yeah - and rough strips too. I believe the STO was achieved by extending the nose gear strut to increase the initial AoA. Not only would this provide more lift over the wings, it would also result in a useful down-thrust component from the engines, especially when afterburning was used. I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less than perfect strips. Don't know for sure but a braking parachute might have been planned too. LeeE The TSR2 also had blown flaps for short and rough take offs: http://patter.mine.nu/tsr2-2.htm Richard This e-mail has been scanned for Bede Scientific Instruments for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 13:59, Richard Bytheway wrote: From: Lee Elliott On Thursday 18 November 2004 21:03, Martin Spott wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: um, yes - the TSR-2 probably isn't the best a/c for carrier stuff. The FDM needs really an overhaul because the take-off performance isn't right - it currently lifts off at a lower speed if reheat isn't used :( - and it was designed to have a good stol performance, [...] It was designed for ?? STOL performance ? _These_ small wings !? Oh man, I must have missed a lesson ;-)) Martin. Yeah - and rough strips too. I believe the STO was achieved by extending the nose gear strut to increase the initial AoA. Not only would this provide more lift over the wings, it would also result in a useful down-thrust component from the engines, especially when afterburning was used. I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less than perfect strips. Don't know for sure but a braking parachute might have been planned too. LeeE The TSR2 also had blown flaps for short and rough take offs: http://patter.mine.nu/tsr2-2.htm Richard Thanks for posting that link - interesting reading - saved:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
Lee Elliott wrote: On Sunday 21 November 2004 21:58, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..you forget this plane was made to fight WWIII. ;-). In a nut shell, you've got it. Well, the project started in the late fifties, way past WWII. technical/manufacturing problems (there have been a surprisingly high number of books written about the TSR2) [...] and websites. Regarding you previous posting: The TSR.2 actually _had_ a chute: http://www.suchoj.com/andere/TSR2/images/TSR2_03.jpg Cheers, 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 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Monday 22 November 2004 01:28, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:24:38 +, Lee wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sunday 21 November 2004 21:58, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:32:12 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Lee Elliott wrote: I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less than perfect strips. Yes, the main gear looks to be very 'robust'. But I still wonder why they paid attention to these features. To my knowledge the TSR-2 was designed for long range and high cruise speed. This sort of aircraft typically doesn't need rough, short strips, they could safely operate from distant bases ..you forget this plane was made to fight WWIII. ;-). In a nut shell, you've got it. The requirements spec was very demanding and to a degree lead to it's failure. Even so, albeit after prolonged development, it seems as though it was coming pretty close to actually meeting those requirements when the project was cancelled. I've read that if just any one of those requirements had been relaxed just a little the a/c would have cost a lot less to produce and been a lot easier to actually manufacture. Many, if not most of the people involved in the project seem to believe that it was dropped more for political reasons (it had the potential to upset the balance of powers) rather than technical/manufacturing problems (there have been a surprisingly high number of books written about the TSR2) and considering the original specs requirements, it's likely that the TSR2 would still be in service today, had they ever got into production and service. ..any books on it's avionics? These would have needed to be reliable near nuclear firework too. Good point - no, I'm not aware of any books that go into the avionics EMP hardening. However, I've not read anything about an FCS and I believe that the design was aerodynamically stable, so it could have been flown ok as long as fuel was getting to the engines. Perhaps the crew might not have known where they were going but they'd be able to stay in the air. AFAIK, the terrain-following scheme, using a 'ski-toe' ground intersection profile, which was eventually used in the Panavia Tornado, was first developed for the TSR2. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
Lee Elliott wrote: I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less than perfect strips. Yes, the main gear looks to be very 'robust'. But I still wonder why they paid attention to these features. To my knowledge the TSR-2 was designed for long range and high cruise speed. This sort of aircraft typically doesn't need rough, short strips, they could safely operate from distant bases Cheers, 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 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Sunday 21 November 2004 21:58, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:32:12 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Lee Elliott wrote: I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less than perfect strips. Yes, the main gear looks to be very 'robust'. But I still wonder why they paid attention to these features. To my knowledge the TSR-2 was designed for long range and high cruise speed. This sort of aircraft typically doesn't need rough, short strips, they could safely operate from distant bases ..you forget this plane was made to fight WWIII. ;-). In a nut shell, you've got it. The requirements spec was very demanding and to a degree lead to it's failure. Even so, albeit after prolonged development, it seems as though it was coming pretty close to actually meeting those requirements when the project was cancelled. I've read that if just any one of those requirements had been relaxed just a little the a/c would have cost a lot less to produce and been a lot easier to actually manufacture. Many, if not most of the people involved in the project seem to believe that it was dropped more for political reasons (it had the potential to upset the balance of powers) rather than technical/manufacturing problems (there have been a surprisingly high number of books written about the TSR2) and considering the original specs requirements, it's likely that the TSR2 would still be in service today, had they ever got into production and service. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Thursday 18 November 2004 21:03, Martin Spott wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: um, yes - the TSR-2 probably isn't the best a/c for carrier stuff. The FDM needs really an overhaul because the take-off performance isn't right - it currently lifts off at a lower speed if reheat isn't used :( - and it was designed to have a good stol performance, [...] It was designed for ?? STOL performance ? _These_ small wings !? Oh man, I must have missed a lesson ;-)) Martin. Yeah - and rough strips too. I believe the STO was achieved by extending the nose gear strut to increase the initial AoA. Not only would this provide more lift over the wings, it would also result in a useful down-thrust component from the engines, especially when afterburning was used. I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less than perfect strips. Don't know for sure but a braking parachute might have been planned too. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
Martin Spott wrote [...] Did you manage to take off? With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for the TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to shift the starting position to the beginning of the 'runway', otherwise it _might_ have worked out. So I crashed into the sea I don't know. Mathias provides you with a perfectly good carrier-capable aircraft, and you use every other kind ... :-) Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
Vivian Meazza wrote: I don't know. Mathias provides you with a perfectly good carrier-capable aircraft, and you use every other kind ... :-) Well, I'm doing everything in small steps: On the Octane it is a larger undertaking to rebuild FlightGear and after I've finished I'd like to know where I made the mistakes :-) 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 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Thursday 18 November 2004 08:01, Vivian Meazza wrote: Martin Spott wrote [...] Did you manage to take off? With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for the TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to shift the starting position to the beginning of the 'runway', otherwise it _might_ have worked out. So I crashed into the sea I don't know. Mathias provides you with a perfectly good carrier-capable aircraft, and you use every other kind ... :-) Regards, Vivian :) um, yes - the TSR-2 probably isn't the best a/c for carrier stuff. The FDM needs really an overhaul because the take-off performance isn't right - it currently lifts off at a lower speed if reheat isn't used :( - and it was designed to have a good stol performance, albeit with extending nose-gear to increase the AoA. The current FDM is pretty poor in this respect. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
Melchior FRANZ wrote: It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file $FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg: OBJECT_SHARED Models/Geometry/Nimitz/nimitz.ac -122.590 37.76 -7.0 90 Thanks, Melchior. This has a funny effect here: After starting FG, I see the BO105 sitting _below_ the flight deck right on the water surface. After hitting 'Reset' in the 'File' menu, the BO105 gets placed properly on the flight deck (man, what a small bird, what a large carrier ), 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 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
Martin Spott wrote Melchior FRANZ wrote: It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file $FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg: OBJECT_SHARED Models/Geometry/Nimitz/nimitz.ac -122.590 37.76 -7.0 90 Thanks, Melchior. This has a funny effect here: After starting FG, I see the BO105 sitting _below_ the flight deck right on the water surface. After hitting 'Reset' in the 'File' menu, the BO105 gets placed properly on the flight deck (man, what a small bird, what a large carrier ), I would think that a side effect of putting Nimitz in the scenery. Remember, YASim gear doesn't 'see' the deck right now. You will only get the proper effects by using a JBsim aircraft. Mathias is doing some work for YASim. But it's not ready yet. Try using it as it was designed, and you should see what I mean. Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
This is probably unrelated, but with the 0.9.6 win32 binaries, if you start up with a large FOV (?90), then until you reset, 3d-cockpits are unusable. Giles Robertson -Original Message- From: Martin Spott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 November 2004 09:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI Melchior FRANZ wrote: It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file $FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg: OBJECT_SHARED Models/Geometry/Nimitz/nimitz.ac -122.590 37.76 -7.0 90 Thanks, Melchior. This has a funny effect here: After starting FG, I see the BO105 sitting _below_ the flight deck right on the water surface. After hitting 'Reset' in the 'File' menu, the BO105 gets placed properly on the flight deck (man, what a small bird, what a large carrier ), 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 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Mittwoch 17 November 2004 10:29, Martin Spott wrote: Melchior FRANZ wrote: It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file $FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg: OBJECT_SHARED Models/Geometry/Nimitz/nimitz.ac -122.590 37.76 -7.0 90 Thanks, Melchior. This has a funny effect here: After starting FG, I see the BO105 sitting _below_ the flight deck right on the water surface. After hitting 'Reset' in the 'File' menu, the BO105 gets placed properly on the flight deck (man, what a small bird, what a large carrier ), It is thought to work with the ai configuration Vivian was talking about. That means you need to apply the carrier-data.diff from ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Misc_maf/carrier/ as well as put the nimitz_demo.xml into the Data/AI/ directory. But then, YASim's physics cannot yet 'see' the carrier deck. Changing YASim and the others to see the ground cache is one of the next steps. You will only be able to taxi on the carrier's deck with that JSBSim-dropin.tar.gz from the same ftp location. Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Frhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
Mathias Fr??hlich wrote: You will only be able to taxi on the carrier's deck with that JSBSim-dropin.tar.gz from the same ftp location. Well, this statement appears to be maybe mostly, but not entirely correct ;-) Apparently different rules apply when you put the carrier into the scenery: http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Carrier_01.jpg 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 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Mittwoch 17 November 2004 22:20, Martin Spott wrote: Mathias Fr??hlich wrote: You will only be able to taxi on the carrier's deck with that JSBSim-dropin.tar.gz from the same ftp location. Well, this statement appears to be maybe mostly, but not entirely correct ;-) Apparently different rules apply when you put the carrier into the scenery: http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Carrier_01.jpg That's when you put that carrier statically into the scenery. Then it is in the scenery branch and SSGTRAV_HOT is set in the traversal mask. This is not true for AI models. And a AI carrier will be an AI model. But nice pic anyway :) Did you manage to take off? Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Frhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
Mathias Fr??hlich wrote: On Mittwoch 17 November 2004 22:20, Martin Spott wrote: http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Carrier_01.jpg [...] Did you manage to take off? With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for the TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to shift the starting position to the beginning of the 'runway', otherwise it _might_ have worked out. So I crashed into the sea 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 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Donnerstag 18 November 2004 00:32, Martin Spott wrote: With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for the TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to shift the starting position to the beginning of the 'runway', otherwise it _might_ have worked out. So I crashed into the sea ... wait until the c172 gets a launchbar :) Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Frhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:15:43 +0100, Mathias wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Donnerstag 18 November 2004 00:32, Martin Spott wrote: With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for the TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to shift the starting position to the beginning of the 'runway', otherwise it _might_ have worked out. So I crashed into the sea .. wait until the c172 gets a launchbar :) ..and for the TSR-2, a nuke AB? ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI nimitz_demo.xml, NONE, 1.1
Erik Hofman wrote: Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Data/AI In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv21401 Added Files: nimitz_demo.xml Log Message: [...] The hook can be extended with the H key, retracted with h. Start flightgear with fgfs --lat=37.688 --lon=-122.683 --heading=180 --altitude=71 To be honest: I don't see any carrier. I just took the BO105 for a ride and noticed that I sat somewhere right on the water. Is something still missing ? BTW, how many carriers _should_ we have currently ? I assume we have the 'saratoga' west of San Francisco and this 'nimitz' south-east of SF, somewhere in the south of the bay. Right ? 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 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Data/AI nimitz_demo.xml, NONE, 1.1
* Martin Spott -- Tuesday 16 November 2004 14:56: * * Mathias Frohlich: The hook can be extended with the H key, retracted with h. Start flightgear with fgfs --lat=37.688 --lon=-122.683 --heading=180 --altitude=71 To be honest: I don't see any carrier. It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file $FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg: OBJECT_SHARED Models/Geometry/Nimitz/nimitz.ac -122.590 37.76 -7.0 90 And the whole wire/hook thing will AFAIK not work anyway, because it needs Mathias' changes, which are probably only in his branch in the JSBSim repository, but not in FlightGear. All just AFAIK, of course. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
