Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there any plans for helicopters, rockets, ballons and airships? The X-15 is considered a rocket. Also I've collected some NACA flight data documents of the U.S.S. Los Angles. I haven't had time to construct a JSBSim configuration files for this airship but I think it contains quite some good data. And there is already a balloon FDM available, and we have a(n experimental) paraglider model in the base package. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
On Sunday 21 September 2003 08:35, Erik Hofman wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there any plans for helicopters, rockets, ballons and airships? The X-15 is considered a rocket. Also I've collected some NACA flight data documents of the U.S.S. Los Angles. I haven't had time to construct a JSBSim configuration files for this airship but I think it contains quite some good data. And there is already a balloon FDM available, and we have a(n experimental) paraglider model in the base package. Erik I'd be interested to see how that works out. I'd quite like to do a big rigid airship too and although (atm) I'd like to do the LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, which was the next ship that Eckener made, the idea of doing the Macon and one of it's F9C-2 Sparrowhawks is very appealing:) Does the data you've got have anything about dynamic lift in it? I've also wondered about how to deal with the pressure height limits and ballast handling. Flying these craft seems to be, in some ways, harder than flying heavier than air craft. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
Curt wrote: This is another step towards making aircraft self contained in their own subdirectory. The end goals is to be able to install / remove / distribute aircraft that are entirely contained in their own subdirectory tree making things easier on everyone [hopefully]. :-) Sounds good :-) Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
Good morning, I'd like to mention that I worked as an engineer for an airship company for several years in the mid-1980's. My company developed the Cyclo-crane and Aero-cran- a combination between an airship and a helicopter. (It really requires a picture to give the idea) Anyway I'm a good source for flight dynamics and physics models of airships including apparent mass, insolation and basic dynamics. If anyone is interested I can provide pictures and drawings of the cyclo-crane and some other airships as well - I've got a limited selection of general publications on the subject in addition to my notes and reports from when I worked in the field. By the way, I did a quick search on the web and was unable to find a picture of either the Cyclocrane or Aerocrane. However, it was featured on a PBS episode and the video (which also includes a brief history of airships and some of the novel contemporary concepts of the mid-80's)may be available at your local library. I found it mentioned at this one http://www.wheaton.lib.il.us/library/pdf/VHSscience.pdf I also have detailed blueprints of the Navy K-type Goodyear blimp and a production prototype that shared our hangar (which ended up embarassingly skewered by the antenna of a New York City skyscraper. Contact me privately if you are interested in any further information. I will try to find a picture of the Cyclocrane to scan and post. Nickolas HeinMorgantown WV - Original Message - From: Lee Elliott To: FlightGear developers discussions Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg On Sunday 21 September 2003 08:35, Erik Hofman wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there any plans for helicopters, rockets, ballons and airships? The X-15 is considered a rocket. Also I've collected some NACA flight data documents of the U.S.S. Los Angles. I haven't had time to construct a JSBSim configuration files for this airship but I think it contains quite some good data. And there is already a balloon FDM available, and we have a(n experimental) paraglider model in the base package. ErikI'd be interested to see how that works out. I'd quite like to do a big rigid airship too and although (atm) I'd like to do the LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, which was the next ship that Eckener made, the idea of doing the Macon and one of it's F9C-2 Sparrowhawks is very appealing:)Does the data you've got have anything about dynamic lift in it? I've also wondered about how to deal with the pressure height limits and ballast handling. Flying these craft seems to be, in some ways, harder than flying heavier than air craft.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] heads up - aircraft reorg
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: That's good. Maybe a more generic Historical category would be useful? Don't all of our aircraft fit into that category? :-) Well I suppose you could call anything that isn't built any more historical, but for the most part the term seems to be used for pre 1950's stuff. Even though it hasn't been built for over a quarter century I wouldn't even put the 310 in that classification. BTW the 310 isn't a real military aircraft despite the U-3A 3D model we have. AFAIK there were only maybe a handful built for the USAF to carry higher ups to golf games, courier service, and what not. It isn't clear that any were actually built for the navy. All the photos available online are for the blue canoe airforce model. The aircraft that model is based on is a restoration that may have originally been a civilian plane. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
We might also want to start thinking of an official organization hierarchy such as: Aircraft/ LightSingles/ JetFighters/ CommercialJets/ CommercialTurboProps/ Bombers/ WWI/ WWII/ SailPlanes/ Experimental/ For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy: - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s) - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25) - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52, Iljusin-s) - Transport-Support (Hercules, Galaxy, KC-10, KC-135, Antonov-s) - EWS (EC-3? AWACS, Prowler) - Recon (light, fast, reconaissance aircrafts) - Trainee (light military aircrafts developed specially for teaching) - Matevz ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
Not to forget the prop liners before the jets. Also by the by is there any intention of updating to 9.3 in the near future.Just asking to see whats in the pipe line Cheers Innis Curtis L. Olson writes We might also want to start thinking of an official organization hierarchy such as: Aircraft/ LightSingles/ JetFighters/ CommercialJets/ CommercialTurboProps/ Bombers/ WWI/ WWII/ SailPlanes/ Experimental/ Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson 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 _ E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200 Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy: - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s) - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25) - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52, Iljusin-s) - Transport-Support (Hercules, Galaxy, KC-10, KC-135, Antonov-s) - EWS (EC-3? AWACS, Prowler) - Recon (light, fast, reconaissance aircrafts) - Trainee (light military aircrafts developed specially for teaching) hum... The Mirage 2000C is definitely a fighter, whereas the Mirage 2000D would be a fighter-bomber (is that what you call attack aircraft?), as it does have air-to-air capacity. The Mirage F1C was a fighter (no longer in service in France), the F1CT is an attack aircraft, and the F1CR a reconnaissance aircraft. All of them can act as fighters as well. And the Rafale was designed to be a multirole aircraft as well. Maybe you could make some distinctions among MiG and Sukhoi aircraft... For instance, the Su-27 was mainly a fighter, until more recent versions gained air-to-ground capacity, whereas the Su-25 is just an attack aircraft. I'm not really criticizing, but I'm saying it's going to be more and more difficult to sort all these modern aircraft in categories. -- Jorge Van Hemelryck ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
On Saturday 20 September 2003 17:45, Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200 Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy: - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s) - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25) - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52, Iljusin-s) - Transport-Support (Hercules, Galaxy, KC-10, KC-135, Antonov-s) - EWS (EC-3? AWACS, Prowler) - Recon (light, fast, reconaissance aircrafts) - Trainee (light military aircrafts developed specially for teaching) hum... The Mirage 2000C is definitely a fighter, whereas the Mirage 2000D would be a fighter-bomber (is that what you call attack aircraft?), as it does have air-to-air capacity. The Mirage F1C was a fighter (no longer in service in France), the F1CT is an attack aircraft, and the F1CR a reconnaissance aircraft. All of them can act as fighters as well. And the Rafale was designed to be a multirole aircraft as well. Maybe you could make some distinctions among MiG and Sukhoi aircraft... For instance, the Su-27 was mainly a fighter, until more recent versions gained air-to-ground capacity, whereas the Su-25 is just an attack aircraft. I'm not really criticizing, but I'm saying it's going to be more and more difficult to sort all these modern aircraft in categories. -- Jorge Van Hemelryck Those are pretty good points and we risk having more categories than a/c. Categeories could be helpful to someone who doesn't know what they want to fly but the categories should be kept small and simple. Perhaps several simple lists might be easier to handle, such as Size, Propulsion, Use etc, with simple categories in each list, such as Small, Medium Large in the Size list, Piston, Turbine Rocket in the Propulsion list and Civil, Military, Experimental Research in the Use list. Each a/c would appear in each list, in the appropriate category, so for example, the 747 would appear in the Large category of the Size list, the Turbine category of the Propulsion list and the Civil category in the Use list. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
I know this is slightly off topic, but what is the possibility of having a one aircraft, one file type configuration. The idea is basically to put all of the requisite files for a particular aircraft into some kind of archive file, such as a tarball, and then drop the archives into one directory. Of course, each archive would need some kind of .info file in it to tell fg what the aircraft name is, etc. Optimally, a command line option would override any faults set in the archive. Matevz Jekovec wrote: Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200 Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy: - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s) - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25) - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52, Iljusin-s) - Transport-Support (Hercules, Galaxy, KC-10, KC-135, Antonov-s) - EWS (EC-3? AWACS, Prowler) - Recon (light, fast, reconaissance aircrafts) - Trainee (light military aircrafts developed specially for teaching) hum... The Mirage 2000C is definitely a fighter, whereas the Mirage 2000D would be a fighter-bomber (is that what you call attack aircraft?), as it does have air-to-air capacity. The Mirage F1C was a fighter (no longer in service in France), the F1CT is an attack aircraft, and the F1CR a reconnaissance aircraft. All of them can act as fighters as well. And the Rafale was designed to be a multirole aircraft as well. Maybe you could make some distinctions among MiG and Sukhoi aircraft... For instance, the Su-27 was mainly a fighter, until more recent versions gained air-to-ground capacity, whereas the Su-25 is just an attack aircraft. I'm not really criticizing, but I'm saying it's going to be more and more difficult to sort all these modern aircraft in categories. Yes, of course. I was just giving examples of generaly, which aircrafts to put it to folders (why they are there). I think overall it's not hard to categorize aircrafts, but I is no doubtly a must, cause the available aircrafts number is drasticly growing. My J-22 A is a version which is most widely spread - Fighter-Bomber role aircraft (therefore let's say J-22 is an attack aircraft), although variant B is a double seater (trainee or a better close air support) and an R variant for recon. Anyway, every aircaft does a description of it, usually commented in xml wrapper files (what type, how old, development, who uses it, history, armement etc.), which should some day be showed in game too (I had in mind a technical library accessible from the game menu, which will show a 3D model of an aircraft, a tree structure data, a description, radar symbols etc.) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- A scientist claims in court that the reason he ran a red light is that, due to his speed, the color was blueshifted till it appeared green. Needless to say, the charges of running the red light were dropped and he lost his license for speeding excessively. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
JD Fenech writes: I know this is slightly off topic, but what is the possibility of having a one aircraft, one file type configuration. The idea is basically to put all of the requisite files for a particular aircraft into some kind of archive file, such as a tarball, and then drop the archives into one directory. Of course, each archive would need some kind of .info file in it to tell fg what the aircraft name is, etc. Optimally, a command line option would override any faults set in the archive. The difficulty with a single file approach is in the handling of the aircraft 3d model and textures. We use plib and depend on it's model/texture loaders so we would have to rewrite all those plib loader routines to know about our special file conglomeration format ... and that would get really messy really fast. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson 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
RE: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
That's good. Maybe a more generic Historical category would be useful? Don't all of our aircraft fit into that category? :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: snip Two areas of concern. There are about 40 variations on the c172 and about 20 variations on the c310 with different incantations and aliases and various conglomerations of yasim, jsbsim, 3d cockpits, 2d cockpits, etc. etc. etc. This was kind of messy since they all tend to refer back and forth to each other and all over the place. I think I got everything tweaked correctly, but those of you who care about these should maybe double check that I didn't screw something up. I'll run through some the next couple of days. This is really a great improvement. At some point it might be worth taking a pass through the existing aircraft and moving those that have significant problems or significantly missing pieces off to some other area ... We might also want to start thinking of an official organization hierarchy such as: Aircraft/ LightSingles/ JetFighters/ CommercialJets/ CommercialTurboProps/ Bombers/ WWI/ WWII/ SailPlanes/ Experimental/ That's good. Maybe a more generic Historical category would be useful? Not all of the planes that fit in WWII would necessarily be just military and I'm not sure the j3cub would necessarily belong in the light singles (even though it would in a sense). Oh yeah and we have light twin piston too. An eye toward organizing for a menu system (interactive aircraft selection) would be good. Not sure what if any issues lay there. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
We might also want to start thinking of an official organization hierarchy such as: Aircraft/ LightSingles/ JetFighters/ CommercialJets/ CommercialTurboProps/ Bombers/ WWI/ WWII/ SailPlanes/ Experimental/ Regards, Curt. Are there any plans for helicopters, rockets, ballons and airships? Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
