David Luff writes:
> This is fantastic and works beautifully! Unfortunately the default startup
> at the moment leaves the magneto switch stuck in the starter position, and
> the only way to get it back so the above can work properly if required is
> to hit the space bar as before.
Can you f
David Luff writes:
> On 12/30/02 at 7:47 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Date: Mon Dec 30 14:47:23 EST 2002
> >Author: cvsroot
> >
> >Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear
> >In directory bitless:/tmp/cvs-serv15423
> >
> >Modified Files:
> > preferences.xml
> >Log Message:
> >Changed
On 12/28/02 at 7:10 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Date: Sat Dec 28 14:10:41 EST 2002
>Author: cvsroot
>
>Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/Instruments
>In directory bitless:/tmp/cvs-serv31667/Instruments
>
>Modified Files:
> single-magneto-switch.xml
>Log Message:
>Chang
On 12/30/02 at 7:47 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Date: Mon Dec 30 14:47:23 EST 2002
>Author: cvsroot
>
>Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear
>In directory bitless:/tmp/cvs-serv15423
>
>Modified Files:
> preferences.xml
>Log Message:
>Changed default frequencies. KSFO ATIS is not o
On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 10:07, Erik Hofman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Date: Sun Sep 22 11:21:02 EDT 2002
> > Author: cvsroot
> >
> > Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16
> > In directory bitless:/tmp/cvs-serv6423/Aircraft/f16
> >
> > Added Files:
> > f16.xml
>
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 06:52, Alex Perry wrote:
> > Does the R have a 40 deg flap detent?
>
> My understanding is that the 40 deg flap setting (over the whole family)
> is actually related to max gross weight. If you want the 40 deg then you
> will be limited to 2300 lb; if you make do with 30 d
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 06:34, Tony Peden wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 06:19, David Megginson wrote:
> > Tony Peden writes:
> >
> > > Does the R have a 40 deg flap detent?
> >
> > No. The 172R and 172P allow up to 30deg flaps, but the 172M (mid
> > 1970s) goes to 40deg -- it feels like draggin
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 06:19, David Megginson wrote:
> Tony Peden writes:
>
> > Does the R have a 40 deg flap detent?
>
> No. The 172R and 172P allow up to 30deg flaps, but the 172M (mid
> 1970s) goes to 40deg -- it feels like dragging a parachute.
That's typical. You get to a point with flap
Tony Peden writes:
> Does the R have a 40 deg flap detent?
No. The 172R and 172P allow up to 30deg flaps, but the 172M (mid
1970s) goes to 40deg -- it feels like dragging a parachute.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/
__
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 05:27, David Megginson wrote:
> Tony Peden writes:
>
> > > My suggestion is that c172.xml (and --aircraft=c172) would disappear
> > > altogether, and we'd have c172p.xml and c172r.xml instead.
> >
> > I don't really object to that -- except that I wonder how many folks
Tony Peden writes:
> > My suggestion is that c172.xml (and --aircraft=c172) would disappear
> > altogether, and we'd have c172p.xml and c172r.xml instead.
>
> I don't really object to that -- except that I wonder how many folks
> will be able to really tell the difference. Surely, even in
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 04:26, David Megginson wrote:
> Tony Peden writes:
>
> > The 48 in number checks with my copy of the POH (from which many
> > other numbers have been derived, so we should probably stick with
> > that)
>
> You've talked before about forking, and that might not be a bad i
Tony Peden writes:
> The 48 in number checks with my copy of the POH (from which many
> other numbers have been derived, so we should probably stick with
> that)
You've talked before about forking, and that might not be a bad idea.
Right now, we're more-or-less targetting a 172R, but the 48 n
> Is there some reasoning behind setting the steering gains according to
> the brake selection? This makes no sense to me. It looks to me like
> their needs to be a separate steering selection (or just specify the
> gain in the config file).
Agreed. I beg your indulgence - let me have a look at
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 06:29, David Megginson wrote:
> Tony Peden writes:
>
> > I didn't look at everything, but the nose wheel was in NONE and the
> > mains CASTERED as far back as I looked (which went back to the beginning
> > of time for the configurable gear). I can't explain the CASTERED
Jon S Berndt writes:
> I may be guilty, here. Note that this file needs to be
> gone through again with a fine tooth comb and validated.
> Just when I think I can't become more overwhelmed than I
> already am ...
Wife pregnant with triplets again?
(Don't laugh, my wife has a friend who had tw
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:15:54 -0400
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>For RADTODEG, read DEGTORAD.
Use
degtorad
and
radtodeg
These are consts from the FGJSBBase class. This is where
commonly used constants are being migrated to, instead of
#defines, which we are moving away fro
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:29:40 -0400
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's an excerpt from FGLGear.cpp:
>
> case bgNose:
> SteerGain = -0.50;
> BrakeFCoeff = rollingFCoeff;
> break;
>
>In other words, if gear belongs to bgNone, it gets
>SteerGain=0.0, s
David Megginson writes:
> Note a second problem with this code: it uses getDrPos (the actual
> rudder position) and ignores maxSteerAngle from the config file. A
> better option would probably be
>
> SteerAngle = SteerGain*FCS->GetDrCmd()*maxSteerAngle*RADTODEG;
For RADTODEG, read DEGTO
Tony Peden writes:
> I didn't look at everything, but the nose wheel was in NONE and the
> mains CASTERED as far back as I looked (which went back to the beginning
> of time for the configurable gear). I can't explain the CASTERED mains,
> but I understood what you call steer groups to be br
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 05:52, David Megginson wrote:
> Tony Peden writes:
>
> > It looks like this may have helped crosswind handling on the ground
> > considerably. The relatively small amount of testing I've done shows
> > that the c172 will sit still in up to a 15 knot crosswind and turn ve
Tony Peden writes:
> It looks like this may have helped crosswind handling on the ground
> considerably. The relatively small amount of testing I've done shows
> that the c172 will sit still in up to a 15 knot crosswind and turn very
> slowly in 20 knots.
>
> Let us know what you think.
David,
It looks like this may have helped crosswind handling on the ground
considerably. The relatively small amount of testing I've done shows
that the c172 will sit still in up to a 15 knot crosswind and turn very
slowly in 20 knots.
Let us know what you think.
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 16:05,
On Tuesday 11 June 2002 1:24 pm, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Was this a mistake?
Yes, I committed it accidentally while trying to get options.xml committed.
Can you back it out for me? Gotta run
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Date: Tue Jun 11 13:06:29 EDT 2002
> > Author: cvsroot
> >
24 matches
Mail list logo
