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
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
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
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
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
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
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 :( -
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
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
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
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,
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
]
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
