David Megginson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed
to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) needs some work,
but it's coming along very nicely.
I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
hundred
Erik Hofman writes:
I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever.
There are definatelly still some problems with the F-16.
The problem with a plane like the F-16 is the fact that every momentum
generetad by the
Erik Hofman writes:
I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever.
One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11
and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it will, indeed, keep flying no
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever.
One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11
and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it will,
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever.
One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11
and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it will,
Martin Spott wrote:
I think, something went wrong here:
It looks like it, put the following file in FlightGear/Aircraft/f16/Panels:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/download/ded.xml
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
I think, something went wrong here:
It looks like it, put the following file in FlightGear/Aircraft/f16/Panels:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/download/ded.xml
This one does the trick for the panel. I still see the glider from
Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately
shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit difficult
at this time.
Really? Are you saying the F-16 can really approach that slowly? I'm
not a pilot, but with FGFS, an 100kt approach in a 747 or A4 or TSR.2
Major A wrote:
BTW, does anybody know at what angle planes (other than the Harrier)
usually approach aircraft carriers?
Pitch attitude angle or glide slope angle? Pitch depends a lot on the
aircraft, somewhere between 8-12° is typical.
I've read somewhere that the meatball/FLOLS glide slope
On Thursday 13 March 2003 7:13 am, Martin Spott wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Wed Mar 12 16:07:34 EST 2003
Author: cvsroot
Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16/Panels
In directory dash:/tmp/cvs-serv31668/f16/Panels
Modified Files:
f16-2d-panel.xml
--- Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Major A wrote:
Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately
shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit
difficult
at this time.
Really? Are you saying the F-16 can really approach that slowly?
I'm
not a
Tony Peden wrote:
Fighters, especially those that are supersonic, have relatively small
wings. That's the biggest reason.
Now that you mention it, I just heard a story of a group of R/C flyers
that had modelled a scale model of an F-16. They encountered a problem
where the aircraft could fly
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:26:31 +0100
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They encountered a problem where the aircraft could fly
past 2 degr. aoa. It took them quite long to learn that
the wing root of the F-16 (the part of the fuselage that
extends to underneath the canopy and where the wings
Andy Ross wrote:
Major A wrote:
BTW, does anybody know at what angle planes (other than the Harrier)
usually approach aircraft carriers?
Pitch attitude angle or glide slope angle? Pitch depends a lot on the
aircraft, somewhere between 8-12 is typical.
I've read
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:26:31 +0100
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They encountered a problem where the aircraft could fly past 2 degr.
aoa. It took them quite long to learn that the wing root of the F-16
(the part of the fuselage that extends to underneath the canopy
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 2:22 pm, Martin Spott wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified Files:
f16.xml
Log Message:
improved f-16 from Erik Hofman
Oh, _very_ nice, but eerm, did anyone manage to get
Major A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I know why: I set --prop:/environment/turbulence-norm=1.0 in my
~/.fgfsrc and obviously this has impact even at ground level :-)
Well... have you tried, BTW, to take off with the TSR.2 with
crosswind?
I did quite a few times and I'm pretty fine
I just managed to land and stop the F-16 with a 2900ft ground roll,
and that was after bringing it in a little hot (about 150kt). Here
are two tips:
1. Apply full up elevator against the braking (this is a good idea for
most planes, since it helps to keep from nosing over).
2. Don't apply
18 matches
Mail list logo
