The quote that comes to mind goes something like Sure the Mustang can't
do what the Spitfire does, but doesn't do it over Berlin.
Spitfires, like the Me's and Fw's lacked range because they were
conceived of as tactical, not strategic, aircraft. They did their job
very well, being more
Martin Spott wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
...
Oh, you get heavily increased torque from the ailerons for manouverability
and you get much more lift from large wings at low speed - especially
because on the current design at least 90 % of the wing area suffers from
the down-wind generated by
Martin Spott wrote:
The big problematic area ... regime is unstable and
recovery difficult.
This does not have to be as difficult as it is with the V-22. The Osprey is
designed for being stuffed into _very_ small space below a ship's deck.
If they had more space then it would have been
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Tony Peden writes:
--- Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. ... IMHO
that thing
even looks dangerous :-)
More dangerous than a helicopter? ...
It sounds like avoiding the vortex ring state...
I
I've flown several times as a passenger in that particular model. Loved
it. I'm in deep envy and insist on being in your will. ;-)
Regards,
Charlie H.
David Megginson wrote:
After a few months of dithering, ... did a test flight
and had my AME do a detailed prepurchase yesterday.
Regards,
Worked for me yesterday and just now. A puzzlement.
Charlie H.
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..anyone else seen this?: https://sourceforge.net/ down
..reads:We're Sorry.
The SF.net domain is temporarily pointing at this maintenance page.
Please access the SourceForge.net site at https://sourceforge.net
I read somewhere that the aircraft was very sensitive to cross winds and
would weather vane on the mearest whisper of such.
Regards,
Charlie H.
Michael Selig wrote:
I have just added the Fokker Dr.1 triplane to the CVS. There are notes
in the readme below about how to get a 3D model file.
Norman Vine wrote:
Hi All
I have placed a tarball of hud...
I am working on a major restructuring of the HUD to
make having multiple versions of both the 2D and 3D
HUDs available at the same time
Good. When I worked on the code I expected that is would eventually be
expanded to support
Jim Wilson wrote:
...
I'll see if I can do that over the next few days. Time is limited these days.
The company I work at does 80% of their business this month and next (see
http://www.kelcomaine.com to find out why). ...
From a couple of the pictures there I assume the during the off season
John Check wrote:
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 7:39 am, Martin Spott wrote:
FYI, there are a lot of new FGFS logo items available.
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?storeid=fgfs_gear
The mugs look nice but I have to notice that the colour on the FlightGear
Logo Mug starts
Jon S Berndt wrote:
... Typically, the closer the CG is to
the aerodynamic center, the quicker and easier you can
yank the plane around (and possibly break your neck). It
wouldn't surprise me that the A-4 is so maneuverable. It
would be nice to get input from a real A-4 driver or find
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
... patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than having the text hard coded into the source.
Sound like a good idea? Any objections?...
It is an obvious and long needed improvement. However, if I read the
Erik Hofman wrote:
C. Hotchkiss wrote:
...
If the file isn't needed because an error wasn't made, does the program abort
because it cannot find the file? Admittedly I'm being lazy in not testing this
myself.
It only throws an exception when --help (or an incorrect argument
This was forwarded to me by my mother-in-law. I checked back to SI to
see if they were the attributed source and found a link to a movie on
the subject as well. Why the original author chose to submit to SI, I
don't know.
Regards,
Charlie H.
http://rense.com/general8/boom.htm
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 19:15:32 -0400,
John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sunday 02 June 2002 5:16 pm, Gene Buckle wrote:
..also, how about a _generic_ Mooney Bonanza? About 300 of
Mooney didn't build the Bonanza, Beechcraft did.
Andy Ross wrote:
[I combined a bunch of responses...
Once the tailwheel leaves the ground, it's squirrely but controllable.
This is not doubt bad form, but I found that holding the stick back to
keep the wheel firmly on the ground during the takeoff roll until the
aircraft took off on
Andy,
I'm really just exploring near stall modeling issues so that our simulation
can be improved. Anyway you can get a bird in the air is reasonable,
especially if it shows up weaknesses in modeling.
So, just for discussion's sake and noting that nobody with detailed
knowledge of and
Actually, what we have had was not an Easter egg, but a surprise
improvement that might someday be the norm. Program Easter eggs are
supposed to be hidden and activated by an arcane sequence of operator
inputs. So, what should we consider adding into the program to be our
first official egg, a
Alex Perry wrote:
I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule,
that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of
others.
I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its home
website, sometimes for logging and sometimes
David Megginson wrote:
C. Hotchkiss writes:
The only place... Maybe
somebody can recall these instances with better accuracy. Either
way, history condemned us to English units.
Yes, ditto for the Gimli Glider, the Air Canada 767 that ran out of
fuel at altitude and was brought
Andy Ross wrote:
Christian Mayer wrote:
(Note: degrees are still valid as they are *internationally* well
known. slugs aren't)
Actually, there's a very good reason why we use a 360 degree circle.
This number has loads of small integer divisors. ...In the days before
calculators, this
... If a FDM wants to use obscure units internally (e.g. because the
developers are use to them) that's their choice. But when we have
very universal data that a lot of people need (users, panel
programmers, ...) we should use an international standard.
I agree with the principle,
Flight Gear was originally written in C. I was one of those who urged
adoption of C++ to take advantage of the features that the language
offered, including the STL (standard template library.) Since then the
various contributors seem very pleased with the change. While it is always
possible to
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Also, flex wings are surprisingly robust, even slow beginner
nice-weather-only gliders are specified to +6 gs.
IIRC the Vari-EZ composite is spec'ed at +12 -6 and Ruttan refuses to divulge
the actual limits. (Not that you're going to be awake after pulling +12
Fred,
You are correct. However, neither are they classes written by the user. And we
routinely get headaches from automatic int, float, pointer variables we forgets
to initialize. On the other hand, we do expect the opposite of class objects. In
fact, the whole point of a c'tor is that default
Christian Mayer wrote:
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
but I think that every member variables should have a default value set in
class constructor
Definitely!! I had many troubles with MSVC and uninialized variables so
far.
C'tors that don't initialize class members? Ought to have a good
Tony Peden wrote:
On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 17:13, Christian Mayer wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
Dumb question, but one I hope someone knows the answer to: when one
specifies the displacement of a piston engine (e.g. IO-360 == 360
cubic inches), is that the volume of the whole cylinders
A man after my own heart. How about creating a small airport and jack it up
30 meters from the surrounding terrain? You'll get the same effect without
getting seasick.. :-)
Charlie H.
Andy Ross wrote:
Jeff wrote:
So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or
28 matches
Mail list logo
