Vassilii Khachaturov wrote:
H even an empty aircraft doesn't get blown away that easy.
I can't believe it will be blown away by anything under 15 knots,
especially with the brakes engaged.
This is correct. At least you can land and taxi a C150 at 15 kts
crosswind without significant
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Martin Spott wrote:
Vassilii Khachaturov wrote:
H even an empty aircraft doesn't get blown away that easy.
I can't believe it will be blown away by anything under 15 knots,
especially with the brakes engaged.
This is correct. At least you can land and taxi a
Vassilii Khachaturov wrote:
I've tried out the recent c150 updates, and have observed the following
problems:
1) the speeds in the help file and on the specially crafted ASI seem
different from what the real Cessnas have. C150 was an inferior version to
a C152, with all the speeds lower, and
Vassilii Khachaturov wrote:
I've tried out the recent c150 updates, and have observed the following
problems:
Here's the data for the C-150:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/docs/c150.txt
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
You are right, for some unknown reason to me I changed the tanks capacity.
I wonder if this, along with the empty pilot seat, added to the
back-tumbling? BTW, Erik's data at
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/docs/c150.txt also lists a std and
long-range configuration (please ignore my c152 data as
Sometimes at the same time I also see the aircraft tumbling backwards and
having its tail going underground, controls held neutral, tailwind never
exceeding 7 knots. Could this be that the model doesn't account for the
pilot's weight?
Tumbling backwards is usually an indication that the
