Jon Berndt wrote:
Thanks, David. There are a couple of things I can think of to do, here. One is that I
sure
wish I had time to make a DATCOM model of the C-172 that could give me some aero data
for
comparison. But with my schedule now I can't make any promises, but I will get to this
someday!
Jon Berndt wrote:
Given these numbers I'd suspect that if there is a problem, perhaps we need to review
our
MoI's.
That makes a lot of sense -- I was worried that the damping numbers were
masking a different problem.
All the best,
David
___
That is a tricky issue, because using spring-loaded controllers gives a
significantly different feel than fully-loaded aircraft controls, and there
is always a danger of altering the flight characteristics to compensate for
the control differences.
FWIW, I sent an email to Cessna customer
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 05:17, David Megginson wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
Thanks, David. There are a couple of things I can think of to do, here. One is
that I sure
wish I had time to make a DATCOM model of the C-172 that could give me some aero
data for
comparison. But with my schedule
Coming back to the (default) JSBSim Cessna 172p after spending a couple of
months flying the YASim pa28-161, I find the 172 extremely slippery, far too
much for a trainer. While the Cherokee tends to feel more stable in flight
than a 172 (i.e. it has more roll, pitch, and yaw damping), the
For comparison:
I've made a patched-up file that allows the 172p to handle much more
realistically, but I'm not willing to upload it to CVS yet, because I'm not
sure that I've done the right thing. To keep the 172 from wallowing, I
increased the roll damping coefficient (Clp) from -0.484 to
The Navion has
Clp = -0.410
Cmq = -9.960
Cnr = -0.125
...
Given these numbers I'd suspect that if there is a problem, perhaps we need to review
our
MoI's.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
