Andy wrote:
> That is: "the time derivative of Vy is gravity plus thrust
> times the sin of pitch angle", etc...
"... the sin of pitch angle" ??
And all this time I thought it was merely a bad habit...
:-/
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Robert Deters wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > Robert Deters wrote:
> > > Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally.
>
> > Not in pitch, certainly?
>
> Yes in pitch. Besides, I think you are confusing static stability
> and dynamic stability.
Er, normally one interprets an unqualified use o
Robert Deters wrote:
> Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally. It just means that
> the plane would eventually diverge if the pilot did nothing to stop
> it.
Rob:
I think most people, when thinking of stability think:
"If I made an exact paper airplane of the aircraft in question an
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] blue angel
> Robert Deters wrote:
> > Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally. It just
Andy Ross writes:
> Actually, it wouldn't be too terribly hard. Write some filter code
> that reads /accelerations/z-g or whatnot and sets /pilot/gloc-norm
> between 0 (no effect) and 1 (out) based on the 5 second rule and a few
> recovery heuristics.
It's been a while, but I think that Bat
> For extra credit, record a pilot "grunting" or "huffing" sound and
> play it at high G's.
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Rick Ansell wrote:
> This is my reading to, but the two are usual treated/described as
> separate and 'GLOC' was certainly heralded as a new hazard in the
> 80's. (Back when I religiously read Flight International from cover to
> cover each week!)
I hadn't realized this was a new(ish) term. I've
> It's a chicken an the egg problem. Any aircraft can have quickness in
> maneuverability with large enough control surfaces. But you can't
> make the control surfaces too large and still intercept nuclear
> bombers at Mach 2.
True .. though not so much "Chicken and Egg" as balanced design trad
Robert Detmers wrote:
> Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally. It just means that
> the plane would eventually diverge if the pilot did nothing to stop
> it.
Not in pitch, certainly? An aircraft that is unstable in pitch, if
you pulled the stick a little bit and got the nose going u
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:36:54 -0700, Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Rick Ansell wrote:
>> From memory G-Induced Loss of Consciousness (GLOC) is the 'new'
>> problem - this is caused by the rapid onset of G. Blackout is
>> progressive and therefore gives a warning. GLOC is sudden and occurs
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] blue angel
> David Megginson wrote:
> > Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
Rick Ansell wrote:
> From memory G-Induced Loss of Consciousness (GLOC) is the 'new'
> problem - this is caused by the rapid onset of G. Blackout is
> progressive and therefore gives a warning. GLOC is sudden and occurs 4
> to 6 seconds after the manoeuvre. Its insidious as short periods of
> rapi
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 15:53, Andy Ross wrote:
> Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > IIRC, the F-16 is neutrally stable throughout much of its flight
> > envelope. The main advantage for having a neutrally stable or unstable
> > fighter aircraft is agility, quickness in manueverability.
>
> It's a chicken an
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:53:41 -0400, David Megginson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>C. Hotchkiss writes:
>
> > Nimble. Hmm. Wasn't the F16 so responsive that it became the first
> > fighter to put its pilot to sleep if he yanked to hard on the
> > controls.
>
>People can pass out at as little as 6Gs,
Charlie Hotchkiss wrote:
> Nimble. Hmm. Wasn't the F16 so responsive that it became the first
> fighter to put its pilot to sleep if he yanked to hard on the
> controls.
Certainly not the first. GLOC has been an known issue from the very
early days of aviation. There was an experimental fighter
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:37:27 -0500, "Jon S Berndt"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:04:04 -0400
> David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
>>inherently unstable, and if they're modelled correctly we won't be
>>a
C. Hotchkiss writes:
> Nimble. Hmm. Wasn't the F16 so responsive that it became the first
> fighter to put its pilot to sleep if he yanked to hard on the
> controls.
People can pass out at as little as 6Gs, can't they? It takes 4Gs to
start a loop in an aerobatic plane, so it shouldn't be th
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> IIRC, the F-16 is neutrally stable throughout much of its flight
> envelope. The main advantage for having a neutrally stable or unstable
> fighter aircraft is agility, quickness in manueverability.
It's a chicken an the egg problem. Any aircraft can have quickness in
mane
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:37:16 -0700
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The advantages to having an unstable aircraft are that you can hold it
>at a much higher peak AoA.
IIRC, the F-16 is neutrally stable throughout much of its
flight envelope. The main advantage for having a neutrally
sta
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
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
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:04:04 -0400, David Megginson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
>inherently unstable, and if they're modelled correctly we won't be
>able to fly them at all by direct controls: we'll need to work though
>a fairly sophi
David Megginson wrote:
> Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
> inherently unstable, and if they're modelled correctly we won't be
> able to fly them at all by direct controls: we'll need to work though
> a fairly sophisticated FCS.
The F-4 is stable. It's actually much o
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:04:04 -0400
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Note that some fighter aircraft, like (I think) the F-4, are
>inherently unstable, and if they're modelled correctly we won't be
>able to fly them at all by direct controls: we'll need to work though
>a fairly sophis
Andy Ross writes:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > That might be overstating the case. Smooth inputs are necessary on
> > a C172 as well, especially if you're trying to stay within small
> > tolerances (i.e. +-5kt airspeed or +-50ft altitude).
>
> True enough; graceful control input is always
David Megginson wrote:
> For anyone who'd like further reading on phugoid oscillations, see
Alex Perry wrote:
> Nope, only for a given airspeed. The balance between tailplane and
> main wing, for a given elevator position, is speed dependent. Thus
> phugoids.
I think I should clarify. First o
> Andy Ross writes:
> > I'm not sure I understand. A given stick position corresponds very
> > closely to a given angle of attack.
Nope, only for a given airspeed. The balance between tailplane and main
wing, for a given elevator position, is speed dependent. Thus phugoids.
> > If you chan
Andy Ross writes:
> I'm not sure I understand. A given stick position corresponds very
> closely to a given angle of attack. If you change the stick
> position, the aircraft will "seek" to the new AoA. If you change
> the stick position very rapidly, it will seek rapidly, overshoot,
> and
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> I have a lot of problems flying it well from the mouse. It doesn't
> seem to respond well to elevator input ... you get an initial "bump"
> and then pitch oscillations ... I don't know if that's realistic or
> not. I'm sure Andy can provide a suitable explanation for why
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon S Berndt) [2002.06.18 09:31]:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:07:04 -0500 (CDT)
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Melchior FRANZ writes:
> >>Wow, what a beautiful model. Shiny blue steel, perfectly
> >>animated.
> >>Many thanks!
>
> I'd be interested to know wh
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:07:04 -0500 (CDT)
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Melchior FRANZ writes:
>> Wow, what a beautiful model. Shiny blue steel, perfectly
>>animated.
>> Many thanks!
I'd be interested to know what is being talked about.
Screen shot?
Jon
__
Melchior FRANZ writes:
> Wow, what a beautiful model. Shiny blue steel, perfectly animated.
> Many thanks!
I have a lot of problems flying it well from the mouse. It doesn't
seem to respond well to elevator input ... you get an initial "bump"
and then pitch oscillations ... I don't know if that'
32 matches
Mail list logo
