[Flightgear-devel] mpserver07 is down
As is probably apparent by now, my server is down. I had been having problems with the machine doing restarts occasionally over the past several months, but it seems to gotten much worse in the past couple of weeks. But we've been travelling for the past week, and I didn't have time to evaluate the machine before we left home last week. As we won't be home for another few days, the machine remains offline for now--and I don't really know when it will be back up. Therefore mpserver07 is down for the foreseeable future. Sorry for the inconvenience to the community. TB -- Own the Future-Intelreg; Level Up Game Demo Contest 2013 Rise to greatness in Intel's independent game demo contest. Compete for recognition, cash, and the chance to get your game on Steam. $5K grand prize plus 10 genre and skill prizes. Submit your demo by 6/6/13. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel_levelupd2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] mpserver07 is down
Hello all... As is probably apparent by now, my server is down. I had been having problems with the machine doing restarts occasionally over the past several months, but it seems to gotten much worse in the past couple of weeks. But we've been travelling for the past week, and I didn't have time to evaluate the machine before we left home last week. As we won't be home for another few days, the machine remains offline for now--and I don't really know when it will be back up. Therefore mpserver07 is down for the foreseeable future. Sorry for the inconvenience to the community. TB-- Own the Future-Intelreg; Level Up Game Demo Contest 2013 Rise to greatness in Intel's independent game demo contest. Compete for recognition, cash, and the chance to get your game on Steam. $5K grand prize plus 10 genre and skill prizes. Submit your demo by 6/6/13. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel_levelupd2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] mpserver07 back online
Hello all... I saw the message about mpserver07 last week, so I checked on it and found that fgms wasn't running. I have no idea why it wasn't, as uptime showed the machine to be online for over 181 days. Surely someone would have noticed before now, if mpserver07 hadn't been working for 6 months? I don't really use Flightgear much anymore as I am involved in a couple of other projects. So I apologize for not noticing that the service wasn't running, and I'll check on it more often. But if someone notices that it is down, I welcome them to email directly me at: tcbe...@hotmail.com. Thanks! TB -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Mpserver07 temporarily down
Hi all, In case someone may have noticed, mpserver07 is down. We lost one of our cable modems, and the ISP cannot get someone out here until tomorrow. When we went with a static IP address in 2010, the ISP gave us an additional modem unit. Now we have two running, and apparently one of them has failed and their static IP system will not work with just the one. But the online technician couldn't even access the main unit, so they have to send someone out tomorrow to attend to it. But since we have a business account (needed for the static IP), they will try to get here within 24 hours. So with any luck, it will be fixed tomorrow and the server will be back online. I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause. TB -- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] New audio files for FG reciprocating aircraft
Hello all... With all the talk about FG audio here recently, it reminded me that I haven't yet gotten around to something I've wanted to do for some time--record some new audio files. I have access to a Piper Aztec, a light twin-engined aircraft. It's engines are six-cylinder Lycoming IO-540's, which are a bit larger than a 172's engine, but quite similar in some. But I also probably have access to smaller, single-engine aircraft such as a Piper Cub. I am not sure about turbine engine aircraft just yet, but that may be a possibility as well, as I have several contacts that might be able to help with that. I also have a Mac laptop with audio-recording software (Garage Band, Pro-Tools and Sonar for PC). In addition I have several professional dynamic and condenser microphones. The point is that I have the necessary tools to record some high-quality audio, and I have access to various aircraft to get the audio samples from. While I do not have a ton of time this fall, I do have some time that I can spend on this project. But I need to know what sorts of audio samples would be most valuable--certainly a list of *all* desired audio files would be nice; as this will allow me to categorize need and prioritize manpower to get as much done as soon as possible. So I am asking for some input from the developers, especially for things like: 1) Sources for audio samples: single vs twin; idle power vs various RPM settings; in-flight vs ground-obtained audio, propellor pitch variations, etc. 2) Any need for auxiliary samples such as: gear retraction/extension; flap extension/retraction; alarms (autopilot, NAV instruments, etc.) 3) Any support vehicle audio samples: aircraft tugs, firetrucks, snow-plows (plowing, for example), etc. My thought here is to build as comprehensive a list as possible as to just what samples are necessary, and then work on that list as the opportunities arise over the next year or so. With the weather in Wisconsin about to turn colder, I will probably not have enough time to get all desired samples (nor will I have the opportunity to do so). But as I am part owner of the Aztec, I can certainly get many samples of various things over the next 1-2 months. So your input is appreciated... TB _ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009-- Come build with us! The BlackBerryreg; Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9#45;12, 2009. Register now#33; http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Microsoft FS Shutdown
Don't kid yourself about MSFS going away anytime soon... For the past couple years, MS has been flooding the market with their commercial-level ESP development environment, for high-end users and developers. They have been pushing commercial licensing with a new front-end SDK into (what I am told) is the MSFS back-end (FDM, visuals, etc). There have been some pretty neat things to come out of this so far--just Google Flight1 and have a look at some of the things they have done. The Elite guys tell me that this is all done with the new ESP SDK. There may not be a game called MSFS any longer--but FS isn't going away by any means...at least not from what I've been told by several people active in the market. TB -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FAA Certification based on FG
Interesting post by John Denker... While I have no real comment about the Airbus issue (other than to say that is was a great job of piloting a stricken aircraft), I can comment on the status of a project to get Flight Gear FAA-certified. As several of you may know, four of us are working on a project to use FG and obtain FAA Certification for it as an Advanced Aircraft Training device (AATD), suitable for 20 hours of credit towards meeting the FAA Instrument Pilot requirements. We have an ex-NASA systems architect (who has had an integral role in the design and development of the Space Shuttle ground launch system), and another fellow who has been writing printer drivers for many years, as our main programmer/developers. Another member has been a CFII for 30+ years and has thousands of hours in general aviation aircraft of all sizes--including a substantial amount of time giving dual instruction. I hold both CFII and Aircraft Powerplant ratings, and have taken several basic engineering courses--and am currently pursuing a degree in Computer Science. I have a few thousand hours as a pilot, including about a thousand hours giving flight instruction (most as an instrument instructor). The other CFII and myself have worked with Elite Simulations Solutions (www.flyelite.com) for several years, as unpaid beta-testers and general all-around friends to the folks in Florida (US headquarters). As their software is developed in Switzerland and is somewhat outdated, we currently have their support with hardware interface of Flight Gear to their hardware--and as a matter of fact, I hope to be flying FG with a full set of hardware this week. Our developers have written drivers for the hardware, and at this point I am working to configure two computers to run FG with external visuals in my basement studio. Once that is complete, then it will be time to focus all attention on validation of the flight model for the aircraft we are going to deploy on. I can probably post pictures and possibly video of the process if anyone is interested. So while we intend to use FG as a platform for a product release, the real focus will be on scenario-based training...both for the VFR (with a Light Sport Aircraft), and for the IFR student pilots. At this point we have not yet made the decision as to which emulation to focus on first, but my gut feeling is that it will be the LSA, as (according to market research) this is a market that is sorely lacking in the US. And while the LSA emulation will not necessarily require FAA Certification, the IFR trainer we develop will certainly need this. Thus we plan to develop both products to the same set of standards. For the three years that I have been involved with FG, I am simply amazed at the capabilities of the application--and equally amazed at how little attention has been devoted to the training opportunities that are being missed. I realize that it takes the right team to make it go, and hopefully we will be that team. But in hundreds of hours of discussion on the IRC channel, few people have shown any appreciable attention in the capabilities of FG as an actual training tool! Our team owes a big debt of gratitude to several of the IRC channel folks--Jester and Ron Jenson are two that immediately come to mind, but there are others as well. And while we intend to market our product commercially, please be assured that we have every intention of sharing much of the development under the guidelines spelled out by the GPL. Of course there will be proprietary components running alongside FG (simply to fulfill the criteria spelled out by the FAA for AATDs), but there will be significant developments to be shared over the next few years. One thing that immediately comes to mind are better sound files of the various aircraft. So with any luck, we hope to be able to have a product ready to display at Oshkosh this year--although it will likely not have FAA Certification by that time, given that it takes them months to evaluate and then formally approve a new PC-based Aircraft Training Device. But based upon the hundreds of hours of experience I have gotten with FG over the past few years, I expect nothing short of full certification; eventually for several different aircraft. And after flying just about every certified PCATD available in the market today, I can honestly tell you all that I think FG is incredibly competitive with the best of them. The capabilities are simply astounding, and we hope to bring the FG development team some formal recognition from the flight training industry. TB -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] ILS Glide Slope specifications
In reading the recent postings, I see there's some confusion regarding glide slope angle vs. glide slope *arc*. While the angle of the GS is typically 3 degrees above the horizon (may vary for terrain, as mentioned previously), the arc that the GS swings tends to be 1.4 degrees, according to the FAA Instrument Training Text. So that makes each half of the beam (lower upper) +/- 0.7 degrees, as I believe was already mentioned yesterday. If you haven't already, here are a couple references for this: 1) FAA Instrument Training Textbook. This used to be available on the FAA's site, but it has been removed. However I saved a copy to Elite's server, located at this link: http://office.flyelite.com/Junk2/ I encourage folks to grab a copy--it comes in two parts (chap 1-7, chap 8-12). There's also a nice VFR text in that folder, and you can grab that as well. Note especially the information on page 7-30. 2) Airmen's Information Manual (AIM). The same diagram referenced in the Instrument Text can be found in the AIM at this link: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf Reference the textual description of the GS features on page 1-1-8 (see also figure 1-1-7 on page 1-1-12). So as was mentioned in a previous post, the number of dots on the face of the indicator will determine the degrees per dot on the GS (just do the math). But while we always teach number of degrees per dot on a VOR airway (2 degrees) and localizer (0.5 degrees), I don't recall ever teaching the number of degrees per dot on a glide slope. I do recall the 1.4 degree beam width issue, but not the degrees per dot--it just isn't that important, because full-scale deflection of either the localizer or a glideslope needle on an ILS approach is an instant missed approach. The only real reason we teach it for VOR navigation is basically because at 60nm from the VOR, 1 degree of course is about 1nm off course. So if you are 30nm out and one dot off the center of the airway (which is 4nm wide), you are 1nm off course. Obviously you want to fly the center of the airway though, just as you want to fly both the center of the localizer and glideslope. It should be obvious that it's the safest place to be! Anyway, I hope the above links are helpful to folks. TB -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Ideas to stabilize c172p performance
I found some of my notes regarding the changes I made to the c172p.xml and c172p-set.xml files back in 2007. The changes that seemed to work the best for me are in the -set.xml file: 1) Change the aileron-trim value from the default 0.027 to a value between 0.030 and 0.032. 2) Change the rudder-trim value from the default 0.00 to a value between 0.05 and 0.10. I am still experimenting with changes to various values in the c172p.xml files, as there are ample opportunities to further refine the flight characteristics in several areas there. But maybe John and Ron would be willing to test these rudder/aileron trim numbers a bit and give me some feedback? Not surprisingly, I found that the rudder trim value has the greatest impact on the effect of P-factor. And indeed, on the real aircraft there is a ground-adjustable trim tab on the back of the 172's rudder--and this is always bent slightly in order to offset the need for right rudder in the climb. So setting a positive value for rudder trim seems to emulate this effect, and results in a less impressive left-turning tendency in the FG C172P. As for the aileron trim, I found that a very small change seems to also help the situation. My current settings are 0.05 for the rudder trim, and 0.030 for the aileron trim--but I am not sure these are the best values, and thus would like some input from other 172 pilots out there. It make take retesting with a proper set of 3-axis flight controls to make this determination; as it stands now, these have been tested using an inexpensive joystick with auto-coordination turned 'on' to control the degree of rudder input needed from the pilot. If it's not too much to ask, I would also like someone to change the name of the engine file to eng_o320.xml. It seems like a small (nit-picky) issue I realize, but the 172 never came equipped with an Injected, Opposed (IO-320) engine. There were a couple of later models with the Lycoming IO-360 engine, but the 172P had the non-injected opposed (O-320) Lycoming engine. Again, it's a small point, but it helps resolve confusion for those new to FG and trying to sort out the way things work. And it only takes about 30 seconds to fix. I am significantly impressed with the level of understanding shown by people like Ron Jensen and John Denker, regarding the piston-engine issues we are experiencing in the 172 model. I think that these guys are really getting close to further improving the fidelity of the model, and this will only make a great emulation that much better. Thanks in advance. TB -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 32, Issue 24
I have taken a bit of time to test the CVS Cessna 172P, and have made a few observations. The observations were made flying v1.0.0 on Windows XP, but with last week's CVS aircraft. I do not have FG compiled on Windows, and my Linux machine doesn't have nearly the performance as my Windows machine--therefore someone (John Denker or Ron Jensen?) might want to reproduce these findings. 1) The approved engine for the C172P is the 160-horsepower Lycoming O-320, not the IO-320. The late model 172R and 172S have Lycoming IO-360 engines, but these are essentially the only *injected* Lycoming-powered 172 aircraft I know of (besides the Cutlass). I checked the XML file for the engine and the horsepower is correct, but the name of the engine file should still be changed in my opinion--simply in the name of accuracy. The current file name is eng_io320.xml but this is simply incorrect, as documented by the TCDS. 2) The static RPM on my Windows XP system (running v1.0.0 with the latest CVS aircraft) is right about 2204 RPM. However the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) for the aircraft shows the acceptable range as 2300-2420 RPM. Again, I feel that this should be adjusted in the current model. I don't see 2300 RPM until the aircraft reaches about 50-55 knots IAS, while still on the runway. 3) I find that either the torque or P-factor (or both) modeling for this emulation is unrealistic. When climbing at 75 knots with the Turn Coordinator (TC) ball centered, the aircraft must be banked to the right in order to maintain heading. This is unrealistic, and I recall that I had previously solved the problem via adjustment of the aileron control values in the c172p.xml files. Unfortunately I cannot find my notes, but I see now that the gain field for the RIGHT aileron is set to -0.01745, while the LEFT aileron is set to 0.01745. I believe herein lies the problem, as I am confident that my previous work (in 2007) resulted in values that yielded much more accurate climb performance. The discussion about climb performance for this emulation has been quite interesting of late. Several people have made excellent points, and I share some of these concerns. However I would caution folks that in order for the data from the model to be comparable to that of the real aircraft, the climb must be coordinated. In the real aircraft, climb performance can be as much as 300-400 feet per minute off, simply by allowing the aircraft to skid in the climb. As P-factor tends to yaw the aircraft to the left in the climb, one must step on the right rudder to correct the resulting skid--otherwise climb performance suffers dramatically (in my experience). Thus anyone testing these models should insure that the climb is indeed coordinated with the TC ball centered. 4) The tachometer markings for the FG C172P are incorrect. As has been pointed out, the red line for the O-320 engine in this installation is 2700 RPM--thus there should be a marking at this value, and the green arc should extend to that point. Again, this does not affect performance, but I only mention it to point out the inconsistency in the current model. 5) Level in cruise flight at 2000 feet MSL after departing KSFO, my system is showing me that the engine is turning just over 2850 RPM at full throttle. This is 150+ RPM over red line, and obviously incorrect, as previously mentioned by myself and others. Part of the discrepancy in performance we are seeing in this emulation is due to the the over-powered nature of the model. There are various equations for calculating horsepower, but if one considers this version... HP = [(2pi)*(Torque)*(RPM)] / 33000 ...one can easily see that the only factor we can do anything about once the aircraft is in the air, is the engine RPM. Thus it should be apparent that increasing the RPM by any significant amount will indeed increase the horsepower. And while there isn't a horsepower indication that I could find in the property tree for the C172P, there is an indication of the thrust. At 2851 RPM the thrust produced is just over 306 pounds; while at about 2700 RPM the thrust is just under 275 pounds. So this represents about a 10-11% increase in thrust from a 150 RPM (5-6 percent) increase in engine speed--so it shouldn't be hard to imagine that the emulation isn't going to perform as the real aircraft does. Finally, I apologize for the lengthy post, but the point is that I think that many of the perceived issues with the C172P can be (at least partially) resolved by fine-tuning the engine model to give a more realistic representation of the actual aircraft. I don't feel that we are far off here though, and I have been working with Ron Jensen a bit on this very issue. TB -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn
[Flightgear-devel] C172P FDM
Flying the 172P in v1.0.0, I see that it has changed from what I remember in v0.9.10. I haven't flown the older version in a while, but I don't recall some of the things that I am now seeing. So I will have to recompile the latest CVS version on my linux machine tonight, and try it there. But I will have a look at some of the the things John mentioned--he has some valid points, especially with the performance after a balked landing. The scenario John described (60 knots, 5000 feet MSL, full throttle) may not be that far off though, depending upon the actual density altitude. At that airspeed, the AOA will certainly be high for this aircraft, and thus induced drag may actually be limiting any significant climb. However I would expect the aircraft to indeed climb. But regarding the balked landing attempt scenario at 3000 feet... I just tried this in the v1.0.0 C172P (2d-panel), and thought it performed quite well. I can't tell you how many times I did this in the real aircraft--probably hundreds, both myself and with students flying the aircraft. When you add full power that aircraft immediately pitches up, requiring significant nose-down elevator (and then trim) to maintain airspeed while you clean up the airplane. I agree that the FG emulation doesn't pitch up as violently as the real aircraft, but I don't necessarily see this as that big of a problem. The emulation *does* pitch up, but then accelerates more quickly than the real aircraft does. But the pilot still has to take the appropriate corrective action--apply significant forward pressure on the elevator to maintain airspeed, while retracting the flaps incrementally. Sure, it's not perfect...but it's pretty good--especially when you consider that the stall isn't modeled that wel,l as far as I can tell here. And I will admit that slow flight at minimal controllable airspeed (MCA) could be modeled a bit more accurately, but I plan to work on that some after learning more C++, and more about the workings of JSBSim. I also plan to implement a trim indicator on the *IFR* panel (there is one on the 2d panel), as I don't see one there. So maybe I am not understanding your observation about the balked landing John and I will agree that it certainly needs some work, but it isn't that bad IMHO. I do think that the C172P in v1.0.0 has an inaccurate engine/prop configuration (maximum RPM is about 2850, but FAA redline is 2700 RPM), and needs some upgrading of panel markings to more closely correlate with those in the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for this aircraft. But these issues shouldn't be terribly hard to address; especially for the panel markings--in fact I spent a lot of time doing just this for the IFR panel a year ago. But I'd love to hear more about your ideas John, as I plan to spend a fair amount of time on the (IFR) C172 over the next few months for the project we are working on. Obviously, if there were any changes others felt were worthwhile, I would make them available for everyone. So I would welcome any such suggestions you (or anyone else) could offer. TB -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] C172P pitch at cruise
I agree with what Jon has said--the pitch angle with the aircraft on the ground should be 5 degrees. If this is modeled, I don't think there's any other significant issue. With regards to the pitch angle at cruise, I simply cannot see how you'd ever model that exactly. First of all, it is dependent upon several things: Airspeed, density altitude, aircraft loading and the general rigging of the aircraft, just to name a few. I have flown two nearly identical aircraft (both 172's) and can tell you that they each fly slightly differently--and the picture out the window is not exactly the same in both aircraft. Certainly the horizon intersects the side of the cowling (from the pilot's perspective) at about the same spot, but it isn't exact. And without looking at the XML properties for the 172P I cannot say; but where is the CG located for the current emulation? Is the aircraft modeled at maximum gross weight, or with only the pilot--and how heavy is the pilot? I am not trying to say that the picture out the window changes drastically with variations in loading, but it certainly *does* change somewhat. But more importantly however is that the control force required to maintain flight stability changes, as does the trim requiring to relieve those control forces. But if the emulation can be loaded in similar fashion to the real aircraft, with similar results (airspeed and power settings), then I submit that it's probably as close as you're ever going to get. The point here is that I do not believe there is any ONE right answer. If the emulation flies like the actual aircraft, then all is good. For example, if full throttle in the emulation gives the same approximate airspeed as in the real aircraft (about 115-120 knots, if memory serves); if a power setting of about 1900-2000rpm allows one to maintain an altitude of about 1500-2000 feet MSL at 90 knots; and if 1500-1600 RPM allows me to fly a 3-degree glideslope at about 90 knots with 10 degrees of flaps...then all is good. How much better can it get? (Having said this, I do think that the default 172P model in FG needs property value tweaks to increase realism; but that cannot be done to an accurate degree until a proper set of 3-axis flight controls are configured to the emulation. A joystick is simply not accurate enough to make the kinds of hair-splitting determinations we're talking about here, IMHO.) Incidentally, I did make contact with a friend that is sending me a copy of the entire set of drawings included in the 172P service manual. If they are of value and are of good quality, I will gladly scan them and post them for review. TB -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
In aviation maintenance, level is flat. When you weigh an aircraft to determine empty CG, for instance, it is placed on jacks and leveled--both along the X-axis and along the Y-axis as well. However when an aircraft such as the 172 is sitting (empty) on a ramp, the pitch attitude is determined in large part by the inflation of the oleo nose strut. With the proper oil quantity and nitrogen gas inflation, the strut will be extended by some distance. As the main gear legs are relatively rigid, it is therefore the nose strut that will determine the angle in question. In Aviation Maintenance school, we were taught that the proper distance is about a pack of cigarettes, which is about 3 inches give or take, and allows for a compromise of view over the nose during ground operations, and the avoidance of bottoming of the strut upon landing. However to some degree, there is a range of acceptable values--and one person's pack of cigarettes is another's cigar, I suppose. Never having been a smoker I simply measured it at about three inches, and this is the value I always tried to achieve. But I stress that this is only a guideline, as it is rare to achieve an *exact* degree of extension; simply due to the nature of the process. And as soon as the pilot/copilot/passengers get into the aircraft, this amount changes of course. That being said, I believe that I do have access to service manuals for the 172-series of aircraft. Although I don't work in the industry any longer, several friends do--and I could likely get the proper dimensions from one of them without any difficulty. I will make a couple phone calls and report back in a day or so. Given the limitations of setting the exact oleo strut inflation, I would simply recommend that the nose angle be computed and set based upon the dimensions given in the Cessna drawings, which *should* be available in the service manual. TB -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 172 FDM
I have several hundred hours (if not 1000) in a Cessna 172 as both the PIC and an instructor, and believe that the flight dynamics are pretty good in the 172S model. Having said that, I will admit that I have only flown the emulation with a joystick--but recently we have developed a driver for Flight Gear and Elite's hardware. So hopefully I will be able to test this aircraft with a full console (yoke, engine controls, switches), rudder pedals and an avionics package within the next month or so. I can then make a further report. But in the 1-2 years I have been involved with FG, I believe the 172 model to be quite good actually. TB - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Better audio for FG
Hello all, I am new to FG and to the developer list. I sent an earlier e-mail around to this effect but am not certain that it actually made it to the list, so I will try it again. In a recent developer's e-mail thread, the need for improved audio was briefly discussed. I may be able to help in this regards. In addition to being a budding programmer and long-time flight sim fan, I am a 25+ year pilot and have been a CFII/AP for 20 years. I also own a 1967 Piper Aztec. In addition I have what amounts to a PC-based home recording studio with several mid/high quality condenser mics and some of the latest in sound gear, including Sonar software. It would not be at all difficult to obtain audio samples of both reciprocating and turbine engine starts shut-downs, at the very least. I suppose what we need is a list of audio products needed. If I knew the kinds of things you guys think the FG project needs, I would be able to tell you how I could contribute to the project. Incidentally, I also have access to the cockpits of various types of aircraft for panel pictures. Once again--all I need to know is the types of things that are needed. One last thing--I work as a physician, so sometimes my schedule can be a bit hectic. But as our Wisconsin weather warms over the next couple of months, there is no reason that I can't get several new audio samples. Tom Betka Green Bay, WI - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
