On Monday 08 December 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, LeeE wrote:
On Saturday 06 December 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i
Hi,
I had today a closer look into this issue.
I got a drawing of the OM of a c172 which shows the the pitch angle with
compressed nose gear.
I tried to rotate the model but then I found something which shows me that the
problem lies on the fdm: at cruise speed about 100kias I got a pitch
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:16 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
Hi,
I had today a closer look into this issue.
I got a drawing of the OM of a c172 which shows the the pitch angle
developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
Hi,
I had today a closer look into this issue.
I got a drawing of the OM of a c172 which shows the the pitch angle
with compressed nose gear.
I tried to rotate the model but then I found something which shows me
Yes!
-Original Message-
From: dave perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:21 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
The JSBSim C172 FDM assumes the thrust line
John Denker wrote:
On 12/06/2008 04:02 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
In a case like this one I prefer the 'pragmatic' approach of reading a
manual (if available), determining what its authors consider as being
at level (if they do in some way) and finally to evaluate if we're
able to make use
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
On 12/07/2008 03:50 AM, Martin Spott wrote in part:
it really
makes me wonder why you insist on going with the facts
What, me, facts? It's just one of my little quirks.
it really
makes me wonder why you insist on going with the facts even though
you were unable to provide any,
1) First
On Saturday 06 December 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
To me that is perfect, [...]
This is the sole
Hi,
I don't understand what going on here!
First:
I used the .pdf for the c172 which could be found some months ago on the
official homepage of Cessna. Unfortunately they changed their hoempage, the PDF
I used can't be found anymore.
The PDF showed the aircraft on the ground, so I used that
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, LeeE wrote:
On Saturday 06 December 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
To
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Well- like I said it yet- OI used original drawings and they showed
her on the ground. So the rotation is not much...
Apparently the the term original drawings is not sufficently precise
in this context. The POH for
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
To me that is perfect, [...]
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have original drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us has
authoritative information at his hands how it is
On 12/06/2008 03:25 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have original drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us has
authoritative information at his hands how it is supposed to be
properly positioned 'at level'. This is the
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
To me that is perfect, [...]
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have original drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
To me that is perfect, [...]
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have
On 12/06/2008 04:02 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
In a case like this one I prefer the 'pragmatic' approach of reading a
manual (if available), determining what its authors consider as being
at level (if they do in some way) and finally to evaluate if we're
able to make use of it.
It doesn't serve
dave perry wrote:
Hi All,
snip
Would it not be more realistic to rotate the 3D model about -3 or -4
degrees about the ac3d z-axis.
I did not make myself clear in the initial questiion. The video link
only detracted from my point. The model in the .ac file is just a rigid
body that
...
Making this change will be a lot of work since the panel
will be messed up. I know because I made a similar rigid
rotation correction about a month after I first submitted
the pa24-250.
Dave P.
If this is really necessary, I wonder if is not enough to rotate the model in
the
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
dave perry wrote:
Hi All,
snip
Would it not be more realistic to rotate the 3D model about -3 or -4
degrees about the ac3d z-axis.
I did not make myself clear in the initial questiion. The video link
only detracted from my point. The
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
dave perry wrote:
Hi All,
snip
Would it not be more realistic to rotate the 3D model about -3 or -4
degrees about the ac3d z-axis.
I did not make myself clear in the initial
However i noticed that with the actual position the model
has the nose gear up
above the ground.
An offset of -2 deg would be nice
pathc172p.ac/path
offsets
pitch-deg-0/pitch-deg
/offsets
Dave P.
Cave: the nose gear animation
We really want to make sure that the visual model is correctly aligned with
the dynamics model. Then if the 3d model isn't sitting correctly at rest on
the ground, it could be that the gear lengths aren't set properly in the 3d
model compared to the dynamics model, or visa versa. If everything
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
dave perry wrote:
Hi All,
snip
Would it not be more realistic to
On mardi 02 décembre 2008, Heiko Schulz wrote:
The answer is that the flight dynamics is unrealistic, and
has
been for years. Redrawing the aircraft won't help much
(if any).
-- The lift curve is unrealistic, which explains the
observations
that started this thread.
-- The
Dave, Heiko,
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Notice that in the video
1. the tail is higher in cruise than what we have in fgfs for the new
model.
2. the nose wheel is below the main wheels in cruise.
3. in fgfs, the tail cone is presently below ground at touch down.
[...]
I wait for a
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
- With a 'properly' (TM) inflated front wheel damper, the C172 has the
tendency of having its tail surprisingly low when standing on the
ground at a common configuration: Max fuel capacity, one pilot (of
approx. 80 kg) and some
On mardi 02 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
Hi All,
As we approach a new release, here is a suggestion that I think would
increase the realism of our default AC. I really like the new c172p 3D
model.
But it seems to me that the model cruise pitch is too nose high. Here
is an interesting
Hi,
Hi All,
As we approach a new release, here is a suggestion that I
think would
increase the realism of our default AC. I really like the
new c172p 3D
model.
But it seems to me that the model cruise pitch is too nose
high. Here
is an interesting video link of a real c172 in
Heiko Schulz wrote:
I didn't notice something with the cone at landing- landing speed should be
around 55-60 kias.
The only thing I aware of is the empty weight seems to be a bit low (1500 in
fdm against 1642)
It does seem easy to sink the tail cone into the ground if you have much
, 2008 7:48 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
Heiko Schulz wrote:
I didn't notice something with the cone at landing- landing speed
should be around 55-60 kias.
The only thing I aware of is the empty weight seems
On 12/01/2008 07:52 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
One should look at the angle of attack value at cruise and see if it's as
expected.
True.
The question seems to be whether the flight dynamics is wrong, or
whether then aircraft is drawn right.
Agreed, that's the right question.
The answer is
Agreed, that's the right question.
The answer is that the flight dynamics is unrealistic, and has
been for years. Redrawing the aircraft won't help much (if any).
-- The lift curve is unrealistic, which explains the observations
that started this thread.
-- The drag curve is
33 matches
Mail list logo
