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
> 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
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
___
Flightgear-
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! Th
> 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]
http://mail.flightgear.o
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
> 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
