Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you got the latest CVS code it shoudl just work.
Got it - I took the YF-23 for a reconnaissance flight
What will the sailboat do if it reaches the shoreline ? Will it turn
around ?
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you got the latest CVS code it shoudl just work.
Got it - I took the YF-23 for a reconnaissance flight
What will the sailboat do if it reaches the shoreline ? Will it turn
around ?
Not at this moment, no.
That would require
Erik Hofman wrote:
Not at this moment, no. That would require intervention from a
Nasal script (which isn't implemented yet).
Actually, if you guys used property ties to wrap your internal
variables, you could drive it with Nasal right now. You can either
tie a pointer to the actual data, or
Andy Ross wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Not at this moment, no. That would require intervention from a
Nasal script (which isn't implemented yet).
Actually, if you guys used property ties to wrap your internal
variables, you could drive it with Nasal right now. You can either
tie a pointer to the
Erik Hofman wrote:
Even for (say) a dozen of simultaneously active dynamic models? I'm
not sure, but it would be a good thing to look into.
Even for hundreds. The overhead for a property tie is pretty close to
zero. You pay the cost only when the property is accessed -- to your
internal C++
Andy Ross wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Even for (say) a dozen of simultaneously active dynamic models? I'm
not sure, but it would be a good thing to look into.
Even for hundreds. The overhead for a property tie is pretty close to
zero. You pay the cost only when the property is accessed -- to
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is another challenge. Put it on the deck of a moving sailboat:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/sailboat.jpg
I must admit that I didn't manage to spot the sailboat. From the
perspective it looks like the boat is cruising in
Maik Justus wrote:
Thie is in the fdm (adv. in the bo105.xml file) (with the real angles
for the bo)
- adv.
+ resp.
Maik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Maik Justus [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This makes the apparent
torque effect lighter, but the aircraft will still tend to crab at low
speeds. Is this feature incorporated into the fdm calculation for torque
effect?
Sorry, I didnt find crab in my dictionary. But what is not simulated
is
Hi Jim
Jim Wilson said:
The term crab as defined in the webster dictionary is:
the angular difference between an aircraft's course and the heading necessary
to make that course in the presence of a crosswind.
The way I used it refers to the action crab which is flying on that angle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Monday 24 November 2003 19:42, David Megginson wrote:
Here's another fun landing:
http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/water-tower.jpg
Here's another one:
http://www.8ung.at/mars/images/heli-touchdown.jpg
Oh, all right...
Jim Wilson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Monday 24 November 2003 19:42, David Megginson wrote:
Here's another fun landing:
http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/water-tower.jpg
Here's another one:
http://www.8ung.at/mars/images/heli-touchdown.jpg
Oh, all right...
On Sunday 30 November 2003 19:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/penthouseview.png
Very nice landing. ;)
Best Regards,
Oliver C.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 30 November 2003 19:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
Oh, all right...
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/h2otower.png
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/penthouseview.png
Best,
Jim
Now try this: :)
http://www.8ung.at/mars/images/heli-skyscraper1.jpg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday 30 November 2003 19:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/penthouseview.png
Very nice landing. ;)
Thanks. It was a crash the first try. First I got into a lot of circling
around trying to figure where to land and
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Here is another challenge. Put it on the deck of a moving sailboat:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/sailboat.jpg
Years ago when I lived very close to Bar Harbor (now about an hour away) there
was a premier of a Mel Gibson movie. This is an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday 30 November 2003 19:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
Oh, all right...
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/h2otower.png
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/penthouseview.png
Best,
Jim
Now try this: :)
Jim Wilson wrote:
Thanks. It was a crash the first try. First I got into a lot of circling
around trying to figure where to land and how to approach it. This resulted
in quite a few near misses with the buildings.
As someone with no helicopter experience, I'll guess that you want to
approach
On Sunday 30 November 2003 20:50, Jim Wilson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday 30 November 2003 19:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/penthouseview.png
Very nice landing. ;)
Thanks. It was a crash the first try. First I got into a lot of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 30 November 2003 20:50, Jim Wilson wrote:
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday 30 November 2003 19:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/penthouseview.png
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I agree, i just tried two minutes ago to land with the helicopter between the
two pillars of this skyscraper you can see on this screenshot:
http://www.8ung.at/mars/images/pillars.jpg
But i allways crashed. :(
The helicopter gets quite unstable
On Monday 24 November 2003 19:42, David Megginson wrote:
Here's another fun landing:
http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/water-tower.jpg
Here's another one:
http://www.8ung.at/mars/images/heli-touchdown.jpg
Best Regards,
Oliver C.
___
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:26:45 +0100, Maik Justus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
the Westland Lynx has nearly the same rotor than the bo (they both were
developed in the same project at boelkow).
Maik
Maybe originally but current versions use the BERP (British
Experimental Rotor Program) blade.
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
No, because the BO105 - contrary to the 'usual' Bell's for example -
has a rigid rotor. Please have a look here:
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html#Eurocopter
Well, that explains my confusion... I guess this just shows
On 07:50 Thu 27 Nov , Martin Spott wrote:
The first is correct, the latter is not (see above). Pilots love this
helicopter because of his outstanding manouverability. It's even
capable of doing serious aerobatic - up to inverted flying (AFAIR with
a modified gear box lubrication),
Check
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Matthew Law wrote:
Check out the Westland Lynx. I've seen these at a couple of airshows
this year and the pilots did manage quite a bit of inverted flight
during their routines. These too have a rigid rotor head with
elastomeric bearings and the blades are intentionally
Hi,
the Westland Lynx has nearly the same rotor than the bo (they both were
developed in the same project at boelkow).
Maik
Matthew Law wrote:
On 07:50 Thu 27 Nov , Martin Spott wrote:
The first is correct, the latter is not (see above). Pilots love this
helicopter because of his
On 14:48 Thu 27 Nov , Jon Stockill wrote:
I remember seeing the army display team at RAF Waddington a couple of
years ago - 4 gazelle 1 lynx all lined up in the hover, then the lynx
pilot backflipped the aircraft out of the lineup. The first time you see
it you really can't believe what
Hi,
one think/thing added:
Maik Justus schrieb:
Hi,
I try to explain my confusion:
Lets think the heli is in forward flying and the rotor is spinning
counter clock wise (seen from top, like the bo 105). Relative to air the
rotor blades at the left side are slower and on the right side
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maik Justus wrote:
By the way: With this changes the heli is not anylonger parallel to
ground (while hovering). It is tiltet to the left to compensate the
tail rotor force.
That sounds wrong to me. The *rotor* should be tilted, but the
airframe is
Martin Spott wrote:
No, because the BO105 - contrary to the 'usual' Bell's for example -
has a rigid rotor. Please have a look here:
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html#Eurocopter
Well, that explains my confusion... I guess this just shows my
helicopter ignorance. My belief
Hi Andy,
Andy Ross wrote:
What is the rationale behind the decision to make them rigid on the
BO105? The only advantage I can see is that you save a few axles and
bearings, which are moving parts that can wear out. But you pay for
it in extra stress cycles on the blade, so I can't see how this
Hi David
David Megginson wrote:
Even as slow as 10 kt, the bo105 barely needs any input from the anti-torque
pedals. How realistic is this? It certainly makes flying easy.
All the best,
David
It is very unrealistic. But you can change this very easiely. Just
remove the notorque=true
Hello Jim
Jim Wilson wrote:
One big gap right now is the lack of
autorotation.
The ground effect needs to be modeled to do that correctly, doesn't it? It's not
only the ground effect. The main thing is the power consumption of the rotor, which
is up to now very simplified.
By the
Maik Justus wrote:
Also the rolling tendency in translational lift is missing.
That is a very complicate thing. Allways if I think about I run into
confusion.
Is it just a gyroscopic effect?
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Maik Justus wrote:
It is very unrealistic. But you can change this very easiely. Just
remove the notorque=true tags in the bo105.xml file (or write
notorque=false). You should also change the min- and maxcollective of
the tail rotor to be unsymmetric (I don't have the original values, I
can just
David Megginson wrote:
Maik Justus wrote:
Also the rolling tendency in translational lift is missing.
That is a very complicate thing. Allways if I think about I run into
confusion.
Is it just a gyroscopic effect?
If I'm not misunderstanding the terminology, this is the rolling
moment
Andy Ross wrote:
And since the rotor is spinning, it produces all sorts of
non-intuitive behavior like the 90° precession phase shift (try to
roll it left, it tilts forward, etc...). It's ugly. :)
This one happens with single-engine airplanes as well. If you yank the nose
up suddenly, you get
David Megginson wrote:
This one happens with single-engine airplanes as well. If you yank
the nose up suddenly, you get a yaw to the left; if you push the nose
down suddenly, you get a yaw to the right. I can imagine, though,
that the effect is much more dramatic with that big gyro spinning
Maik Justus [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hello Jim
Jim Wilson wrote:
One big gap right now is the lack of
autorotation.
The ground effect needs to be modeled to do that correctly, doesn't it?
It's not only the ground effect. The main thing is the power consumption of
the rotor, which
Hi David,
David Megginson wrote:
Yes, it is a bit more work flying with those changes. Do you mind if I
check them in?
All the best,
David
For me it's ok, but remember, that you than need pedals (or another
analog controller for this axis) to fly helo.
By the way: With this changes
Maik Justus wrote:
By the way: With this changes the heli is not anylonger parallel to
ground (while hovering). It is tiltet to the left to compensate the
tail rotor force.
That sounds wrong to me. The *rotor* should be tilted, but the
airframe is experiencing no net force and should be
Maik Justus wrote:
Yes, it is a bit more work flying with those changes. Do you mind if I
check them in?
For me it's ok, but remember, that you than need pedals (or another
analog controller for this axis) to fly helo.
The mouse does fine as an analog controller for the rudder -- I use it often
Hi Andy,
Andy Ross schrieb:
Maik Justus wrote:
By the way: With this changes the heli is not anylonger parallel to
ground (while hovering). It is tiltet to the left to compensate the
tail rotor force.
That sounds wrong to me. The *rotor* should be tilted, but the
airframe is
Hi,
I try to explain my confusion:
Lets think the heli is in forward flying and the rotor is spinning
counter clock wise (seen from top, like the bo 105). Relative to air the
rotor blades at the left side are slower and on the right side are
faster. So they produce more force at the right side
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Here's another fun landing:
http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/water-tower.jpg
The hard part, for me, is watching the ground close to the helicopter when
I'm close to the hover. In real life, when I'm flaring for a landing, I'm
usually focussing
David Megginson wrote:
I'm controlling the (simulated) bo105 helicopter much better by
picking an airspeed (say, 10 kt when maneuvering for a landing) and
holding it as closely as possible with the cyclic.
Out of curiosity, how do pilots do this in real helicopters? I
wouldn't think a
Andy Ross wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do pilots do this in real helicopters? I
wouldn't think a traditional ASI would work very well at 10 kts...
You could probably build one that did -- after all, the aenemometers that
weather stations use can register down to less than 5 kt. Still, I'm
Out of curiosity, how do pilots do this in real helicopters? I
wouldn't think a traditional ASI would work very well at 10 kts...
You could probably build one that did -- after all, the aenemometers that
weather stations use can register down to less than 5 kt. Still, I'm
guessing that
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Andy Ross wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do pilots do this in real helicopters? I
wouldn't think a traditional ASI would work very well at 10 kts...
You could probably build one that did -- after all, the aenemometers that
weather stations use
50 matches
Mail list logo
