On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:15:41 -0500 David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree as well. An autopilot driven by the gyro compass should reflect all of the compass's error's, such as drift; ditto for an AP driven by a VOR receiver. If we want to model an AP driven by a GPS, INS, and/or FMS, we should model those as well.
David
I think more care should be taken with the terminology. This was scaring me for a while, too. What is being done really is providing "sensed" state to the A/P and FCS. In my work, these are called "sensors" - NOT instruments. "Instruments" (in my experience) refer to devices that display sensed state to the pilot. In an aircraft (or spacecraft) "plant", it goes like this:
sensors -> FCS -> effectors
To close the loop, there would be an arrow from "effectors" to "Environment/Aircraft State", and subsequently back to "sensors".
For instance, the F-16 FCS receives rates and accelerations from sensors, as well as taking command input from the pilot. The gyros and accelerometers are the sensors. You could certainly think of them as "sensing instruments", but reading this thread might confuse some that we wanted to take the attitude as displayed by the HSI (for instance) and use that as input to the A/P, which is not correct.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
