On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:48:13 -0400 David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you might have been onto something with the moments of inertia: our current IXX, IYY, and IZZ apply to a Cessna 182, which is a heavier plane than a 172, though with the same wing area and wingspan. Here are the 182 numbers we're currently using:
IXX = 948 IYY = 1346 IZZ = 1967
What numbers do you have for the Cherokee?
I'm not sure I see how the 182 figures into this. Higher values for MoI will make the aircraft slower to react to control inputs, and slower to react to damping. From your discussion yesterday I got the feeling that you were stating that the 172 was too "wild" - i.e. it was not damping out enough. Smaller MoIs would give better damping results (I think). But it would also make the plane more squirrely when it comes to control inputs. I can try and come up with a better estimate of MoI, but we need to be careful how the fuel numbers figure into that - we need to look at the run-time MoI and not the empty weight MoI in the config file. I have two MoI values at least that I can think of offhand: the Navion and the Cherokee. They are both at home. I ought to be able to compare and contrast those, and define a line, then see where the 172 falls with that. It ought to give me a pretty good estimate.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
