Flying the 172P in v1.0.0, I see that it has changed from what I remember in v0.9.10. I haven't flown the older version in a while, but I don't recall some of the things that I am now seeing. So I will have to recompile the latest CVS version on my linux machine tonight, and try it there. But I will have a look at some of the the things John mentioned--he has some valid points, especially with the performance after a balked landing.
The scenario John described (60 knots, 5000 feet MSL, full throttle) may not be that far off though, depending upon the actual density altitude. At that airspeed, the AOA will certainly be high for this aircraft, and thus induced drag may actually be limiting any significant climb. However I would expect the aircraft to indeed climb. But regarding the balked landing attempt scenario at 3000 feet... I just tried this in the v1.0.0 C172P (2d-panel), and thought it performed quite well. I can't tell you how many times I did this in the real aircraft--probably hundreds, both myself and with students flying the aircraft. When you add full power that aircraft immediately pitches up, requiring significant nose-down elevator (and then trim) to maintain airspeed while you clean up the airplane. I agree that the FG emulation doesn't pitch up as violently as the real aircraft, but I don't necessarily see this as that big of a problem. The emulation *does* pitch up, but then accelerates more quickly than the real aircraft does. But the pilot still has to take the appropriate corrective action--apply significant forward pressure on the elevator to maintain airspeed, while retracting the flaps incrementally. Sure, it's not perfect...but it's pretty good--especially when you consider that the stall isn't modeled that wel,l as far as I can tell here. And I will admit that slow flight at minimal controllable airspeed (MCA) could be modeled a bit more accurately, but I plan to work on that some after learning more C++, and more about the workings of JSBSim. I also plan to implement a trim indicator on the *IFR* panel (there is one on the 2d panel), as I don't see one there. So maybe I am not understanding your observation about the balked landing John and I will agree that it certainly needs some work, but it isn't that bad IMHO. I do think that the C172P in v1.0.0 has an inaccurate engine/prop configuration (maximum RPM is about 2850, but FAA redline is 2700 RPM), and needs some upgrading of panel markings to more closely correlate with those in the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for this aircraft. But these issues shouldn't be terribly hard to address; especially for the panel markings--in fact I spent a lot of time doing just this for the IFR panel a year ago. But I'd love to hear more about your ideas John, as I plan to spend a fair amount of time on the (IFR) C172 over the next few months for the project we are working on. Obviously, if there were any changes others felt were worthwhile, I would make them available for everyone. So I would welcome any such suggestions you (or anyone else) could offer. TB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
