Am 16.12.11 18:08, schrieb HB-GRAL: > Am 16.12.11 11:26, schrieb HB-GRAL: >> Am 15.12.11 23:13, schrieb Martin Spott: >>> "Vivian Meazza" wrote: >>> >>>> The other one, which used to be non-op, seems to have gained operational >>>> capability along the way. >>> >>> You see, in order to avoid confusion, having just one operational >>> arrestor would have been the clever solution.
Maybe we need different devices. >>> >>> We're trying to simulate real-world, don't we ? Sure, we're not >>> perfect but I think we're doing our best within the limits of our >>> ressources. Thus, intentionally leaving an inoperational arrestor in >>> place (instead of fixing it) sounds a bit odd .... Real-world means, there are some non-operational devices around ;-) Hm, just found this one and thought, sometimes it would make sense to engage the BAK-12 for a Cessna too, but thats not real world, is it? THE ACFT VEERED OFF THE RWY DURING TAKEOFF GROUND RUN AND NOSED OVER. THE PLT INIDCATED THAT DURING THE TAKEOFF HIS SEAT SLID REARWARD AND HE WAS UNABLE TO REACH THE THROTTLE OR THE RUDDER PEDALS. But this is not serious of course, Yves! Now the BAKs. Ai, ai, ai. It is more complicated than I thought (as ever, hrmpfl!). I can get some distances, but not all. And the points I provided are for BAK-9 and not BAK-12. And FAA does not have the BAK-12 or other device distances in the table (with some exceptions I will cover later). There are some standards defined (FAA AC 150/5220-9A): http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5220-9A/150_5220_9a.pdf (Hey, this is probably also a cool source to improve the model?) And here a link to a article with useful information chez boeing aeromagazine: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_13/runway_story.html - Here a short video of a mobile device in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoyrDfA90Ac and more about mobiles: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFH10-222V8.pdf - Minimize the impact to commercial airplane operations http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/arrestingsystems.pdf - any other sources around I missed ? - Our model(s) should depend on runway width (maybe three models for 150/200/300' ar sufficient ?). (Another question came up btw. "Shouldn’t this device data go into apt.dat runway definition somehow, like stopways and lightning ?". I would vote for that, but I do not see any possibilities unless we provide a own and modified apt.dat or xplane has some plans to improve this small part too, like it is in with stopways i.e.) Now when I look to charts I find visually more data than in FAA tables. But the overrun distances on runways are not reflected, the symbol is placed where it looks nice on a chart. So I need the length of the overrun from somewhere else, then I can calculate the device coordinates on runway. I found some values in FAA airport remarks and in NOTAMs, other values will be "estimated", but I tend to take only data published in FAA data nd NOTAMs, and leave the rest. Now for preparing better data for the scenery I can a) take FAA defined base/reci EOR coords, subtracting overrun per runway (disadvantage: the updated FAA coords differ from xplane data someplaces, the runway ends and center may differ, so without change to the runway lines of the fg apt.dat facility the devive can be misplaced) b) take current FlightGear apt.dat center point of runway, calculate ends and subtract overrun where I can find it (disadvantage: when fg apt.dat is updated once with more accurate data the device will be misplaced too). c) Take xplane 8.50 runway data in the hope it is updated with current FAA data. (disadvantage: I always have to check 3 data sources for inconsistency, fg/xplane/FAA) Personally I prefer a), trying to provide also current runway data associated, published by FAA and not by xplane. I am not sure about that, but I think newer xplane data version are updated with FAA data anyway from time to time, and when WE go for an update, the runway AND device data will be correct. I can not estimate how many runways are affected with changes when I choose a), but I guess it is not that much. I would really like when someone starts to improve the model(s), probably think about "scenerarios", making the barriers operational in a sophisticated way, cares about materials, cares about lbs, making it interactive (tower/pilot) Cheers, Yves ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what it provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online. Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
