Martin Spott wrote:
> Andrew Ross wrote:
> > Here's a gedanken experiment
>
> A _what_ ? Is this a valid word in your language ? I'm asking because
> it definitely has german roots, the word 'gedanken' That's
> funny,
The word is, in fact, german. Whether it's valid English or not is
Alex Perry wrote:
>
> > [... Andrew Ross wrote ...]
> > > Here's a gedanken experiment [...]
> > A _what_ ? Is this a valid word in your language ? I'm asking because it
> > definitely has german roots, the word 'gedanken' That's funny,
>
> It is a popular word in the USA. Not sure whethe
Alex Perry wrote:
>>[... Andrew Ross wrote ...]
>>
>>>Here's a gedanken experiment [...]
>>
>>A _what_ ? Is this a valid word in your language ? I'm asking because it
>>definitely has german roots, the word 'gedanken' That's funny,
>
>
> It is a popular word in the USA. Not sure whether t
Andy Ross writes:
> If the aerodynamic force changes with rotation, then the
> airflow must somehow "know" that it is in a bank. It can't.
Ok, so are you saying that someone else beat us to the patent on smart
air particles so we can't use them?
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Progr
On Monday 15 April 2002 09:24 am, you wrote:
> > [... Andrew Ross wrote ...]
> >
> > > Here's a gedanken experiment [...]
> >
> > A _what_ ? Is this a valid word in your language ? I'm asking because it
> > definitely has german roots, the word 'gedanken' That's funny,
>
> It is a popular wo
> [... Andrew Ross wrote ...]
> > Here's a gedanken experiment [...]
> A _what_ ? Is this a valid word in your language ? I'm asking because it
> definitely has german roots, the word 'gedanken' That's funny,
It is a popular word in the USA. Not sure whether this is due to too
many people
[... Andrew Ross wrote ...]
> Here's a gedanken experiment [...]
A _what_ ? Is this a valid word in your language ? I'm asking because it
definitely has german roots, the word 'gedanken' That's funny,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 09:23:32PM -0700, Andy Ross wrote:
> Simon Fowler wrote:
> > Andy Ross wrote:
> > > I'm actually fuzzy on the real reason that high-wing aircraft have a
> > > built-in dihedral-like effect.
> >
> > Take a look at http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/htm/roll.html . . .
>
> Rig
Simon Fowler wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > I'm actually fuzzy on the real reason that high-wing aircraft have a
> > built-in dihedral-like effect.
>
> Take a look at http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/htm/roll.html . . .
Right. That's basically what I meant by "fuzzy" -- I understand how
the
On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 20:05, Simon Fowler wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 12:14:54PM -0700, Andy Ross wrote:
> > David Megginson wrote:
> > > According to one of my flight-school texts, high-wing aircraft don't
> > > usually need much dihedral on the wings because of the keel effect --
> > > most
> > To be fair, however, what many people call "unflyable" around here isn't
> > anywhere near the case. The most recent JSBSim complaint, for example,
> > only took two clicks of keyboard aileron to correct at climbout speeds.
>
> I was talking to a pilot friend of mine the other day. He was te
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 12:14:54PM -0700, Andy Ross wrote:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > According to one of my flight-school texts, high-wing aircraft don't
> > usually need much dihedral on the wings because of the keel effect --
> > most of the weight of the plane is below the wings and thus the
> To be fair, however, what many people call "unflyable" around here isn't
> anywhere near the case. The most recent JSBSim complaint, for example,
> only took two clicks of keyboard aileron to correct at climbout speeds.
I was talking to a pilot friend of mine the other day. He was telling me
t
David Megginson wrote:
> According to one of my flight-school texts, high-wing aircraft don't
> usually need much dihedral on the wings because of the keel effect --
> most of the weight of the plane is below the wings and thus the plane
> will naturally tend towards level.
Actually, this is
On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 11:28, Andy Ross wrote:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > Andy Ross writes:
> > > All that being said, did the configuration patch for the takeoff RPMs
> > > do what you want? It was better justified than the idle hack. :)
> >
> > The plane seems to take off OK, but there ar
Andy Ross writes:
> In this case, the pull you are seeing is the engine torque. It is a
> rolling moment, not a yaw, and thus you want to be correcting against
> it with aileron trim, not rudder. The 172 has very little (zero, in
> the current model) dihedral, and therefore there is almost
I wrote:
> One option would be to experiment to acheive a value for aileron trim
> that worked well at cruise, and set that in the aircraft xml file. A
> cooler option would be to make the solver do it, but that requires
> code.
Ah. In fact, this is exactly the problem. This trick has alre
David Megginson wrote:
> Andy Ross writes:
> > All that being said, did the configuration patch for the takeoff RPMs
> > do what you want? It was better justified than the idle hack. :)
>
> The plane seems to take off OK, but there are handling problems -- in
> a 72kt climb at full power, t
Andy Ross writes:
> All that being said, did the configuration patch for the takeoff RPMs
> do what you want? It was better justified than the idle hack. :)
The plane seems to take off OK, but there are handling problems -- in
a 72kt climb at full power, the nose pulls so strongly to the left
David Megginson wrote:
> The YASim C172 idle is better -- it's down to 1000 RPM -- but it's
> still about 200-300 RPM too high based on what I saw yesterday (this
> is at an airfield under 400ft ASL).
Yeah, it was basically a hack. There are two "core" problems that I
can think of with the mo
The YASim C172 idle is better -- it's down to 1000 RPM -- but it's
still about 200-300 RPM too high based on what I saw yesterday (this
is at an airfield under 400ft ASL).
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-de
21 matches
Mail list logo
