Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Jon S Berndt wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:26:31 +0100 Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: They encountered a problem where the aircraft could fly past 2 degr. aoa. It took them quite long to learn that the wing root of the F-16 (the part of the fuselage that extends to underneath the canopy and where the wings are attached to, but not from the wings itself) was actually an airfoil contributing highly to the lift! The "strake"? That one. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Andy Ross wrote: Major A wrote: BTW, does anybody know at what angle planes (other than the Harrier) usually approach aircraft carriers? Pitch attitude angle or glide slope angle? Pitch depends a lot on the aircraft, somewhere between 8-12° is typical. I've read somewhere that the meatball/FLOLS glide slope on US carriers is set to 4°. But remember that the carrier is *moving*, so the actual descent angle flown by the aircraft will be less, depending on the relative velocity. I strongly suspect that they recalibrate the angle for different aircraft (or even different aircraft gross weights), wind speeds and ship speeds. Andy Actually, a basic angle setting of 3.5 degrees is most commonly used, with 4 degrees used for higher wind-over-deck conditions (+35 knots). This assumes a typical jet approach speed of 130kts. The basic angle is adjustable by the LSO. And yes, you are correct, the decreased closure rate causes the actual glideslope angle to be less. Now to my regularly scheduled lurking... ;-) -- Russ Conway's Law: "The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it." -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:26:31 +0100 Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: They encountered a problem where the aircraft could fly past 2 degr. aoa. It took them quite long to learn that the wing root of the F-16 (the part of the fuselage that extends to underneath the canopy and where the wings are attached to, but not from the wings itself) was actually an airfoil contributing highly to the lift! The "strake"? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Tony Peden wrote: Fighters, especially those that are supersonic, have relatively small wings. That's the biggest reason. Now that you mention it, I just heard a story of a group of R/C flyers that had modelled a scale model of an F-16. They encountered a problem where the aircraft could fly past 2 degr. aoa. It took them quite long to learn that the wing root of the F-16 (the part of the fuselage that extends to underneath the canopy and where the wings are attached to, but not from the wings itself) was actually an airfoil contributing highly to the lift! That might be the reason for the low approach speed also. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
--- Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Major A wrote: > >>Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately > >>shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit > difficult > >>at this time. > > > > Really? Are you saying the F-16 can really approach that slowly? > I'm > > not a pilot, but with FGFS, an 100kt approach in a 747 or A4 or > TSR.2 > > is pretty much impossible, in my experience. I would be very > surprised > > if the F-16 allowed a much slower approach than all other jets. > > I just got conformation the F-16 landingspeed is minimum 115 kt. > I think the reason for this is the fact that the fan of the engine > conbtributes the most to the drag! I presume an idling fan has a > lowwer > drag coefficient. Fighters, especially those that are supersonic, have relatively small wings. That's the biggest reason. > > Erik > > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Major A wrote: > BTW, does anybody know at what angle planes (other than the Harrier) > usually approach aircraft carriers? Pitch attitude angle or glide slope angle? Pitch depends a lot on the aircraft, somewhere between 8-12° is typical. I've read somewhere that the meatball/FLOLS glide slope on US carriers is set to 4°. But remember that the carrier is *moving*, so the actual descent angle flown by the aircraft will be less, depending on the relative velocity. I strongly suspect that they recalibrate the angle for different aircraft (or even different aircraft gross weights), wind speeds and ship speeds. Andy -- Andrew J. RossBeyond the OrdinaryPlausibility Productions Sole Proprietor Beneath the Infinite Hillsboro, OR Experience... the Plausible? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Major A wrote: Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit difficult at this time. Really? Are you saying the F-16 can really approach that slowly? I'm not a pilot, but with FGFS, an 100kt approach in a 747 or A4 or TSR.2 is pretty much impossible, in my experience. I would be very surprised if the F-16 allowed a much slower approach than all other jets. I just got conformation the F-16 landingspeed is minimum 115 kt. I think the reason for this is the fact that the fan of the engine conbtributes the most to the drag! I presume an idling fan has a lowwer drag coefficient. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
> Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately > shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit difficult > at this time. Really? Are you saying the F-16 can really approach that slowly? I'm not a pilot, but with FGFS, an 100kt approach in a 747 or A4 or TSR.2 is pretty much impossible, in my experience. I would be very surprised if the F-16 allowed a much slower approach than all other jets. BTW, does anybody know at what angle planes (other than the Harrier) usually approach aircraft carriers? Andras === Major Andras e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://andras.webhop.org/ === ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
David Megginson wrote: Erik Hofman writes: > > I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few > > hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever. > > One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11 > and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it will, indeed, keep flying no > matter what. Exactly -- it seems to touch down at just a little over 100kt. What is the typical approach speed for an F-16? Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit difficult at this time. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
David Megginson wrote: Erik Hofman writes: > > I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few > > hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever. > > One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11 > and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it will, indeed, keep flying no > matter what. Exactly -- it seems to touch down at just a little over 100kt. What is the typical approach speed for an F-16? Around 90 kts. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Erik Hofman writes: > > I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few > > hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever. > > One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11 > and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it will, indeed, keep flying no > matter what. Exactly -- it seems to touch down at just a little over 100kt. What is the typical approach speed for an F-16? All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Erik Hofman writes: > > I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few > > hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever. > > There are definatelly still some problems with the F-16. > The problem with a plane like the F-16 is the fact that every momentum > generetad by the FDM should be made undone by the fligth computer (with > a lag end based on the history of motion). Which isn't implemented yet. > > That, and the fact that the CG is too far back for human handling (you > need to adjust the elevator continouously), *and* the fact that the > leading and trailing edge flaps aren't implemented at this moment make > it fly a bit itchy. I was actually making a joke. I found the F-16 very easy to handle, even without a flight computer. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
David Megginson wrote: Curtis L. Olson writes: > The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed > to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) needs some work, > but it's coming along very nicely. I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever. One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11 and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it will, indeed, keep flying no matter what. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Jonathan Polley wrote: Or, now not to return home. http://www.kevinandkell.com/2003/strips/kk20030311.gif Running out of luck and altitude at the same time? ;-) Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
David Megginson wrote: Curtis L. Olson writes: > The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed > to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) needs some work, > but it's coming along very nicely. I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever. There are definatelly still some problems with the F-16. The problem with a plane like the F-16 is the fact that every momentum generetad by the FDM should be made undone by the fligth computer (with a lag end based on the history of motion). Which isn't implemented yet. That, and the fact that the CG is too far back for human handling (you need to adjust the elevator continouously), *and* the fact that the leading and trailing edge flaps aren't implemented at this moment make it fly a bit itchy. But I'm working on it whenever I can. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Or, now not to return home. http://www.kevinandkell.com/2003/strips/kk20030311.gif On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 04:30PM, Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It's good to come home after a long day at the office: >http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/download/F16-KSFO.jpg > >Erik > >(Good night) > > >___ >Flightgear-devel mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > Of COURSE they can do that. They're engineers! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Curtis L. Olson writes: > The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed > to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) needs some work, > but it's coming along very nicely. I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call it a day.
Erik Hofman writes: > It's good to come home after a long day at the office: > http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/download/F16-KSFO.jpg > > Erik > > (Good night) Very nice. :-) The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) needs some work, but it's coming along very nicely. Good work! Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
