Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:32:54 +0700, Harry wrote in message : > Memories, > > heres an old article on we we were doing in the F28s and airfield > surveys, whilst off topic, it may be of interest. > > http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Flying%20Unit%20navaid%20cal%20article%201990.htm > > > Item 8 -- (8) good low speed handling and go-around performance from > very low altitude; > > > This i clearly remember like yesterday, sitting in the jump seat at > the end of a VASI approach test, under full power doing 180 turnback > to 1000 feet, cows beside the airstrip just below us, running in all > directions with their tails wrapped up over their backs. It looked > like we were going to put the wingtip up their backsides. > > We thought it was a hell of a joke, but the farmer I assume was not > impressed. ..saw no farmer in my case, the 2 newspaper readers in the back appeared if anything, _annoyed_ at us 3 headset brats up front, they saw us aim about 50 feet short into a potato field with reverse power, we started our 180 about 50 meters out to the right, I'm not sure about the altitude, may have been 50 meters too, I could not see the 09 threshold of ENSK from seat 1B, the view was _all_ potato field until the aircrew pushed the power levers forward for the round-out and slick-on, I only felt the nose wheel touch and spool up, dry asphalt for all 3 wheels. ..all this for a wee somewhat snotty comment on "slobby ass full- scaler's wasteful use of airspace around airfields" on climb-out from ENAN 29 years ago, TwinOtters are _real_ fun aircraft. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
Memories, heres an old article on we we were doing in the F28s and airfield surveys, whilst off topic, it may be of interest. http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Flying%20Unit%20navaid%20cal%20article%201990.htm Item 8 -- (8) good low speed handling and go-around performance from very low altitude; This i clearly remember like yesterday, sitting in the jump seat at the end of a VASI approach test, under full power doing 180 turnback to 1000 feet, cows beside the airstrip just below us, running in all directions with their tails wrapped up over their backs. It looked like we were going to put the wingtip up their backsides. We thought it was a hell of a joke, but the farmer I assume was not impressed. Harry On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:29:27 +0100, Erik wrote in message > <1298230167.1769.4.camel@Raptor>: > > > On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 12:46 -0500, Peter Brown wrote: > > > > > > This is very true. I've not explored the parameters of the 777 in > > > FG, but if you fly the MD-81 with no passengers, 1200 lbs of fuel > > > and crew weight, it is extremely different than flying with > > > standard fuel load and passengers. Enough so that you can land, > > > and take off, from the Nimitz. This is not as far-fetched as one > > > may think. > > > > In fact this has been proposed for the F28; It was named the F-28 COD > > (Carrier On-board Delivery) > > http://eu.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/43434/ > > ...and appears to have come closer to reality than both the > p1101 or the me262hg3, go for it. ;o) > > -- > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... > Scenarios always come in sets of three: > best case, worst case, and just in case. > > > -- > The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: > Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. > Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. > Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:29:27 +0100, Erik wrote in message <1298230167.1769.4.camel@Raptor>: > On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 12:46 -0500, Peter Brown wrote: > > > > This is very true. I've not explored the parameters of the 777 in > > FG, but if you fly the MD-81 with no passengers, 1200 lbs of fuel > > and crew weight, it is extremely different than flying with > > standard fuel load and passengers. Enough so that you can land, > > and take off, from the Nimitz. This is not as far-fetched as one > > may think. > > In fact this has been proposed for the F28; It was named the F-28 COD > (Carrier On-board Delivery) > http://eu.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/43434/ ...and appears to have come closer to reality than both the p1101 or the me262hg3, go for it. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 12:46 -0500, Peter Brown wrote: > > This is very true. I've not explored the parameters of the 777 in FG, > but if you fly the MD-81 with no passengers, 1200 lbs of fuel and crew > weight, it is extremely different than flying with standard fuel load > and passengers. Enough so that you can land, and take off, from the > Nimitz. This is not as far-fetched as one may think. In fact this has been proposed for the F28; It was named the F-28 COD (Carrier On-board Delivery) http://eu.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/43434/ Erik -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
On Feb 20, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Harry Campigli wrote: > Two things cross my mind, whilst I know the designers strive to model the > true aerodynamics in the fdm. > > 1- how many fly these sims on realistic hardware? Would many even go as far > as a set of imitation yoke and pedals? > > 2- I have spent some time in F28s set up for airport navaid calibration > surveys in the past, No pax and no bags or cargo, not a lot of fuel onboard, > and I have to tell you that aeroplane could really go!, those pilots could > and would throw that thing all over the sky. There was never any hint of that > performance riding in an F28 on normal passenger service. I suspect most > people would run FG airliners without full weight and slack tanks which > vastly alters the power to weight ratio of the aircraft. > > > Harry > > This is very true. I've not explored the parameters of the 777 in FG, but if you fly the MD-81 with no passengers, 1200 lbs of fuel and crew weight, it is extremely different than flying with standard fuel load and passengers. Enough so that you can land, and take off, from the Nimitz. This is not as far-fetched as one may think. A good friend of mine is a 757 and 767 driver. Most takeoffs are all reduced power takeoffs, per airline spec's. He did a deadhead trip (empty) the other day, and just because he could as the captain, he choose to do a max power takeoff. He said you're doing 80 kts before you take a breath, and he was pulling the nose up through 30 degrees before deciding to pull the power back, as it just kept accelerating. The aircraft are built to the airline specifications, but within FAA parameters. The FAA specifies that at maximum gross weight the aircraft must be able to climb out over a 50 ft obstacle one engine (after V1). This means if you lose all other power and you've passed V1 (decision speed), you must be able to get over that tree that FG scenery planted just beyond the threshold. So now add back in the rest of the engines, dump the fuel and kick all the passengers off. Like Harry said, a passenger will never see any hint of the true performance. Airlines all have route planners, and provide a full flight chart to the pilots for each flight. This provides them with the best case for time and fuel burn. Accelerate at x power. Climb out rate, speed, and duration. Fuel burns to climb, cruise and descend. Descent rate, speed, power setting. This is all calculated on all factors - passenger load, fuel load, temperature, altitude, wind, etc. This is how the modern pilot tells you how many minutes to landing. It's not about 30 minutes, it's 27 minutes to touchdown. This is all planned out by the flight department before departure. Peter > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:16 PM, George Patterson > wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:49 PM, syd adams wrote: > Like we couldn't see this coming ;) > > As for the 777 , unrealistic according to who ? I'm not against > changing it as one of the default aircraft , there are a lot of other > great choices now , but I do get annoyed with these claims by armchair > pilots who read it somewhere or saw it on youtube > have you piloted one of these in real life ? If so , what could be > improved ? When I get FACTS from REAL pilots , I tend to be all ears , > there are too many self proclaimed experts to take everything I hear > as fact. I've done a huge amount of research on that aircraft , but > have never flown one , so I can't say with certainty how accurate the > FDM is myself , but still > I'd rather hear how it could fixed rather than a hazy '(the FDM is > terribly unrealistic) > > > While I am not a real world pilot, I also get annoyed at the subjective > " is broken" where blah is a feature on a particular aircraft. Better > is an objective "cruise speed of the at x,000 feet is 500 knots > when it should be 520 knots." > > Note: I have plucked those figures out of the air for the discussion. > However, the first statement is open to arguement and the next question of > what and how is broken. The second example can be responded to as "yes > you are right the FDM is a little out" or "No, it's correct as cruise > alttiude of > As I deal with vauge user reports with as little information to go on as "The > Internet is broken", I am all for as much information as can be provided. > Which application... the list goes on. > > Jack, > > I know you meant well but stating that an aircraft could be replaced with > another isn't particularly helpful without naming a successor. It help as > other can then agree with your or say that something else is more worthy. I > think this discussion comes up every time a new release gets close. > > Regards > > > George > > > -- > The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: > Pinpoint memory and threa
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
Two things cross my mind, whilst I know the designers strive to model the true aerodynamics in the fdm. 1- how many fly these sims on realistic hardware? Would many even go as far as a set of imitation yoke and pedals? 2- I have spent some time in F28s set up for airport navaid calibration surveys in the past, No pax and no bags or cargo, not a lot of fuel onboard, and I have to tell you that aeroplane could really go!, those pilots could and would throw that thing all over the sky. There was never any hint of that performance riding in an F28 on normal passenger service. I suspect most people would run FG airliners without full weight and slack tanks which vastly alters the power to weight ratio of the aircraft. Harry On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:16 PM, George Patterson < george.patter...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:49 PM, syd adams wrote: > >> Like we couldn't see this coming ;) >> >> As for the 777 , unrealistic according to who ? I'm not against >> changing it as one of the default aircraft , there are a lot of other >> great choices now , but I do get annoyed with these claims by armchair >> pilots who read it somewhere or saw it on youtube >> have you piloted one of these in real life ? If so , what could be >> improved ? When I get FACTS from REAL pilots , I tend to be all ears , >> there are too many self proclaimed experts to take everything I hear >> as fact. I've done a huge amount of research on that aircraft , but >> have never flown one , so I can't say with certainty how accurate the >> FDM is myself , but still >> I'd rather hear how it could fixed rather than a hazy '(the FDM is >> terribly unrealistic) >> >> > While I am not a real world pilot, I also get annoyed at the subjective > " is broken" where blah is a feature on a particular aircraft. Better > is an objective "cruise speed of the at x,000 feet is 500 knots > when it should be 520 knots." > > Note: I have plucked those figures out of the air for the discussion. > However, the first statement is open to arguement and the next question of > what and how is broken. The second example can be responded to as > "yes you are right the FDM is a little out" or "No, it's correct as cruise > alttiude of > As I deal with vauge user reports with as little information to go on as > "The Internet is broken", I am all for as much information as can be > provided. Which application... the list goes on. > > Jack, > > I know you meant well but stating that an aircraft could be replaced with > another isn't particularly helpful without naming a successor. It help as > other can then agree with your or say that something else is more worthy. I > think this discussion comes up every time a new release gets close. > > Regards > > > George > > > > -- > The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: > Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. > Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. > Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:49 PM, syd adams wrote: > Like we couldn't see this coming ;) > > As for the 777 , unrealistic according to who ? I'm not against > changing it as one of the default aircraft , there are a lot of other > great choices now , but I do get annoyed with these claims by armchair > pilots who read it somewhere or saw it on youtube > have you piloted one of these in real life ? If so , what could be > improved ? When I get FACTS from REAL pilots , I tend to be all ears , > there are too many self proclaimed experts to take everything I hear > as fact. I've done a huge amount of research on that aircraft , but > have never flown one , so I can't say with certainty how accurate the > FDM is myself , but still > I'd rather hear how it could fixed rather than a hazy '(the FDM is > terribly unrealistic) > > While I am not a real world pilot, I also get annoyed at the subjective " is broken" where blah is a feature on a particular aircraft. Better is an objective "cruise speed of the at x,000 feet is 500 knots when it should be 520 knots." Note: I have plucked those figures out of the air for the discussion. However, the first statement is open to arguement and the next question of what and how is broken. The second example can be responded to as "yes you are right the FDM is a little out" or "No, it's correct as cruise alttiude of -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
Like we couldn't see this coming ;) As for the 777 , unrealistic according to who ? I'm not against changing it as one of the default aircraft , there are a lot of other great choices now , but I do get annoyed with these claims by armchair pilots who read it somewhere or saw it on youtube have you piloted one of these in real life ? If so , what could be improved ? When I get FACTS from REAL pilots , I tend to be all ears , there are too many self proclaimed experts to take everything I hear as fact. I've done a huge amount of research on that aircraft , but have never flown one , so I can't say with certainty how accurate the FDM is myself , but still I'd rather hear how it could fixed rather than a hazy '(the FDM is terribly unrealistic) Thanks, Syd -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
Hi, > Hi, > Perhaps some of you have noticed, > that some of the aircraft that > come with the standard flightgear package should be > changed. > > A few examples, we could have a more realistic commercial > jet than the > 777-200(the FDM is terribly unrealistic), we could have a > better > modeled helicopter than the BO-105, and a better ultralight > than the > dragonfly. > The 777-200 has now an own repository on gitorious.org, and I see a lot of improvements. Currently it is the Airliner with the most sophisticated AP and other systems like Autobrakes etc... The Bo105 is the heli with the most realistic fdm we have. It is based on detailed real datas from a NASA-report and behaves like the real one. The Bell UH1 is realistic as well, and makes use of the same NASA report, but has some problems with Autorotation. Btw. is the Bo105 easy to fly and recommended for beginners. That's why I still vote for the Bo105. The Ec135 has some problems with fps-perfomance and I'm currently working on fix this issues. The Ec130 needs a good documentation for the beginners as the startup is not for beginners, and this needs some time to write. Heiko -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
>we could have a better > modeled helicopter than the BO-105 I am wondering what makes you feel the Bo105 is not as realistic as others. It has one of the most sophisticated helicopter FDMs in FlightGear which has been approved by real pilots. Almost every other FDM is based on guessing more or less. Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
