Martin Spott wrote:
This does not have to be as difficult as it is with the V-22. The Osprey is
designed for being stuffed into _very_ small space below a ship's deck.
If they had more space then it would have been possible to improve security
simply by increasing the wing span,
The
Martin Spott wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
...
Oh, you get heavily increased torque from the ailerons for manouverability
and you get much more lift from large wings at low speed - especially
because on the current design at least 90 % of the wing area suffers from
the down-wind generated by
Martin Spott wrote:
The big problematic area ... regime is unstable and
recovery difficult.
This does not have to be as difficult as it is with the V-22. The Osprey is
designed for being stuffed into _very_ small space below a ship's deck.
If they had more space then it would have been
Carsten.Hoefer wrote:
Forgetting about all 'unsafe' situations in helicopters, do we have
one in flightgear? Is it possible to model one with the existing
flight models we use?
Not without a lot of code work. Helicopters have a bunch of effects
that don't exist in the current FDMs.
Things
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Tony Peden writes:
--- Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. ... IMHO
that thing
even looks dangerous :-)
More dangerous than a helicopter? ...
It sounds like avoiding the vortex ring state...
I
I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an
engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you
are going to hit hard at some really odd angle.
The engines are capable to deliver _enormous_ power for a short time in case
of an engine failure - I believe
The big problematic area for this class of aircraft historically has
been the transition between hover, or rotor based operation and
flying, where the wings are important. That regime is unstable and
recovery difficult.
This does not have to be as difficult as it is with the V-22. The
Bell/Agusta V-22 derivative commercial BA609:
http://www.bellagusta.com/html/aeroNet/downLoads/20393_609_AB_Brochure.pdf
Fascinating. Pretty pictures, too.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. It's hard to
imagine they are selling civilian versions while there's talk about nixing the
Osprey because of safety concerns. Well maybe not that hard. IMHO that thing
even looks dangerous :-)
Best,
Jim
Jon S Berndt [EMAIL
Jim Wilson wrote:
Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. It's hard to
imagine they are selling civilian versions while there's talk about nixing the
Osprey because of safety concerns. Well maybe not that hard. IMHO that thing
even looks dangerous :-)
It looks like a
--- Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. It's
hard to
imagine they are selling civilian versions while there's talk about
nixing the
Osprey because of safety concerns. Well maybe not that hard. IMHO
that thing
even looks
Tony Peden writes:
--- Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. It's
hard to
imagine they are selling civilian versions while there's talk about
nixing the
Osprey because of safety concerns. Well maybe not that hard. IMHO
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:09:03 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an
engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you
are going to hit hard at some really odd angle. At least with a
helicopter you are
It sounds like avoiding the vortex ring state is doable but will
likely require a fair amount of training (and possibly some control law
mods)
Speaking of which - a recent issue of Aviation Leak that I have mentions
that they've been unable to properly account for/simulate the VRS in the
Gene Buckle writes:
I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an
engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you
are going to hit hard at some really odd angle. At least with a
helicopter you are probably going to land butt first and might have a
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:22:05 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a helicopter, or perhaps you could say that certain types
of failures at certain times would be less survivable in the BA-609
This (above) might be more true than your first statement.
One thing that comes to my
Curt, there is a central transmission in the wing that will transfer the
drive to the operating engine automatically so that won't happen. If they
both fail at once though
You could also imagine that something downstream of this central
transmission could fail, again leaving you in
Gene Buckle writes:
Well one of my favorite quotes goes something like this:
If your wings are moving faster than you are, you're in a Helicopter and
are therefore unsafe. :)
I suppose the related quote would be something along the lines of If
your wings are moving slower than you, they are
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 13:22, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Gene Buckle writes:
I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an
engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you
are going to hit hard at some really odd angle. At least with a
helicopter you
On 10 Dec 2002 15:18:48 -0800
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know ... it sound like you are really starting to
stack up the failures.
I don't know ... I was thinking the other day: what if the
pilot was pouring a can of Coke into a cup on the flight
deck and dropped the can and
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
On 10 Dec 2002 15:18:48 -0800
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know ... it sound like you are really starting to
stack up the failures.
I don't know ... I was thinking the other day: what if the
pilot was pouring a can of
On 10 Dec 2002 15:37:08 -0800
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
I don't know ... I was thinking the other day: what if the
...
Curt, I apologize for even beginning to suggest that you
were stacking things up ...
Hey! It could happen!
:-)
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 4:22 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
You could also imagine that something downstream of this central
transmission could fail, again leaving you in an unhealthy state. I
unhealthy state you guys crack me up.
Sounds more like brown trousers time to me ;-)
agree with
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 19:24, John Check wrote:
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 4:22 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
You could also imagine that something downstream of this central
transmission could fail, again leaving you in an unhealthy state. I
unhealthy state you guys crack me up.
Sounds
24 matches
Mail list logo
