Regarding this paragraph,
Recently, Andrew Ross contributed another flight model called YASim
for Yet another simulator. At present, it sports another Cessna 172,
a Cessna 182 and a Boeing 747. This one is based on geometry
information rather than aerodynamic coefficients. Although it is
Alex Perry wrote:
Think of it this way: a YASim aircraft will be as close to the real
airplane as the real one is to any other aircraft of the same general
class. That's good enough for me. And in a lot of situations
(military aircraft in particular), this is as good as we're going to
get
Alex Perry wrote:
Think of it this way: a YASim aircraft will be as close to the real
airplane as the real one is to any other aircraft of the same general
class. That's good enough for me. And in a lot of situations
(military aircraft in particular), this is as good as we're going to
get
Ha! Actually, when we get around to it, we do want to be
plausible off-nominal, too.
Jon
Jon, I read that sentence, digested it and promptly started snickering
insanely. What a quote. I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal!
*rofl*
??
Maybe I've been around NASA types too
Andy,
Oh, and a pedantic comment about the text: the use of the latin e.g.
in the middle of English sentences is frowned upon as a matter of
style. In almost all cases, the colloquial for example will work
...
Thanks a lot. I'll print and keep this for future reference.
BTW, we sure
Maybe I've been around NASA types too long. ;-) What I meant was that we'd
like to have at least *believable* flight dynamics when flying in
off-nominal conditions (spin, hammerhead, etc.)
But I am glad I made you laugh. :-)
You just keep on hanging out with those NASA guys. :) BTW, if
