On 12/18/04 at 7:15 PM Dave Martin wrote:
While you're there, is there any chance of a magneto-related performance
loss?
ie: when you run left mags only you get a power loss.
Cheers :)
Hmm, I thought I already had, but it seems I'm mistaken. It's in the
LaRCsim code (IO360.cxx), but never
On 12/20/04 at 11:41 PM David Luff wrote:
Of course, oversights like this would get picked up more easily if an
adept
3D modeller added a magneto switch to the 3d C172
Oops, found it, bottom left!
and pa28-161 :-)
It is missing from that though.
Cheers - Dave
This message has been
Hmm, I thought I already had, but it seems I'm mistaken. It's in the
LaRCsim code (IO360.cxx), but never made it over to JSBSim's FGPiston.cpp.
I believe I was gunning for about 25 rpm drop on one vs. two magnetos in
the original code. I'll port it over...
Dave:
There are two active
Dave Martin writes:
On Friday 17 Dec 2004 22:27, David Megginson wrote:
Totally up to you, but my 172P POH is for the 1981 model
However, I also discovered that the early 172s had more dihedral and a
slightly different shape to the aerofoil. Comparing this the FG 172P, which
has
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:27:09 +, David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always assumed that it's a fairly late model injected 172, in order to
justify the current lack of carb heating in the engine model ;-)
The 172P is carbureted, unfortunately.
All the best,
David
--
While you're there, is there any chance of a magneto-related performance loss?
ie: when you run left mags only you get a power loss.
Cheers :)
On Saturday 18 Dec 2004 17:37, David Luff wrote:
David Megginson writes:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:27:09 +, David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:37:35 +, David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah! Carb heating has just moved several places up my TODO list!
I'm not sure that the engine model should even be dealing with carb
heating -- it would be just as easy for something else to tell the
engine the temperature
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:15:46 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While you're there, is there any chance of a magneto-related performance loss?
ie: when you run left mags only you get a power loss.
It would be nice to see that generalized a bit, so that we can
eventually model fouled
Simulated carb icing might be exciting too (coupled to weather, of
course :-) )
It would certainly make you remember to pull the lever ;)
On Saturday 18 Dec 2004 19:39, David Megginson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:15:46 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While you're there, is
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:20:37 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simulated carb icing might be exciting too (coupled to weather, of
course :-) )
It would certainly make you remember to pull the lever ;)
Some day, we might model then entire air induction system, the way
that we model
Just wondering if the C172P is supposed to represent a specific model year?
I've come to the point of placing a landing light on the aircraft but the
location is different between early 172s; in the wing with a taxi light and
late 172Ps (early 80's) where it is located in the nose with no taxi
Dave Martin wrote:
Just wondering if the C172P is supposed to represent a specific model year?
I've come to the point of placing a landing light on the aircraft but the
location is different between early 172s; in the wing with a taxi light and
late 172Ps (early 80's) where it is located in the
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:38:33 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering if the C172P is supposed to represent a specific model year?
Totally up to you, but my 172P POH is for the 1981 model, for what
that's worth. I cannot even remember the light positions on the
planes I
On Friday 17 Dec 2004 22:27, David Megginson wrote:
Totally up to you, but my 172P POH is for the 1981 model
As it happens I did a bit more research and discovered that the in-wing
(landing+taxi) lights were a factory option to the end of the P's production
run. So no clues there ;)
However,
14 matches
Mail list logo
