--- Buchanan, Stuart wrote:
Hi All,
I've been working on an update for the civilian Cessna 310R, and my
patches are now available for review/check-in.
Thanks for all the feedback.
I've updated the c310.tar.gz and quadrant.tar.gz file to fix the following
issues:
- mixture (and prop!)
Hi Stuart,
Thanks!
How do you feel is the front-wheel steering (low speed, low rpm)?
If I look from outside the wheel points to one direction but the action
of the aircraft is very slow.
At a little bit higher speed the a/c is sliding forward dispite the
wheel direction.
Just a hint, nothing
Hi Stuart,
Thanks!
How do you feel is the front-wheel steering (low speed, low rpm)?
If I look from outside the wheel points to one direction but the action
of the aircraft is very slow.
At a little bit higher speed the a/c is sliding forward despite the
wheel direction.
Just a hint,
Thank you Jon,
I thought it to be a problem just for this a/c. Now I know better and
look forward ..
Regards
Georg EDDW
...
Hi Stuart,
Thanks!
How do you feel is the front-wheel steering (low speed, low rpm)?
...
FYI, the coming version of JSBSim will be having very much improved
--- Joacim Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are also numbers for the two pilot's seats, and luggage, in the
type
certificate. Since the sets are all located aft of the CG, the empty CG
should probably be the most fwd measure. (unless the c310 has a storage
in
the nose also)
The
Hi All,
I've been working on an update for the civilian Cessna 310R, and my
patches are now available for review/check-in.
The update consists of
- new generic 3D instrumesnts for a throttle quadrant and rudder pedals
- 3D cockpit for the civilian C310 (screenshot -
Hi Stuart,
I can see the nice screenshot but cannot download the files, anything
seems to be broken with the link.
Would you please check it?
Thank you
Georg EDDW
Buchanan, Stuart schrieb:
Patch files are available from http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/c310/
..
Feedback is greatly
--- Georg Vollnhals wrote:
Hi Stuart,
I can see the nice screenshot but cannot download the files, anything
seems to be broken with the link.
Would you please check it?
Hi Georg,
Directory listings were switched off, though I think the files were
accessible directly. I've enabled
There are a number of minor issues remaining:
- For some reason I have minor alpha problems with the panel where the
outside world can be seen through the bottom edge of some instruments. I
haven't been able to get to the bottom of this. I'm not sure whether this
is an issue with my graphics
Buchanan, Stuart schrieb:
Hi Georg,
Directory listings were switched off, though I think the files were
accessible directly. I've enabled directory listings - should work OK now.
-Stuart
Thank you, Stuart!
Downloaded the files and will give feedback as soon as I tested it (in
some
One more...
The mixture levers are crossed: the left mixture controls the right engine and
vice versa
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
--- Torsten Dreyer wrote:
And there is a hole on the upper side of each wing where the upper
surface
connects to the wingtip. It looks like you optimized one vertex to
much.
Oh and one more funny view is when you look from the outside at the
plane's
roof, you can see thru the windows
Buchanan, Stuart schrieb:
Hi Torsten,
Hi Stuart,
as Torsten reported more than I could find out when flying the plane, I
just have to say that due to your work this nice plane now got back into
my hangar.
Thank you for your work!
Georg EDDW
Nothing to do with Stuart's work on the c310, but a tip on the fdm (jsbsim
version):
Move the CG forward a bit, at least a 10--15. (the correct CG location
should be taken from the type certificate, which I haven't been able to
find on a quick google) The plane flies a lot better then. (better
Move the CG forward a bit, at least a 10--15. (the correct CG location
should be taken from the type certificate, which I haven't been able to
find on a quick google) The plane flies a lot better then. (better
stability and cruise alpha, when it's not flying on the stabiliser) This
also puts
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
The TCDS suggests the CG should be in the range, 37-42 inches (assuming our
datum is the same).
I think the datum is the same. (p33 in the type cert.):
Datum Forward face of fuselage bulkhead forward of rudder pedals.
And from 310.xml:
The
Michael Selig writes:
Some real numbers on the 310 are in one of Roskam's books, and
those same numbers are in the fgfs base package here:
~fgfsbase/Aircraft-uiuc/Cessna310/aircraft.dat
Yes, I took my numbers from Roskam as well.
Personally, given the ability of fgfs to do a fairly
Jon Berndt writes:
I am 90% sure that the Ixx we use for the -310 is empty weight
Ixx. That means of course that I am 22% not sure.
When I put together the original 310 JSBSim config file (my first one,
I think), I simply copied the numbers from Roskam -- they appear to be
unchanged since
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:50:04 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JSBSim, on the other hand, assumes no fuel in the tanks, and does an
additional calculation of the moment for the fuel when the tanks are
full. Hence our (possible) problem.
It is possible to calculate offline, and log
Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There's also no reason to include yaw dampers in the individual FDMs
-- we should be able to handle that in our FlightGear autopilot
module.
Perhaps, but it's different for each type of aircraft.
This is exactly the functionality that would be built
Jim Wilson writes:
Then we just need an interface to be able to turn yaw damping on or off?
That scares me a bit. Our current FGInterface class for the FDMs is
already terrifying. I'm hoping to start trimming it down soon and
relying more on properties (as already happens for all new
--- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Selig writes:
Some real numbers on the 310 are in one of Roskam's books, and
those same numbers are in the fgfs base package here:
~fgfsbase/Aircraft-uiuc/Cessna310/aircraft.dat
Yes, I took my numbers from Roskam as well.
--- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
Then we just need an interface to be able to turn yaw damping on
or off?
That scares me a bit. Our current FGInterface class for the FDMs is
already terrifying. I'm hoping to start trimming it down soon and
relying more
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:10:44 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt writes:
I understand that it would be convenient for an FCS to be built-into
standalone JSBSim, but in FlightGear, as long as the FDMs publish all
of the information that an FCS would need as input, we can
Dave
I have not had a chance to update to the latest cvs version yet, but
will tonight and will let you know as soon as I do. One of the manuals
I have is dated 1969, and the other does not have a date but list models
covered. They look to be from about the same era though.
Paul
paul mccann writes:
I have not had a chance to update to the latest cvs version yet, but
will tonight and will let you know as soon as I do. One of the manuals
I have is dated 1969, and the other does not have a date but list models
covered. They look to be from about the same era
Dave
I tried the updated c310 tonight, and to me it seemed very stable and a
big improvement. Now when you fly a ILS approach you can concentrate on
the approach as opposed to just trying to keep right side up! Thanks.
Paul
___
Flightgear-devel
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 07:50, David Megginson wrote:
Michael Selig writes:
Some real numbers on the 310 are in one of Roskam's books, and
those same numbers are in the fgfs base package here:
~fgfsbase/Aircraft-uiuc/Cessna310/aircraft.dat
Yes, I took my numbers from Roskam as well.
Tony Peden writes:
It's almost a waste to put the thing there to begin with. Yaw
dampers can make a *big* difference in turbulence.
I understand that some new autopilots for small planes are
tolerant of turbulence, but that most are not -- you risk
creating excessive stresses.
All the
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 18:13, David Megginson wrote:
Tony Peden writes:
It's almost a waste to put the thing there to begin with. Yaw
dampers can make a *big* difference in turbulence.
I understand that some new autopilots for small planes are
tolerant of turbulence, but that most are
Tony Peden writes:
I understand that some new autopilots for small planes are
tolerant of turbulence, but that most are not -- you risk
creating excessive stresses.
Absolutely amazing.
Not so much -- consider the problem: every time the AP sees a
deviation, it will try to correct
David Megginson writes:
From what I understand, one of the other joys of a multi-axis
autopilot is the risk of runway elevator trim.
For runway read runaway.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/
Jim Wilson writes:
I found the C310 JSBSim model very unstable, so I've increased roll,
pitch, and yaw damping -- please try it out and let me know what you
think.
Ah, much easier to land. I can't vouch for the realism, but it
sure is a lot easier to line up and stay there.
I'm not sure I changed the right coefficients, though -- I'm going to
look into it more when I get the chance. The real problem might be in
the moments of inertia.
Hmm. I'm not so sure. The moments of inertia are cut and pasted from a
technical document. That's just what they are. You can't
Jon Berndt writes:
I'm not sure I changed the right coefficients, though -- I'm going to
look into it more when I get the chance. The real problem might be in
the moments of inertia.
Hmm. I'm not so sure. The moments of inertia are cut and pasted from a
technical document. That's
At 3/10/03, David Megginson wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
I found the C310 JSBSim model very unstable, so I've increased roll,
pitch, and yaw damping -- please try it out and let me know what you
think.
Ah, much easier to land. I can't vouch for the realism, but it
sure is a lot
Full tanks way out on the wingtips of a 310 must create a significant
roll moment. JSBSim will generate that moment for us, based on the
amount of fuel in the tanks; however, if the published moment
*already* assumes full wingtip tanks, then we'll get far too much
rolling.
I am 90% sure that
David Megginson wrote:
OK, finally I understand the problem. What we need to do, then, is
apply the euler angles to the CG rather than the origin when rotating
the 3D model. We need only two steps:
1. have the FDMs report the current CG relative to the origin (if they
don't already); and
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In your example you may not see the error but .
What I meant was that offseting to the varible center of gravity wouldn't be
visible either outside or inside the aircraft. The FDM already provides the
attitude effects, it is the change in axes that
IMHO it'd make the most sense to put the offset (from the nose or
tail) to the
3D model origin location into the FDM's aircraft config xml file. This
location should be on the leading edge of the wings and z axis
centered on the
nose as described above. The 3D modeler's could refer to
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 07:26, Jon Berndt wrote:
IMHO it'd make the most sense to put the offset (from the nose or
tail) to the
3D model origin location into the FDM's aircraft config xml file. This
location should be on the leading edge of the wings and z axis
centered on the
nose as
Jim Wilson writes:
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In your example you may not see the error but .
What I meant was that offseting to the varible center of gravity wouldn't be
visible either outside or inside the aircraft. The FDM already provides the
attitude effects, it is
Tony wrote:
Are we sure we want to put the 3D model origin to cg offsets in the FDM
config file. IIRC, having multiple 3D models for any one aero model is
pretty standard fare in the MSFS world.
The only thing we'd do different in JSBSim is to say where the nose/prop
tip is. This would give
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IMHO it'd make the most sense to put the offset (from the nose or
tail) to the
3D model origin location into the FDM's aircraft config xml file. This
location should be on the leading edge of the wings and z axis
centered on the
nose as described
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Tony wrote:
Are we sure we want to put the 3D model origin to cg offsets in the FDM
config file. IIRC, having multiple 3D models for any one aero model is
pretty standard fare in the MSFS world.
The only thing we'd do different in JSBSim is to say
Really we just need the FDMs to agree on something. Or maybe
not...maybe the
idea of sharing 3DModel configs between FDMs (c310-jsbsim,
c310-yasim pointing
to the same model.xml) is impratical or too complex? Certainly if one
FDM
models gear compression and the other doesn't, that is an
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It's neither impractical nor complex. FWIW, there really is a standard
already out there, and we use it. That is, the structural frame, as I have
outlined before. The only problem I see is that the FDM and the 3D model
rendering code need to have a static
Yes, I knew this would sound a little complicated with swept,delta,body
wing
aircraft. But making it the nose really just puts the decision on to
the 3D
Modeler where to some degree the flight model designer could have a
better
idea. Isn't there some way of deriving an average or nominal
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't really think that the CG (or anything like it) should have
anything to do with a common reference point. I think it should be
something you can readily see. The nose/prop hub tip is about as
unambiguous as it gets. Due to the nature of defining the
Jim Wilson writes:
Between YASim, JSBsim, and the U-3A 3d-model we've got three
origins that represent the approximate position of the aircraft.
JSBsim is 0.2m higher than the 3D model and YASim is 0.2m lower.
It'd be nice if the two FDM's agreed with each other, at least on
the height
That's the hard part. The POH and the TCDS give the standard origin
on the X axis (the weight and balance reference datum), and the origin
on the Y axis can be assumed to be the centreline of the plane, but
where do you put the Z origin? For a single, the thrustline of the
propeller might
Jon Berndt writes:
1. Put the X axis origin at the published weight-and-balance reference
datum.
1) Respect the manufacturer's structural coordinates, if known. If not,
place the X axis origin at the published weight and balance reference
datum. If not known, place the X axis
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:34:00 -0500,
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jon Berndt writes:
1. Put the X axis origin at the published weight-and-balance
reference datum.
1) Respect the manufacturer's structural coordinates, if known. If
not,
David Megginson wrote:
1. Put the X axis origin at the published weight-and-balance reference
datum.
2. Put the Y axis origin at the centreline of the plane.
3. Put the Z axis origin [where? the ground?].
I'll just state my opinion again, and then keep my head down until
someone tells me
This brings back the discussion a couple weeks ago on the 747 origin. The
following is what I got from that thread:
1). The reported origin is arbitrary in relation to the FDM's internal
workings...ie how pitch/roll/yaw is calculated. The exact position of the 3D
model origin can be calculated
Andy Ross writes:
Whatever convention we pick should be an easily explainable and
identifiable from the *shape* of the airframe only. Not everyone
has a POH handy, very few people have WB or C.G. numbers, and even
things like the centerline are subject to argument on some
aircraft.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:09:06 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever convention we pick should be an easily explainable and
identifiable from the *shape* of the airframe only. Not everyone has
a POH handy, very few people have WB or C.G. numbers, and even things
like the centerline
Jim Wilson writes:
2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between the
wings the external model views that follow along with the aircraft
(e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is tied to the
origin. If the origin is at the nose or tail then the plane
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson writes:
2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between the
wings the external model views that follow along with the aircraft
(e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is tied to the
origin. If the
David Megginson writes:
Jim Wilson writes:
2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between the
wings the external model views that follow along with the aircraft
(e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is tied to the
origin. If the origin is at the
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:45:11 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, finally I understand the problem. What we need to do, then, is
apply the euler angles to the CG rather than the origin when rotating
the 3D model. We need only two steps:
1. have the FDMs report the current CG
Jim Wilson writes:
Actually, no, well yes this is a good idea. But I don't think it is
necessary. AFAIK the model rotates correctly already.
The FDMs give us lon/lat/alt and roll/pitch/hdg. FlightGear then has
to apply transformations to make the model appear in the right place
and with
--- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between
the
wings the external model views that follow along with the aircraft
(e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is tied to
the
origin. If
--- Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:45:11 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, finally I understand the problem. What we need to do, then, is
apply the euler angles to the CG rather than the origin when
rotating
the 3D model. We need only two
--- Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Megginson writes:
Jim Wilson writes:
2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between
the
wings the external model views that follow along with the
aircraft
(e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on one
coordinate system to use.
Aside from that, agreeing on one takes away the freedom to choose a
location that makes sense for the aircraft you are working
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:56:39 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
Actually, no, well yes this is a good idea. But I don't think it is
necessary. AFAIK the model rotates correctly already.
If you are rotating the model in the same order as the
FDM, then the
Tony Peden writes:
Since this makes the 3D modeler's choice independent of the FDM
modeler's choice, it seems the most sensible to me.
That wasn't my intention -- you'd still need the same origin for this
to work. It's just a way for the 3D engine to know what point to
pivot the model
David Megginson writes:
Jim Wilson writes:
Actually, no, well yes this is a good idea. But I don't think it is
necessary. AFAIK the model rotates correctly already.
The FDMs give us lon/lat/alt and roll/pitch/hdg. FlightGear then has
to apply transformations to make the model
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson writes:
Actually, no, well yes this is a good idea. But I don't think it is
necessary. AFAIK the model rotates correctly already.
The FDMs give us lon/lat/alt and roll/pitch/hdg. FlightGear then has
to apply transformations to
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 12:40, Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on one
coordinate system to use.
Aside from that, agreeing on one takes away the freedom to choose a
Tony Peden writes:
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 12:40, Jon S Berndt
I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on one
coordinate system to use.
Aside from that, agreeing on one takes away the freedom to choose a
location that makes sense for the aircraft you are working on
On 13 Dec 2002 15:22:38 -0800
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm proposing is that we don't have to agree to use
the same point.
We just need to provide a way to correct for the
difference.
Ah, yes. We will need to provide another point - location
of nose tip (or whatever). In
Jim Wilson writes:
This same effect is less or more depending on exactly where the origin is.
We could eliminate it by offseting the lon/lat/alt and roll/pitch/hdg to the
current center of gravity for the camera, but that isn't necessary. It'll
look good enough (you can't visually see the
Between YASim, JSBsim, and the U-3A 3d-model we've got three origins that
represent the approximate position of the aircraft. JSBsim is 0.2m higher
than the 3D model and YASim is 0.2m lower. It'd be nice if the two FDM's
agreed with each other, at least on the height above ground for the
c310-vfr-panel.xml says:
...
multibackgroundAircraft/c310/c310-panel-11.rgb/multibackground
multibackgroundAircraft/c310/c310-panel-12.rgb/multibackground
...
but there are no such textures. Have they been forgotten to upload,
or are they simply not done yet?
m.
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
c310-vfr-panel.xml says:
...
multibackgroundAircraft/c310/c310-panel-11.rgb/multibackground
multibackgroundAircraft/c310/c310-panel-12.rgb/multibackground
...
but there are no such textures. Have they been forgotten to upload,
or are they simply not done yet?
Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
c310-vfr-panel.xml says:
...
multibackgroundAircraft/c310/c310-panel-11.rgb/multibackground
multibackgroundAircraft/c310/c310-panel-12.rgb/multibackground
...
but there are no such textures. Have they been forgotten to upload,
or are they
]
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] c310 lawn dart
With the newly accessible JSBSim properties I was able to gleen this data
when the c310 does its supersonic lawn dart thing. Not sure
exactly what the
numbers mean, but 30983 lbsft sounds like a lot in a light twin.
fbx-prop-lbs
I'm having no problem retracting the C310 gear in flight, using
yesterday's CVS version of everything. It's possible that there's a
problem in some builds, but it's equally possible that people are
letting the plane settle back onto the ground after retracting gear.
Try waiting for a higher
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 04:21, David Megginson wrote:
I'm having no problem retracting the C310 gear in flight, using
yesterday's CVS version of everything. It's possible that there's a
problem in some builds, but it's equally possible that people are
letting the plane settle back onto the
David Megginson writes:
I'm having no problem retracting the C310 gear in flight, using
yesterday's CVS version of everything. It's possible that there's a
problem in some builds, but it's equally possible that people are
letting the plane settle back onto the ground after retracting gear.
--- Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Megginson writes:
I'm having no problem retracting the C310 gear in
flight, using
yesterday's CVS version of everything. It's
possible that there's a
problem in some builds, but it's equally possible
that people are
letting the
Erik Hofman writes:
I'm having no problem retracting the C310 gear in flight, using
yesterday's CVS version of everything. It's possible that there's a
problem in some builds, but it's equally possible that people are
letting the plane settle back onto the ground after retracting gear.
Erik Hofman writes:
Its' weel above 100 Foot.
I tried different altitudes, non worked well.
Have you tried different airports? It's strange that we cannot
reproduce this. Does the problem occur as soon as the gear are
retracted?
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL
David M.: do you see a problem with the C310? I can't fly now - my big
machine is in the shop.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
BERNDT, JON S. (JON) (JSC-EX) (LM) writes:
David M.: do you see a problem with the C310? I can't fly now - my big
machine is in the shop.
It's OK, but I haven't tried a lot of long cross-countries. I haven't
put much work into the prop model for the C310 compared to the C172 or
C182, so I
Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Speaking of which, when I hit 's' to switch panel, it looks like we're
reading the XML file each time. It funny that loading scenery doesn't
cause any hiccups in performance but switching panels does.
Yep, I just used the panel-load that was/is bound to
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Wilson) [2001.12.22 08:27]:
Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Speaking of which, when I hit 's' to switch panel, it looks like we're
reading the XML file each time. It funny that loading scenery doesn't
cause any hiccups in performance but switching panels
John Check writes:
While I'm at it... is there a chance we might see being able to
include fully defined layers in instruments at some point? The best
I can do now is
layer include=whatever.xml
transformations
/layer
You should be able to include a complete layer with
On Friday 21 December 2001 04:34 pm, you wrote:
John Check writes:
While I'm at it... is there a chance we might see being able to
include fully defined layers in instruments at some point? The best
I can do now is
layer include=whatever.xml
transformations
/layer
John Check writes:
Eventually, I guess you could have a separate subdirectory for each
instrument, with a README, etc. Think of yourself as a fine
craftsman, like a watchmaker.
err.. uhh... umm.. whatever.
I'd like to stay away from excessive directories. Maybe if the
Norman Vine wrote:
John Check writes:
Eventually, I guess you could have a separate subdirectory for each
instrument, with a README, etc. Think of yourself as a fine
craftsman, like a watchmaker.
err.. uhh... umm.. whatever.
I'd like to stay away from excessive
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman Vine) [2001.12.21 19:25]:
Bernie Bright writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
We could even walk both the compressed and the uncompressed
tree and use the 'newest' file for easy experimentation.
Easy and slow. I remember someone once saying on this very list that
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:38, you wrote:
John Check writes:
Yes. FWIW I did find some pix with a fair to middlin' amount of
detail http://www.philyoder.com/
That's a 310R, with a longer nose, more powerful engines and (I
suspect) turbosupercharging, so there may be some minor differences on
On Sunday 09 December 2001 3:46 am, you wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:38, you wrote:
John Check writes:
Yes. FWIW I did find some pix with a fair to middlin' amount of
detail http://www.philyoder.com/
That's a 310R, with a longer nose, more powerful engines and (I
suspect)
On Sunday 09 December 2001 5:26 pm, you wrote:
David Findlay writes:
Maybe it would be a good idea to state exactly which models of
which aircraft we are going to have? This way we are all looking at
the same thing.
On the flightmodel list, I mentioned that I'm tentatively using a
John Wojnaroski wrote:
This is about as ugly as it gets. This will go on your permanent
record. :-) :-) :-)
Argggh, banished to the netherworld... I should have realized that! :-0
There's nothing wrong with the netherw.. oh, you did'nt say Netherlands.
Pfew. :-)
Erik
I found the following magazine review, which I used to fix the
performance of the YASim model. It's the turbo variant.
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/specs/79cessnaturbo.html
Also, this site, which is a buyer's guide for the 310 family, has lots
of good trivia about equipment
Question:
What is the procedure for adjusting mixture with a constant speed prop
such as the 310 has?
In the c172 I had been tweaking for max rpm and then backing off a
touch to the rich side.
When I adjust mixture on the c310 engines, the only guage that moves
is the temp. Shouldn't the
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
