Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:26:31 +0100
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They encountered a problem where the aircraft could fly past 2 degr.
aoa. It took them quite long to learn that the wing root of the F-16
(the part of the fuselage that extends to underneath the canopy
Andy Ross wrote:
Major A wrote:
BTW, does anybody know at what angle planes (other than the Harrier)
usually approach aircraft carriers?
Pitch attitude angle or glide slope angle? Pitch depends a lot on the
aircraft, somewhere between 8-12° is typical.
I've read some
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:26:31 +0100
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They encountered a problem where the aircraft could fly
past 2 degr. aoa. It took them quite long to learn that
the wing root of the F-16 (the part of the fuselage that
extends to underneath the canopy and where the wing
Tony Peden wrote:
Fighters, especially those that are supersonic, have relatively small
wings. That's the biggest reason.
Now that you mention it, I just heard a story of a group of R/C flyers
that had modelled a scale model of an F-16. They encountered a problem
where the aircraft could fly
--- Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Major A wrote:
> >>Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately
> >>shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit
> difficult
> >>at this time.
> >
> > Really? Are you saying the F-16 can really approach that slowl
Major A wrote:
> BTW, does anybody know at what angle planes (other than the Harrier)
> usually approach aircraft carriers?
Pitch attitude angle or glide slope angle? Pitch depends a lot on the
aircraft, somewhere between 8-12° is typical.
I've read somewhere that the meatball/FLOLS glide slope
Major A wrote:
Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately
shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit difficult
at this time.
Really? Are you saying the F-16 can really approach that slowly? I'm
not a pilot, but with FGFS, an 100kt approach in a 747 or A4
> Ignore the previous replay. 100 kt is about right. It definately
> shouldn't be much higher. But the lack of flaps makes it a bit difficult
> at this time.
Really? Are you saying the F-16 can really approach that slowly? I'm
not a pilot, but with FGFS, an 100kt approach in a 747 or A4 or TSR.
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
> > I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
> > hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever.
>
> One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11
> and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it wi
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
> > I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
> > hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever.
>
> One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11
> and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it wi
Erik Hofman writes:
> > I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
> > hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever.
>
> One other thing, an F-16 has to be landed with a pitch angle between 11
> and 15 (typically 13) degrees. Otherwise it will, indeed, keep flying
Erik Hofman writes:
> > I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
> > hundred knots too high and the flare lasts forever.
>
> There are definatelly still some problems with the F-16.
> The problem with a plane like the F-16 is the fact that every momentum
> generetad
David Megginson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed
> to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) needs some work,
> but it's coming along very nicely.
I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
hundr
Jonathan Polley wrote:
Or, now not to return home.
http://www.kevinandkell.com/2003/strips/kk20030311.gif
Running out of luck and altitude at the same time?
;-)
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/
David Megginson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed
> to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) needs some work,
> but it's coming along very nicely.
I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
hundr
Or, now not to return home.
http://www.kevinandkell.com/2003/strips/kk20030311.gif
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 04:30PM, Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It's good to come home after a long day at the office:
>http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/download/F16-KSFO.jpg
>
>Erik
>
>(Good ni
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed
> to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) needs some work,
> but it's coming along very nicely.
I don't know -- it seems pretty touchy. You come in just a few
hundred knots too high and
Erik Hofman writes:
> It's good to come home after a long day at the office:
> http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/download/F16-KSFO.jpg
>
> Erik
>
> (Good night)
Very nice. :-)
The F-16 flies really well (not that I know what an F-16 is supposed
to fly like.) Ground handling (especially braking) n
It's good to come home after a long day at the office:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/download/F16-KSFO.jpg
Erik
(Good night)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
19 matches
Mail list logo
