Andy Ross wrote:
Sent: 27 July 2004 20:03
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I have run several traces on fuel.nas, and I can see the
/consumables/fuel/tank[0]/kill-when-empty being set, despite
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Megginson
Sent: 26 July 2004 23:41
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think I would expect an engine
Matthew Law wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 23:41
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose
power and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Pitot head icing
It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head icing at first ...
Erik
(Is that already implemented?)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Hofman wrote:
Sent: 27 July 2004 08:37
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Pitot head icing
It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head
icing at first ...
Erik
(Is that already
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Mastered the Spitfire yet?
Yes. It's a marvelous aircraft to fly!
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Erik Hofman replied
Sent: 27 July 2004 09:29
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Mastered the Spitfire yet?
Yes. It's a marvelous aircraft to fly!
Good. It'll be better when the engine problems
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Matthew Law wrote
If carb heating is on enrich the
mixture over time until power is restored. The conditions are actually
aircraft and engine specific, I think
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on really
resembling all the various aircraft
Boris Koenig wrote:
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on really
resembling all the various aircraft subtleties properly ... didn't know
that so far, would definitely recommend to create some kind of summary
for each aircraft and place it as a textfile into each
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I don't think that's intrinsically very difficult to simulate right now.
When certain conditions are met, if carb heating is off, weaken the mixture
over time (until the engine stops?). If carb heating is on enrich the
mixture over time until power is restored. The conditions
David Megginson wrote:
I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put
users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a
clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is
likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like
David Megginson wrote:
I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put
users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a
clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is
likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like
Matthew Law wrote:
I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all?
Yes -- we report it, and I'm pretty sure that we use it in density altitude
calculations (so that it affects both true airspeed and engine performance).
We're drilled to use carb heat before making any major reduction in
power
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Megginson
Sent: 27 July 2004 12:39
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I don't think that's intrinsically
Matthew Law wrote
Sent: 27 July 2004 11:55
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Boris Koenig wrote:
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on
really resembling all the various aircraft subtleties properly
David Megginson wrote:
Matthew Law wrote:
I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all?
Yes -- we report it, and I'm pretty sure that we use it in density
altitude calculations (so that it affects both true airspeed and engine
performance).
METAR reported humidity is also used.
Erik
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not
be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank
not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem
solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our
sim.
Vivian Meazza wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not
be terminal though
That's not an uncommon occurrence on low-wing planes, from what I
hear: when Cessna pilots rent low-wing planes, you sometimes get
Andy Ross wrote:
Granted, I haven't had time to test any of this. But I guess I'm
having trouble understanding exactly what your complaint is: trying
to draw fuel from an empty tank *should* kill an engine.
OK, try this: I'm flying on the left tank in my Warrior and not switching.
The tank goes
David Megginson wrote:
OK, try this: I'm flying on the left tank in my Warrior and not
switching.
The tank goes dry and the engine stops. I switch to the right tank,
and as
long as the prop is still windmilling, the engine springs to life
again in a
few seconds.
Is that the way things will
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 08:37, Erik Hofman wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Pitot head icing
It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head icing at first ...
Erik
(Is that already implemented?)
Perhaps I should look into it for the Swift;)
LeeE
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:38:43 -0400, David wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When there is no actual carb ice, carb heat makes the intake air
hotter, and thus thinner, so the mixture also becomes richer (more
fuel, less air), but in this case not usually rich enough to stop the
engine.
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Can't you make it so that the engine feeds off the upper tank before it feeds
on the lower tank?
How would that affect balance? Are the tanks exactly above each other?
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
David Megginson asked
Sent: 26 July 2004 12:37
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Can't you make it so that the engine feeds off the upper tank before it
feeds
on the lower tank?
How would that affect
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Not exactly. They are both on the centerline, but the CofG of the lower,
smaller tank is slightly forward of the upper, larger tank.
For strict accuracy, then, drawing from one tank first and then the other
will not result in exactly the same flight characteristics. The
I wrote
Sent: 25 July 2004 22:32
To: 'FlightGear developers discussions'
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote
Sent: 25 July 2004 21:07
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote
David Megginson wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 13:27
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Not exactly. They are both on the centerline, but the CofG of the lower,
smaller tank is slightly forward of the upper
Vivian Meazza wrote:
The gotcha is that the engine stops when either tank is empty,
rather than when there is no fuel in any tank. I can't see a
way around that without tinkering with the logic of
fuel.nas.
No, there's actually a feature for exactly this situation:
That said, the logic of
Andy Ross wrote:
But, since you only *have* one selectable tank, that's basically the
same thing; the engine is supposed to die when the bottom tank runs
out. Am I misunderstanding the problem?
I think he might want some sputtering for a couple of seconds. From reading
accident reports,
Andy Ross wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 18:05
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
The gotcha is that the engine stops when either tank is empty,
rather than when there is no fuel in any tank. I can't see a
way around
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I was thrown at first by the comment, but on further analysis the
logic is fine, but the code doesn't seem to work correctly. When the
top tank is empty the logic requires that, if kill-when-empty is not
set, for it to be simply deselected. This isn't working: the
David Megginson wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 18:34
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote:
But, since you only *have* one selectable tank, that's
basically the
same thing; the engine is supposed to die when
Andy Ross wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 22:20
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I was thrown at first by the comment, but on further analysis the
logic is fine, but the code doesn't seem to work correctly.
When
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power
and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto
switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation
experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power
and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto
switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation
experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm just working on the fuel gauge for the Spitfire, when I
ralised that I haven't modeled the fuel system correctly. At
present both tanks feed into the engine. What should happen is
that the upper tank feeds the lower tank which feeds the
engine. Is there any built-in
Andy Ross wrote
Sent: 25 July 2004 21:07
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm just working on the fuel gauge for the Spitfire, when I
ralised that I haven't modeled the fuel system correctly. At
present
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Sent: 23 July 2004 20:15
To: 'FlightGear developers discussions'
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Jim Wilson wrote:
Sent: 23 July 2004 16:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Very nice! Ok if I
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Sent: 24 July 2004 18:58
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Can't you make it so that the engine feeds off the upper tank before it
feeds
on the lower tank?
Regards,
Ampere
On July 24, 2004 01:42 pm
Very nice! Ok if I borrow the pilot dude for the p51 cockpit?
Now, should it come up running like the other A/C? My personal preference is
to not, but I think in the past folks have prefered aircraft already started.
FWIW (after release) I think a preset e.g. --auto-start that defaulted to
Jim Wilson wrote:
Sent: 23 July 2004 16:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Very nice! Ok if I borrow the pilot dude for the p51 cockpit?
Please do - but note that he's wearing RAF blue serge trousers (pants :-)),
and 1940's pattern life jacket (vest
41 matches
Mail list logo
