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/
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 co
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
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 be
paul mccann writes:
> 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.
Thanks for the feedback. I may rearrange the co
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
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 mai
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 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
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:12:33 -0800 (PST)
Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that FlightGear will work best if we make a clean separation
between the physics engine (FDM) and higher-level logic like
autopilots and navigational systems.
I
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
--- 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
> re
--- 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
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 feature
Jon S Berndt writes:
> Perhaps, but it's different for each type of aircraft.
> This is exactly the functionality that would be built into
> JSBSim, given our versatile FCS arrangement. I don't view
> this as an autopilot kind of feature, but stability
> augmentation. The X-15 has this ki
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 wou
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:51:52 -0500
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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)
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 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 t
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
> 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 t
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 l
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.
> Cmalpha for pitch and Cnbeta for yaw are good candidates for tweaking
> too.
Tony:
Did any pages from that tech report I lent you survive the dog mauling?
That report should have some good data on an analogous twin.
Jon
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
> 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
Tony Peden 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.
>
> Cmalpha for pitch and Cnbeta for yaw are good candidates for tweaking
> too.
Agreed -- Cma
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 19:04, 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 th
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 ther
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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 s
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.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/
___
Flightgear-dev
30 matches
Mail list logo
