>
> > I would need:
> > CLtail = f(alpha_tail, delta_elevator)
> >
> > where alpha_tail = alpha_aircraft + horizontal_stab_angle - Epsilon
>
>
> src/jsbsim --aircraft=c172x --catalog
>
> The --catalog option will give you a list of all the properties that JSBSim
> defines and knows about. That is s
> I would need:
> CLtail = f(alpha_tail, delta_elevator)
>
> where alpha_tail = alpha_aircraft + horizontal_stab_angle - Epsilon
We should be able to do this.
> Some time ago I've been told that this can be done using the
> speedbrake property (indeed this is the way it is done in the 747
> ex
>
> No assumptions are made for the horizontal stabilizer, whether it is
> all-moving, or is fixed with a movable surface. There is only a deflection
> associated with the surface, and that is used to index into an aero table. I
> am not quite sure what you need, or what you are referring to here.
> Indeed, I was talking about two 2-D tables, "wrongly" guessing that
> JSBSim would interpolate the data in case, let's say, the current slat
> position is not any of the specific slat for which the tables are
> defined. Such an interpolation would be quite accurate, being better
There certainly
>
> We could probably use the existing code to do that interpolation between two
> or more tables. It would just be really ugly. In the case of DATOM+ output,
> I'd have to generate that ugly code automatically.
Well, it may be ugly and inaccurate, but for some cases the phisics
could probably be
> Indeed, I was talking about two 2-D tables, "wrongly"
> guessing that JSBSim would interpolate the data in case,
> let's say, the current slat position is not any of the
> specific slat for which the tables are defined. Such an
> interpolation would be quite accurate, being better the mor
See my comment after quotation...
> 2. I think what you are saying is:
>
>epsilon = f( alpha, flap, slat )
>
> I don't think that you were advocating using two 2-D table
>
>epsilon(slat=0) = f ( alpha, flap )
>epsilon(slat=20) = f ( alpha, flap )
>
> If you were, there wou
> On the topic of calculating downwash at the tail, and the
> effects thereof, rather than make a four dimensional table it
> might be better to think outside the box and consider
> alternative ways to do what you need.
I agree. That's why I brought it up in the first place, to see if anyon
On the topic of calculating downwash at the tail, and the effects thereof,
rather than make a four dimensional table it might be better to think
outside the box and consider alternative ways to do what you need. Modeling
ground effect is one example of that. It's a function that is calculated
outsi
> Quoting Fabian Grodek
> Now, regarding the 737 sample case, it should be checked
> which flaps-slats combinations are normally possible; it may
> be the case where let's say flaps 20 cannot come with
> retracted slats (if there is a problem with the slats
> deployment you are allowed to u
>
> Finally, one short question: why there is no dedicated horizontal
> stabilizer property available in JSBSim, and we need to use for this
> the speedbrake property? Just curious...
>
> Fabian
Are you talking about JSBSim, or DATCOM? I'm not sure I understand your
question. There is a property
First, thank you all for the direct answers to my question.
Now, regarding the 737 sample case, it should be checked which
flaps-slats combinations are normally possible; it may be the case
where let's say flaps 20 cannot come with retracted slats (if there is
a problem with the slats deployment y
> Jon Replies:
>
> I've been thinking about these issues for some time. I've
> actually considered just guessing. :-) I wonder how much
> data is too much data? It would be great to have this level
> of fidelity modeled.
>
> Jon
>
Don't know if anyone noticed, but the flaps are already
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jon S. Berndt
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 2:49 PM
> To: 'FlightGear developers discussions'
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Epsilon,alpha_tail and
&
> > We might actually be able to effectively do that, since we
> > could have multiple tables defined that create multipliers
> > that could be used later.
> >
> > Jon
>
> Well, that was going to be my initial approach, but it's a real pain to
> remove one dimension like that out of a 4-D table to
> > Any chance JSBSim could be expanded to do infinity number of
> > dimensions of tables (if it doesn't do it already)?
> >
> > Bill
>
> We might actually be able to effectively do that, since we
> could have multiple tables defined that create multipliers
> that could be used later.
>
>
> Any chance JSBSim could be expanded to do infinity number of dimensions
> of tables (if it doesn't do it already)?
>
> Bill
We might actually be able to effectively do that, since we could have
multiple tables defined that create multipliers that could be used later.
Jon
---
> > Jon Replies:
> >
> > I've been thinking about these issues for some time. I've
> > actually considered just guessing. :-) I wonder how much
> > data is too much data? It would be great to have this level
> > of fidelity modeled.
> >
> > Jon
>
> Any chance JSBSim could be expanded to do infini
>
> Jon Replies:
>
> I've been thinking about these issues for some time. I've
> actually considered just guessing. :-) I wonder how much
> data is too much data? It would be great to have this level
> of fidelity modeled.
>
> Jon
>
>
Any chance JSBSim could be expanded to do infini
Bill G. wrote:
Now, is this a little overkill? Maybe, since most trainers that I've seen
don't go into such details. It is possible to generate data for these cases,
and I think it would yield higher fidelity trainers than anything seen
before, simply because that kind of data hasn't been availabl
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon S.
Berndt
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 12:48 PM
To: 'FlightGear developers discussions'
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Epsilon,alpha_tail and independent tail
contributions
Fa
Fabian wrote:
Currently , as far as I understand, JSBSim does not support
the buildup of the aerodynamic characteristics by taking the wing-body alone
and adding the tail contribution. This is essential for example in
investigating an aircraft behaviour during ice c
Hi,
IIRC you can specify functions (e.g. tables) in JSBSim which are in a
first step completely unrelated to lift, drag, sideforce or any of the
moments. The files output by DATCOM+ do this for the ground effect by
establishing a table of additional coefficients based on the ratio of
height AGL an
Curerntly, as far as I understand, JSBSim does not support the buildup of
the aerodynamic characteristics by taking the wing-body alone and adding the
tail contribution. This is essential for example in investigating an
aircraft behaviour during ice contaminated tailplane stall, a "hot" subject
no
24 matches
Mail list logo
