Yes!
> -Original Message-
> From: dave perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:21 PM
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
>
> Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > The JSBSim
gt; Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:16 PM
>> To: FlightGear developers discussions
>> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had today a closer look into this issue.
>>
>> I got a drawing of the OM of a c172 whi
eiko Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:16 PM
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
>
> Hi,
>
> I had today a closer look into this issue.
>
> I got a drawing of the
Hi,
I had today a closer look into this issue.
I got a drawing of the OM of a c172 which shows the the pitch angle with
compressed nose gear.
I tried to rotate the model but then I found something which shows me that the
problem lies on the fdm: at cruise speed about 100kias I got a pitch abou
On Monday 08 December 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, LeeE wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 December 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> > > On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> > > > On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> > > > > gerard robin wrote:
> > > > > >
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, LeeE wrote:
> On Saturday 06 December 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> > On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> > > On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> > > > gerard robin wrote:
> > > > > With the c172p i have included the following:
> > > >
> >
Hi,
I don't understand what going on here!
First:
I used the .pdf for the c172 which could be found some months ago on the
official homepage of Cessna. Unfortunately they changed their hoempage, the PDF
I used can't be found anymore.
The PDF showed the aircraft on the ground, so I used that as
On Saturday 06 December 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> > On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> > > gerard robin wrote:
> > > > With the c172p i have included the following:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > To me that is perfect, [...]
> >
On 12/07/2008 03:50 AM, Martin Spott wrote in part:
> it really
> makes me wonder why you insist on going with the "facts"
What, me, facts? It's just one of my little quirks.
> it really
> makes me wonder why you insist on going with the "facts" even though
> you were unable to provide any,
In aviation maintenance, "level" is flat.
When you weigh an aircraft to determine empty CG, for instance, it is
placed on jacks and leveled--both along the X-axis and along the Y-axis
as well. However when an aircraft such as the 172 is sitting (empty) on
a ramp, the "pitch attitude" is determine
John Denker wrote:
> On 12/06/2008 04:02 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> > In a case like this one I prefer the 'pragmatic' approach of reading a
> > manual (if available), determining what its authors consider as being
> > "at level" (if they do in some way) and finally to evaluate if we're
> > able to
On 12/06/2008 04:02 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> In a case like this one I prefer the 'pragmatic' approach of reading a
> manual (if available), determining what its authors consider as being
> "at level" (if they do in some way) and finally to evaluate if we're
> able to make use of it.
> It doesn't
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> > gerard robin wrote:
> > > With the c172p i have included the following:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > To me that is perfect, [...]
> >
> > This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even th
John Denker wrote:
> On 12/06/2008 03:25 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> > This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
> > have "original" drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us has
> > authoritative information at his hands how it is supposed to be
> > properly pos
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> gerard robin wrote:
> > With the c172p i have included the following:
>
> [...]
>
> > To me that is perfect, [...]
>
> This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
> have "original" drawings of the entire airframe, still n
On 12/06/2008 03:25 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
> have "original" drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us has
> authoritative information at his hands how it is supposed to be
> properly positioned 'at level'. This is t
gerard robin wrote:
> With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
> To me that is perfect, [...]
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have "original" drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us has
authoritative information at his hands how it is s
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> Heiko Schulz wrote:
> > Well- like I said it yet- OI used original drawings and they showed
> > her on the ground. So the rotation is not much...
>
> Apparently the the term "original drawings" is not sufficently precise
> in this context. The POH f
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Well- like I said it yet- OI used original drawings and they showed
> her on the ground. So the rotation is not much...
Apparently the the term "original drawings" is not sufficently precise
in this context. The POH for example has accurate drawings, but these
imply a terrai
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> > On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> > > On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
> > > > dave perry wrote:
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > > Would
We really want to make sure that the visual model is correctly aligned with
the dynamics model. Then if the 3d model isn't sitting correctly at rest on
the ground, it could be that the gear lengths aren't set properly in the 3d
model compared to the dynamics model, or visa versa. If everything is
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> > On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
> > > dave perry wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > > Would it not be more realistic to rotate the 3D model about -3 or -4
> > >
>
> However i noticed that with the actual position the model
> has the nose gear up
> above the ground.
> An offset of -2 deg would be nice
>
> c172p.ac
>
> -0
>
>
>
> >
> > Dave P.
>
Cave: the nose gear animation (compression-gear) isn't right yet.
But th
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
> > dave perry wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > Would it not be more realistic to rotate the 3D model about -3 or -4
> > > degrees about the ac3d z-axis.
> >
> > I did not make myself clea
On vendredi 05 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
> dave perry wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> snip
>
> > Would it not be more realistic to rotate the 3D model about -3 or -4
> > degrees about the ac3d z-axis.
>
> I did not make myself clear in the initial questiion. The video link
> only detracted from my p
...
>
> Making this change will be a lot of work since the panel
> will be messed up. I know because I made a similar rigid
> rotation correction about a month after I first submitted
> the pa24-250.
>
> Dave P.
>
If this is really necessary, I wonder if is not enough to rotate the model in
dave perry wrote:
Hi All,
snip
Would it not be more realistic to rotate the 3D model about -3 or -4
degrees about the ac3d z-axis.
I did not make myself clear in the initial questiion. The video link
only detracted from my point. The model in the .ac file is just a rigid
body that g
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
> - With a 'properly' (TM) inflated front wheel damper, the C172 has the
> tendency of having its tail surprisingly low when standing on the
> ground at a common configuration: Max fuel capacity, one pilot (of
> approx. 80 kg) and some uti
Dave, Heiko,
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> > Notice that in the video
> > 1. the tail is higher in cruise than what we have in fgfs for the new
> > model.
> > 2. the nose wheel is below the main wheels in cruise.
> > 3. in fgfs, the tail cone is presently below ground at touch down.
[...]
> I wait fo
On mardi 02 décembre 2008, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> > The answer is that the flight dynamics is unrealistic, and
> > has
> > been for years. Redrawing the aircraft won't help much
> > (if any).
> > -- The lift curve is unrealistic, which explains the
> > observations
> > that started this thread.
> The answer is that the flight dynamics is unrealistic, and
> has
> been for years. Redrawing the aircraft won't help much
> (if any).
> -- The lift curve is unrealistic, which explains the
> observations
> that started this thread.
> -- The drag curve is unrealistic, which explains the
> u
> Agreed, that's the right question.
>
> The answer is that the flight dynamics is unrealistic, and has
> been for years. Redrawing the aircraft won't help much (if any).
> -- The lift curve is unrealistic, which explains the observations
> that started this thread.
> -- The drag curve is unr
On 12/01/2008 07:52 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> One should look at the angle of attack value at cruise and see if it's as
> expected.
True.
> The question seems to be whether the flight dynamics is wrong, or
> whether then aircraft is drawn right.
Agreed, that's the right question.
The answer i
y, December 01, 2008 7:48 PM
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question
>
> Heiko Schulz wrote:
> > I didn't notice something with the cone at landing- landing speed
> should be around 55-60 kias.
> >
>
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> I didn't notice something with the cone at landing- landing speed should be
> around 55-60 kias.
>
> The only thing I aware of is the empty weight seems to be a bit low (1500 in
> fdm against 1642)
>
It does seem easy to sink the tail cone into the ground if you have mu
Hi,
> Hi All,
>
> As we approach a new release, here is a suggestion that I
> think would
> increase the realism of our default AC. I really like the
> new c172p 3D
> model.
>
> But it seems to me that the model cruise pitch is too nose
> high. Here
> is an interesting video link of a real
On mardi 02 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As we approach a new release, here is a suggestion that I think would
> increase the realism of our default AC. I really like the new c172p 3D
> model.
>
> But it seems to me that the model cruise pitch is too nose high. Here
> is an inte
Hi All,
As we approach a new release, here is a suggestion that I think would
increase the realism of our default AC. I really like the new c172p 3D
model.
But it seems to me that the model cruise pitch is too nose high. Here
is an interesting video link of a real c172 in flight.
http://w
38 matches
Mail list logo
