Page 1 of 1

Physic question

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:56 pm
by bomber
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 2bf60c4369

Only V12 gives a thoughtful response..... And do any of the others actually flight model ? Tinkering with a few values isn't flight modelling.

Re: Physic question

Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:10 am
by IAHM-COL
Image

Re: Physic question

Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:14 am
by bomber
The problems caused by this type of 'rah rah rah'..... 'how dare you say this' response is that there's never an honest conversation about moving flight modeling forward. To my mind flight modeling is stuck in the 70's using techniques that were all very well is understanding the basic stability of the plane and to enable the test pilot to feel confident about stepping into the plane, but surely we want more than that from our flight models ?
Also people confuse 'system' with the flight model. The auto-pilot, fuel, hydraulics and avionics systems etc augment the flight model and so add a richness to the plane but they're not the flight model. So putting forward an airliner as an example of a good flight model says volumes about peoples understanding of flight modeling. I had many conversations with Hvengel about his P51 and although he was happy with it, he was disappointed that he couldn't simply transfer it to other planes. He'd learnt a lot, gained many techniques along the way yet was unable to use it on other planes.