If you send me the sensor unit 3D outline, I can design stuff, and then send them back to you.
Like rudder pedals? (not for spit, but it may not be that different, I can even design these if I have some info)
Is there a way with the maghall to have 360, like for example trim wheels?
Any progress on these standard sensor modules?
I'm thinking 90deg rotation module, and then mechanically we can add spring and damper as needed (also in modular form maybe), in particular two configs:
Center with spring return so -45,0,+45 typical for joystick, rudder, etc..
Center with no spring, for helo cyclic
0-90 for throttles, flaps, wheels, etc..
Well, 2 doctors in physics and a university degree in aerospace engineering counts a lot for accuracy.
I'll be interested as well, at least to follow the conversation. Perhaps I learn to avoid my rc models from crashing
I'm more of the former, certainly not a magician. I haven't yet been able to avoid my models from crashing, yet.
And since I fly on a cliff, I use good shoes and climbing gear to rappel down when necessary.
Although I'll tell you of a humbling story. This WE we have this kid that is really good flyer, and mostly an artist, he shows up at the bluff (slope flying) with a "plane" of his design. Zero notion of physics, the plane is a triangle of flat foam, with elevons. The two outside points of the triangle are on servos and he can bring them up (like vertical stabilizer) or bring them down (making the triangle plate a flat triangle plate).
I ask about CG, his answer, "hmm I don't know about CG I just put it somewhere and felt the plane is not pitching much", so no calculation of any kind, or concept for that matter.
My bet was the plane would tumble down the cliff. First, sloping a delta wing is typically never a good experience (I've heard and tried personally), then kind of arbitrary CG, no airfoil whatsoever, the result would be entertaining, but not as expected.
So maiden flight we're ready for anything, and the thing FLEW! and was controllable, a little bit of rolling oscillations in certain extreme attitudes, but nothing crazy. Then he puts the tips down (vert stabilizer) and he still could turn and control.
That is just incredible, oh and the "plane" flew with a nose down attitude too (about 10deg), the opposite of what I would have thought, especially for a flat plank.
Over the years, and having been a test engineer, I've know better than to always solely rely on theory and this is another proof of it, but still it's humbling. Knowing theory is great, but we've got to remain humble, reminded again.
I cannot yet explain why or how, maybe I'll dig into it. Or maybe we can check how accurate the physics are in Aerofly RC 8 (RC version of FS2) , but I don't have that one.
Oh and his hope by dropping the V stab down is to be able to perform a flat spin. That was just no way, he had another weird contraption before that he was hoping for the same (that looked a bit more like a conventional airplane), he is just too far from understanding basic physics for that to work the way he pictures it, but who knows maybe he'll figure out something (although it's a very complex problem, pure yaw rotation in flight).
I've seen the LE fish do pure pitch rotation (with madstab) but even that is not what people really think is happening.
They think 'I put the stab at 90 vertical and so normal the plane is flipping' (like the loop is getting tighter, to the point of pitch roll), well it's not that simple since all forward momentum is lost. Iv'e thought and analyze that one for a while and my suspicion is that they're just evolving the regime of a machine from a regular forward flight (airplane) to a vertical axis wind turbine configuration, and that config if done wrong (stab axis lower on WL) it may not work. Theory not tested yet.
But that again was thinking outside the box by people that thought one way (one logic) and obtained the result even though it works a different way.
Back to work on hanggliders, I found some interesting stuff for those interested.
That too is a more complex problem that it looks at first. Working on airfoils for now, then CG. The hope is to get decent flight from one model, then we can make all kind of different one.
Anyway we'll carry on here for now, thanks for the interest.
I do ask myself why I do these updates, well it's to show just how much work and time these things take, so next time we ask for this and that aircraft please give some thought for the poor designer and the months and months of work
Yep, that's the spirit. I can't yet imagine the amount of time spent on developing an entire aircraft, but I've seen the incredible amount of work spent by an entire team (Apollo or Hawaii) to do just scenery, and it's always a lot more than people imagine.
"Oh why don't they do ...." well that simple thing is easily 8 hours and more. I know I've easily spent 2 digits hours developing a single building volume, and then the same amount is spent to texture, convert, position.
I'm slowly getting into aircraft devt, and so far I've already spent close to 20 hours on it and nothing to show for it but a little bit of fundamental research (data, type, etc..)
We do this because we love it, we offer it for free because we want to and can, but it certainly doesn't mean that it's just a Sunday cruise.
Yet people will always ask. There are people that recognize and are sometimes (mostly?) silent out of humility, and then there are people that are just gimme, gimme. It is what it is, and we have to try to not let that stop us.
The most difficult is when people ask for things that are obvious to us (but not done for whatever reason, or not YET done), but they think they have such a great insight as they looked at the product for 10mn.
That's the nature of the beast!
So thanks Steve, Jan, and all others at IPACS and every person that contributes or ever contributed.
If this is too boring or off-topic to other folks here, maybe we can continue in a private conversation for hanggliders. People will let us know if they want to join.
By definition the stall occurs when the flow separates from the airfoil, which happens at a given angle of attack, not airspeed. I wish this was forever deleted from all of the aviation books ever written. Stall does not happen because of low speed. You can comfortably fly at zero speed as long as you follow the path of a thrown rock You need speed to maintain altitude, not to prevent a stall.
Well yes, agreed, hence Concorde stalls its wings at landing (significant IAS, high AOA), and the sukhoi can do cobra (again super high AOA, some IAS. Got it.
And yes it's the mass that matters, I used the real plane/RC plane analogy to make it more visual. I get it that the same RC plane made of balsa and or aluminium will have different stall behavior.
I also get Reynolds and Mach, viscosity.
The question was more is it modeled accurately in FS2, the answer I gather from your reply is yes, because you modeled real physics throughout, mass, aero forces, even "flexibility", which is usually complex structure calculation. I haven't dug into tmd yet, but so you have spring/damper constants (Young modulus,... and damping factors) modeled? Probably using the same for the whole rigidbody too (no detail of frame versus skin, etc..). WOW color me impressed nonetheless.Quote
The real world airfoil show a near linear range between the start of the negative stall and the beginning of the positive stall. That delta angle is the attached range. The middle is the attached center.
Above that angle the stall is slowly introduced throughout the stall range angle. Stall range small = aggressive stall, sudden decrease in lift coefficient as you increase AOA. Stall range high = very soft stall, lift coefficient may continue to rise for quite some time after the first bit of separation at the trailing edge.
OK got it. So:
1) -attached range is AOA of negative AO for maximum negative lift
2) +attached range is AOA for maximum positive lift
3) attached center is the offset, which for symetrical airfoil would be 0, in all other cases it really defines the asymmetry of the particular airfoil shape beyond the necessary simplification that Cl/AOA is linear in between.
4) stallrange parameter essentially defines/models the derivative of the Cl/AOA line after the maximum Cl point.
That last sentence (lift coefficient may continue to rise for quite some time after the first bit of separation at the trailing edge.) however confuses me a bit. maybe you didn't simplify that attachedrange point to max Cl/AOA, but rather more like in reality it is defined when the separation point becomes different than TE. Thus indeed we could reach Cl maximum AFTER theoretical stall (or beginning of stall, separation point not being on TE). Never the case if we assume stall starts at max Cl (which is not the case IRL I know, but close enough)
Then to determine attachedrange AOA I would need to read the Cl/x/c separation curve for particular airfoils and translate into AOA, not just use the Cl/AOA curve?
Jan, I've started working with Antoine on the subject. There is definitely some answers to the problem, airfoil is one of them, and dynamic stability the other (positions of CGs and so on).
I was reading the airfoil wiki and there are small issues, which threw me off for a second, especially working on hanglider which may have inflatable airfoils and thus a "chamber". How can I contact you to change them?
For example it says "chamber" when it means camber (AOA paragraph, CL0 first paragraph, Cmalpha first paragraph,...)
And since you mention model planes, how did you guys factor in the influence of mass (inertia really) towards the stall behavior, if you did?
Let me get into somewhat technical details: stall characteristics of an airfoil is typically studied in a wind tunnel, this is however limiting and theoretical and overly simplifying (which his actually good). Among others it makes the assumption that stalled flight is stable (continuous flying attitude in a stalled AOA).
In reality if I use the same airfoil (thus same stalling "coefficient" and parameters (from the wind tunnel)) on a very light airplane (think balsa model) and a heavy plane (think real plane) the stall behavior will be significantly different.
The light model will essentially never stall (dynamic stall) as there is never enough inertia to "stall" the wing , the plane will rotate and react. The only stall will come from lack of speed, thus lift, not from excessive AOA ( where the plane will react and change trajectory instead).
On a heavy plane the wing will dynamically stall because the forces induced by "excessive" AOA are not sufficient to modify significantly (or enough) the trajectory to prevent stall.
Thus Concorde could land, planes can do cobra maneuvers and so on.
From the wiki It seems that maybe the modelization doesn't take this into consideration, as it relies on the pure fixed parameters (Cm, Cl0, attached range), or does it?
Is that why the parameter "attached center" is used? Which BTW I don't understand what it is and does from the wiki description. "assymetric" from what? Where is the separation point symmetric to anything?
I assume the "attached range" is to "decide" stall.
It is the AOA at which Cl decreases significantly, or is it the maximum point for Cl/AOA?
In the intro there is a mention of a "stallrange" parameter, but no other info on it, anything?
This leads me to believe that the physics model considers "stall" when AOA reaches "+attachedrange". If the forces of flight and dynamics are used (which I'm sure they are) then maybe that could take care of inertia, unless airfoil and flight dynamics is not modeled beyond "stall" point.
I'd still be very curious to see a real concorde in FS2 and a model one in FS2 or aerofly RC, or a sukhoi doing cobra.
Anyway I hope you're interested and have some time for this, if not, that's OK too, I'll figure it out.
OK guys, Ive been wanting to get into aircraft devt, not yet possible (not the right hardware), etc..)
However in the mean time if I can help, I will gladly do so.
I know about aircraft dynamics, physics, and so on, so in that sense maybe I can give some help short of having experience developing my own aircraft. I don't know about TMD stuff yet.
Oh and I can do 3D modeling in Sketchup if needed (already do that for scenery), but I can't convert to FS2.
Great graphics so far Antoine.
For the hanglider (and I've never flown one) I imagine if the physics are real (which they reportedly are) then joystick control of pilot moving left and right, extending arms forward or not, and gear control of him standing and extending his leg (into the bag or whatever they use) would do the whole job from a physics standpoint, the "plane" would react properly automatically (with real physics). Like Jan said, 2 rotations (lateral and longitudinal), with center at pilot "hanging" point" . Interestingly, that point may or may not be the CG of "empty of pilot" hanglider. It could be the same point although a different point could be used to create some static margin (stability), I'm curious.
Even the legs hanging or extending could automatically take into account induced drag, just like gears.
Then all it needs after that is a graphic "animation" of a pilot body, if desired, to coincide with the physics.
I don't know if livery could include weight change in FS2, probably not, then even pilot weight and size could be considered. Alternatively creating three models with three graphics (small, med and large persons) and three respective weight files would do the trick too.
There may be one issue of dynamic stability (I'm not sure how stability is achieved on handgliders, most likely reflexed airfoils, and/or direct CG feedback), but that can be worked on (short of using an invisible tail)
I also don't know how FS2 implements different wing shapes/airfoils, etc for flight dynamics, but it can be started simple (Cessna airfoil for example) and then evolve from there to simulate the corrections needed once the FS2 action/reaction principles are understood.
I don't believe a hanglider has evolving airfoils (like a paraglider) so that probably makes it simpler so far. Not sure how FS2 could handle wing warping (paraglider, early aircrafts, transient effect of wing loading and structural reaction) or wingerons, but that is a problem for another day.
Et si vous avez besoin de ca en Francais pour etre plus clair si l'Anglais pose probleme , pas de problemes non plus.
PS, my short list of aircraft I want to do:
- F86 Sabre
Well you and I wish!
The USS Iowa is 3D because we got generous benefactors that made it an extra contribution that we can install. You can also install some autogen for Los Angeles, other than that there is not much for Los Angeles unfortunately at this point (Downtown exists in the sim and maybe a few other places around, and I believe all airports are there (can't remember if Hawthorne is there, Van Nuys?))
So, what we'd need is a team project to develop the whole area, especially the whole harbor with bridges, cranes, ships, containers, etc.. It's a BIG job
There are tons of iconic places we could do.
We do have 4 sim stations as part of the exhibit on the Iowa, so it would be great enhancement (that and having the aircrafts related to the museum A HUP helicopter, and a Kingfisher airplane). At some point I was hoping to gather a team or create one (get some volunteers to learn how to do it) to do just that. Unfortunately for now because of COVID the sim stations are not available temporarily, so maybe one day.
Just pure genius.
Phil, great stuff!
1- For the museum we have a few flying stations. I tried to create stuff like this, but it's a long story (need real industrial strength). I have however created a few designs and prototypes (helicopter, and such). I'm really interested in the control box as this is the part that is challenging my expertise (I'm a mech engineer)
2- I'm having fun creating stuff like this, so if you need help, chime in. Mostly interested in developping the fighter jets and fighter planes versions.
3- I can create anything in Sketchup as you know. Can be 3D printed and/or imported into F360. F360 is next anyway.
4- For example, here is a heli version of collective control designed around electrical conduit and boxes (faster than 3D printing when available). Never went further because lack of time and dove into research on control box and sensors. Then I found a professional unit cheaper, faster, and sturdy for sure for our application. But we could evolve the concept.
This one had collective, Throttle, and as many buttons and switches as necessary (box on the left, at tip of stick).
Can be made to any length, with springs and rotary damper if needed.
Anyone that want to help with development we'll add you to the separate (private) conversation so as not to bog this one down. Make yourselves known.
Yes, yes, yes! Hoping.
The best I found so far, and I'm not even sure it is the checkerboard:
Checkerboard Hill, see mid right quadrant the little orange square (5:25)
Interestingly it seems that the runway lights would have been set on the circle approach too, but it's really hard to tell (5:42 - 6:27 left side / bottom quadrant)
Colin, you're the best!
I can help with 3D design as you know and feel free to ask if you need, but I don't know how to night texture or frankly how to do anything else including conversion. But I''m sure you can ask someone on the team.
How much of HK exists? Who designed it? Is it all autogen only? Maybe we can make it a group small project (although as you know they always start small and expand quickly, Macao would hardly escape this one I think for example).
Is there an option (or two folders) for if one wants HK today or HK in the 80s? I can try to find docs, I know for a fact (and I'm sure you do too) that the waterfront is significantly different (not even at the same place) and of course that's the essence of having Kai Tak or Chek Lap Kok.
Oh I so miss the old 1980s Hong Kong, all of it.
Don't forget the essential landmark for landing there (see bottom left quadrant of the pict), checkerboard hill.
It also was lit up at night.
Fun stuff, landing jumbo jets like fighter aircrafts.
More info (not talking about me here). Lots of great info and anecdotes in the comments of the video.Quote
I was a tower controller in this era at Kai Tak. The ILS was based at the checkerboard and called an IGS (instrument guidance system). When you got to minimums on the ILS, you either turned and landed if you had the runway in sight, or you turned and started a go around if not visual. Not turning was not an option! Due to the crazy weather in the harbour, landings turned into go arounds often. Cathay Pacific pilots always made this landing look easy because they developed the habit of moving left off the ILS when they were visual and then had more space to do the turn.