Message-ID: <36959E4B.C4362E21@nospam.logan.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 00:57:31 -0500
From: Andy and Lucinda <crooow@nospam.logan.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Incorrect attitude in cruise- FS98, C182
References: <19990106065703.01156.00008420@ng-cc1.aol.com> <qb0vLKAQLSl2EwNW@dclf.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.51.152.198
Lines: 52
Path: news.jprc.com!newsfeed.sgi.net!feeder.qis.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.51.128.11!207.51.128.11!207.51.152.198
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.simulators:31093

David CL Francis wrote:

> In article <19990106065703.01156.00008420@ng-cc1.aol.com>, MCL757
> <mcl757@aol.com> writes
> >Attention!  This is for the Skylane pilot who talks about the Cessna having a
> >inaccurately high pitch in cruise...  I was adjusting my Hawker that is
> >currently in flight test, and I stumbled upon something in ADE98 that is very
> >helpful.  WING ANGLE!!!   Anyway, on the lear, which is what I started with for
> >my Hawker Flight Model, the wing angle is - 1.36 or so (yes, negative!!!)  This
> >hawker mushes really bad so I put in positive 10 degrees to see what would
> >happen... this thing cruises at a level attitude now and I can actually see to
> >land now with out panning my view.
>
> This is interesting but just what is the datum for wing angle? I do not
> understand how this change could cure 'mushing' but what are the
> symptoms of 'mushing' anyway?
> >
> >Then I thought of the problems with th Cessna and off I went...   the Wing
> >Angle on the Cessna was negative 3.62!!!  I adjusted it a little, and now at
> >positive 7.0 this thing cruises around in a level attitude.  Why didn't someone
> >mention this before?  Is there something inaccurate about tweaking the Wing
> >Angle numbers?
> >
> A change of 10.62 (3.62 + 7) degrees in wing angle (if it represents
> something like the rigged angle of incidence) is huge. If you have
> changed the datum position of the wing relative to the fuselage and
> nothing else, then the aircraft should be wildly out of trim. If the
> trim has been changed to match then you have produced an effect like
> that on the old british Whitley Bomber of the early part of WW2. That
> had the wing incidence set very high relative to the fuselage and flew
> along in a strange nose down attitude. It meant that hardly any rotation
> was required to lift off from the ground! What changes do these produce
> if you look at an outside view from the side of these modified aircraft
> in flight.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Francis      E-Mail reply to <flight@dclf.demon.co.uk>
> -----------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Fancis.

There is only so much you can do with a bad flight model to begin with.  I've
regularly used the wing angle to change the "visual" cruise position, so that the
aircraft appears to be flying ON it's wing and not hangig from the prop, but look
elsewhere to "tweak" the aircraft flight performance.

Andy
--
...Remove "nospam" from address to reply...


