Originally created by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
Originally owned by: stuar... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
*What steps will reproduce the problem?*
The Piper J-3 Cub included as part of the base package in release 2.4.0 has unrealistically good performance in some respects. This isn't unique to 2.4.0, but probably goes back far earlier. (I vaguely recall observing it a few years ago, but never dug into the matter.)
One example of this is to see how high up the Cub model can maintain level flight. To test this, I used a Cub with 180 lb pilot and full 12 gallons of fuel, giving it a gross weight of 932 lb, corresponding to flying it solo with no baggage. I turned fuel-freeze on so I didn't have to worry about fuel being burned off. The Cub was flying at full throttle with two custom autopilot modules running. One of these maintained wings level using ailerons; the other maintained vertical speed of 0 by controlling pitch, which in turn was controlled via elevator.
Then I simply set increasing values of the altitude-ft property and waited for the aircraft to restabilize itself. As I did so, I adjusted the mixture control to get maximum RPM from the engine. (This is actually another accuracy problem, since real Piper J-3 Cubs did not have a mixture control.)
I actually managed to keep the aircraft flying up to 36,000 feet! (Yes, that's thirty-six thousand feet.) At that height the mixture setting was down to 0.24, and the engine was producing only 17.5 horsepower (27% power). Indicated airspeed (the airspeed-kt property) was 33.2 knots, and pitch was about 5.6 degrees nose-up. Of course, the aircraft was near the limits of controllability at this point; further attempts to fly even higher or to maintain any substantial climb would apparently produce a stall.
But real Piper Cubs have a far lower ceiling. The model Cub is supposed to be a J3C-65, a 65 hp Continental-powered version (according to a comment in the XML), and most sources give a service ceiling for that version of 11,500 to 12,000 feet. Piper's own 1945 booklet "How to Fly a Piper Cub" gives an *absolute* ceiling of 14,000 feet for the 65 hp Cub Trainer (same as the J3C-65) when flown solo.
(Granted, there are reports of people setting altitude records in Piper Cubs, but those seem to have been with more powerful Super Cubs and were obviously exceptional occurrences.)
Another example: climb rate. The same Piper document mentioned above gives the climb rate (presumably the initial sea-level climb rate) of a fully loaded 65 hp Cub as 450 feet per minute. Other sources agree. However, setting the model Cub as described above (which admittedly means reduced weight of 932 lb) at full throttle, with mixture set to 0.77 for maximum power at 50 feet, and then maintaining a vertical speed of 10 feet per second (600 feet per minute), I found it could maintain this climb rate up to over 10,000 feet, without even adjusting the mixture setting. Needless to say, 600 feet per minute up to past 10,000 feet is no longer an "initial climb".
Clearly the model Cub is far more efficient than the real airplane.
I'm going to submit this bug report now, but I don't intend to leave it at that; I do plan to add more information and discussion.
*Any output in the console (black window)?*
Only the normal output.
*What FlightGear version are you using (when using GIT version, please
mention date)?*
Release 2.4.0.
*What operating system and graphics card?*
Windows XP SP3, NVIDIA GeForce Go 6100
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
I believe the model Cub's unrealistic performance is due to problems in its FDM specification, rather than problems with YAsim.
Looking through this specification, several things stand out. The most obvious of these is the approach specification:
<approach speed="20" aoa="15">
<control-setting axis="/controls/engines/engine[0]/throttle" value="0.5"/>
<control-setting axis="/controls/engines/engine[0]/mixture" value="1.0"/>
</approach>
This specifies an approach of 20 knots at a 15-degree angle of attack, with throttle 0.5 and mixture 1.0.
This approach speed is impossibly low. 20 knots (23 mph) is far below the Cub's stall speed, let alone its actual approach speed.
Incidentally, altitude and glide angle are not specified. While these specifications are not mentioned in the YAsim readme, they are supported by YAsim.
I've consulted several references, and I think a more reasonable specification might be speed 52 knots (60 mph), glide angle 6.34 degrees (9-to-1 glide ratio), angle of attack 8 deg or a little more. I'm most uncertain about the angle of attack, since I haven't seen it specified directly. I'm just using the sum of the glide angle and the wing's angle of incidence (1.8 degrees), but this assumes a level attitude. Since the actual glide is probably slightly nose-up, you might want to add a little bit to that.
I also think this configuration should be specified for full gross weight, if possible, since that's what the Army L-4 references specify for the approach speed. If this is not possible, then perhaps the configuration could be adjusted to give the right results at full gross weight.
Here are the references I've consulted. I've placed most credence in the Army L-4 manuals. From a flying standpoint the L-4 is practically identical to the Cub, differing only in its empty weight due to added equipment. In particular, the L-4A, L-4B, and L-4H, and the Navy NE-1, are the same as the Cub J3C-65 (65 hp Continental engine). (There is also the L-4J and NE-2, but those have an adjustable-pitch propeller and thus are not quite as applicable.)
The U.S. Army 1942 flight manual can be found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55896180/1943-T-O-No-01-140DA-1-Pilot-s-Flight-Instructions-L-4A-and-L-4B-Airplanes
The other documents can be found at j3-cub.com, specifically:
http://www.j3-cub.com/doc/doc/l4_doc.html (for Army L-4)
http://www.j3-cub.com/doc/doc/ne1_doc.html (for Navy NE-1)
http://www.j3-cub.com/doc/doc/j3_doc.html (for civilian J-3)
These are Scribd documents, which means you need Flash to read them. Although the embedded forms on j3-cub.com are small, you can view any of the documents in fullscreen mode. Direct links to the Scribd pages for the j3-cub.com documents don't seem to be allowed.
U.S. Army 1942 L-4A/L-4B flight manual:
stall speed, 38 mph
glide ratio: 9:1
approach speed: 60 mph
p. 7, "The stalling speed fully loaded is 38 mph, and the gliding ratio
of nine to one indicates that the airplanes have a flat, slow glide."
p. 11, "Glide at 60 mph. ... The slow glide ratio is nine to one."
p. 17, Take-Off, Climb & Landing Chart, also gives a best approach I.A.S.
of 60 (mph) at a gross weight of 1160 lb.
U.S. Army 1943 L-4A/L-4B/L-4H flight manual:
stall speed, 37.5 mph
approach speed: 60 mph
p. 9, "The full load stalling speed is approximately 37.5 mph."
p. 11, "Glide at 60 mph; throttle slightly 'ON.'"
p. 19, Take-Off, Climb & Landing Chart, also gives a best approach I.A.S.
of 60 (mph) at gross weights of 1170 and 1220 lb.
U.S. Navy 1942 NE-1 pilot's handbook:
stall speed, 38 mph
approach speed: 55 mph (this may be just before flare)
p. 3, "Stalling Speed at Sea Level--Power Off: 38 MPH"
p. 12, "Airspeed should be reduced to approximately 55 MPH."
Piper's 1946 Cub Special J3C-65 pilot's handbook:
stall speed, 38 mph
approach speed, 50-60 mph: "Glide between 50-60 M.P.H. depending on
loading of airplane and gust conditions."
Piper's 1945 "How to Fly a Piper Cub":
landing speed, 38 mph
glide ratio, 10:1
Incidentally, I got the wing incidence angle mentioned above from p. 22 (page 23 in the PDF) of NACA Technical Note 1573, "Flight Measurements of the Flying Qualities of Five Light Airplanes", available at:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930082385_1993082385.pdf
This report might be a very useful aid to someone refining the flight model. It doesn't include performance figures or tests, but it has results for a number of stability and control tests, as well as some detailed specifications for wing form and control surface dimensions. The planes in it are anonymized rather than being identified by name; the Piper J-3 Cub is "Airplane 3". (The other planes could presumably be identified from their schematics, photos, and specs.) This Cub is a 50-hp version, but apart from power, it appears to be identical to other J-3 models. (Although the report was published in 1948, the tests performed were done in 1939-40, which constrains the date for the airplanes tested.)
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
Just for laughs, I decided to see if I could get the model Cub to achieve flight conditions close to those in the current approach specification. I managed it, with throttle 0.5 and mixture 1.0 (as specified), at 1865 rpm with 28.5 hp (43.8% power), for altitudes of around several hundred feet. But this was in a 200 fpm *climb* with 19.7 degrees pitch up and elevator -0.28. Alpha was 14.8 degrees, airspeed was 22.1 kt. Fuel was frozen at about 1 gallon to reduce weight in front; otherwise the elevator lacked authority to maintain the required upward pitch.
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
I already mentioned NACA Technical Note 1573 above as a potential aid for someone refining the Cub flight model. While looking for further information, I came across another NACA report on the Cub, NACA Technical Note 1203, "A Flight Investigation to Increase the Safety of a Light Airplane":
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930081862_1993081862.pdf
Although published earlier, this appears to actually be a follow-on to the study described in NACA TN 1573. Although not identified by name, the aircraft is clearly a Cub, apparently the same 50 hp one described in TN 1573. The study is about modifying the Cub to improve its safety, but the report also includes more discussion about the configuration and behavior of the original, unmodified Cub, so I thought I should mention it here.
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
OK, next, the engine/propeller performance specs, some of which need fixing. In the 2.4.0 Cub model, these are defined within the propeller section as:
cruise-speed="70" cruise-rpm="2150"
cruise-alt="8000" cruise-power="49"
takeoff-power="55" takeoff-rpm="2300"
eng-power="65" eng-rpm="2500"
and there's a comment "Assume 75% power at 8000ft". In current git, a recent change has moved the eng-power and eng-rpm properties to a new piston-engine subsection as follows:
<!-- Franklin 4AC-176 of 65hp -->
<piston-engine eng-power="65" eng-rpm="2300" displacement="198.6" compression="6"/>
eng-rpm has changed to 2300, and displacement and compression are added. Also the file's header comment now reads:
"YASim aerodynamic model for a Piper J3C-65 with Franklin 4AC-176."
However, the cruise and takeoff power specs are unchanged.
Before I mention specs that need fixing, I want to discuss Cub engines a bit and comment on this latest change. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I think choosing to base the engine spec on the Franklin engine unnecessarily confuses matters. The model's description string reads "Piper J3 Cub (J3C-65, 1946 model)", and the new comment still identifies the model as a J3C-65. But a J3C-65, by definition, has a Continental A-65 engine--the "C" stands for "Continental". A Cub with a 65 hp Franklin is a J3F-65, and one with a 65 hp Lycoming is a J3L-65. The engines are different enough that the three types have separate Type Certificate Data Sheets.
Now, we could decide that the model is now a J3F-65, but the 3D model clearly has "Continental" inscribed on its cylinder heads. :) And from a flight modeling perspective, it seems that the Continental versions were much more numerous and that performance information for them will be easier to find, particularly since the main Army and Navy versions (L-4A/B/H and NE-1) were all Continental ones.
So I'd use data for the J3C-65 and the L-4A, L-4B, L-4H, and NE-1, and for the Continental A-65 engine, particularly the A-65-8 (O-170-3) used in the military versions, since those seem to be best described.
The A-65-8's maximum rating is listed as 65 hp at 2300 rpm. This matches the current git version's eng-power and eng-rpm, so that's OK. From Type Certificate Data Sheet E-205 for the Continental A-65 series, the displacement is 171 cubic inches, and the compression is 6.3. I know YASim makes little use of displacement and compression right now (I think it only uses them to compute EGT), but if we're going to add values, might as well use the correct ones. Incidentally, dry weight of the A-65-8 is 170 lb.
Takeoff power for the versions using the A-65-8 is also 65 hp at 2300 rpm. The takeoff-rpm spec is right, but the present takeoff-power spec of 55 hp is too low. I have no idea why this lower power was chosen; all the references say to use full throttle for takeoff and specify that the rpm is 2300, indicating full power of 65 hp.
I find cruise power to be trickier. I would suggest cruise-speed 63.4 knots (70 mph), cruise-rpm 2000, cruise-power 48 hp, going by the suggestions in the 1942 U.S. Army manual and its Specific Engine Flight Chart, which seems to give figures closest to what YASim is looking for (max-efficiency cruise). I would set cruise-alt lower than 8000 feet, possibly at sea level. The Cub was not intended as a high-altitude airplane, and 8000 feet seems much too high for a Cub cruise. Note the Army climb figures are for climb to 5000 feet.
Some figures from references I checked. These aren't wholly consistent.
U.S. Army 1942 L-4A/L-4B flight manual:
p. 10, "2000 is the recommended cruising rpm, using approximately 4.27 gph. The cruisung speed, full load, is 70 mph." (The fuel rate appears to be wrong, see below.)
p. 16, Specific Engine Flight Chart, gives takeoff power of 65 hp at 2300 rpm and cruise powers of 50 hp at 2100 rpm (4.27 gph) and 48 hp at 2000 rpm (3.37 gph), all at sea level.
p. 17, Take-Off, Climb & Landing Chart, gives climb setting of 55 mph IAS at 2300 rpm, for average rate of 333 fpm to 5000 ft at 1160 lb gross weight.
U.S. Army 1943 L-4A/L-4B/L-4H flight manual:
p. 11, "Use 2,150 rpm for the most satisfactory service; this will provide an air speed of approximately 75 mph."
p. 13, Specific Engine Flight Chart, is same as in 1942 version.
p. 19, Take-Off, Climb & Landing Chart, gives takeoff setting of 2300 rpm at full throttle and climb setting of 60 mph IAS at 2150 rpm, for average rate of 333 fpm (I assume to 5000 ft) at 1170 lb gross weight and 300 fpm at 1220 lb gross weight. (Note that this differs from the 1942 chart; not sure which is better.)
Piper's 1946 Cub Special J3C-65 pilot's handbook:
p. 41, "Indicated R.P.M. for cruising speed of 73 M.P.H. is 2150. Take-off R.P.M. is 2300."
In addition to the references I already mentioned, the A-65 Overhaul Manual and Factory Specs at:
http://www.j3-cub.com/doc/doc/engine/engine.html
may be useful. Both include power curves with a propeller load.
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: stuar... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
Hi Colin,
Thanks very much for the bug report.
I'm responsible for the recent changes to the Cub, including the inconsistency between the apparent engine/FDM configuration and the model. Changing to the J3C-65 seems very sensible.
Have you tried modifying the YASim configuration yourself?
You've obviously put more effort into testing the FDM config than anyone else, so I'd be more than happy to accept a modified FDM and commit it to the git repository if you have the time to modify and re-test it.
-Stuart
Labels: FDM
Owner: stuar...@gmail.com
Status: Accepted
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
Thanks for the reply. It's good to know that someone is listening.
I've experimented a little bit with modifying the YASim configuration, but so far I haven't done much with that, partly because I don't feel I know what I'm doing yet. :) While I certainly am a plane nut with some knowledge about aerodynamics and flying, I'm not a pilot, aerodynamicist, or aeronautical engineer. Also, I don't have any experience in tweaking YASim configurations or in how they alter the model calculations, and I've been mostly learning as I go. So I'm not confident that I know the best way to fix things yet. I'll try to see if I can tweak the model to get more reasonable behavior, though.
Is David Megginson still active? He's the one who wrote the original flight model.
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: stuar... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
Hi Colin,
I haven't seen David around for a while.
As you have found already, the YASim configuration is pretty straightforward and designed so people like you and I can create a sensible FDM. I'd suggest having a go.
From what you've written above, you've got a pretty good idea of the changes you need to make already, and how the aircraft should be performing, so you'll have a good idea if the changes you are making are improving the FDM or not :)
-Stuart
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
I'm continuing to work on this, but while I think I've made some improvement, it's also been rather frustrating. YASim is proving to be less easy to work with than I had hoped.
While it should be possible in principle to specify the glide angle in the approach configuration, that's not going to work with the present code, due to bug 442.
One major YASim limitation that affects the Cub is that YASim expects the hstab to have a fixed incidence which it can tune to help the solution converge. The Cub, however, has a movable horizontal stabilizer whose incidence can be adjusted in flight, via a crank handle. This stabilizer has a range from 2.5 degrees up to 4 degrees down. Trimming the stabilizer is apparently a normal part of making an approach, in order to give the elevator enough authority to put the airplane in the proper landing attitude. From http://www.piperowner.org/articles/featured-aircraft/27-piper-cub-special-pa-11.html:
"The reason I say trim is important is due to the design of the stabilizer. A Cub tail is attached at the front to a jack-screw, which is operated by the trim handle in the cockpit. When you trim a Cub, you are trimming the entire tail up or down. If you don’t trim properly, if you try to just muscle the nose up, which you can easily do, you never reach maximum critical angle of attack. You essentially “run out” of elevator. On the other hand, trimming basically full nose up makes it easy to get the nose up to just above the three-point attitude, allowing the stall to occur at the maximum critical attitude instead of some lesser angle."
To compensate for the inability to adjust the hstab incidence, the elevator is going to have to be greatly overpowered.
Related
Tickets:
#442View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: stuar... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
Hi Colin,
I had a quick play with the YASim configuration myself based on your comments, and you are correct that getting the approach configuration correct is quite challenging. I also found that I had to use enormous amounts of trim and elevator and a very high nose angle to get any climb at all.
One thing I thought of (but haven't tested yet) is reducing the AoA of the approach configuration. At a basic level, a given trim/elevator setting (e.g. nose position relative to the horizon) should map to a particular airspeed. We're using the same airspeed for cruise and approach, so the difference in AoA between cruise and approach configuration should just be the glide ratio.
An alternative to the problem of the move stabilizer might be to define a new FLAP representing the entire surface, and tie that to the the elevator trim position. Mighe be worh looking at.
-Stuart
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: stuar... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
Hi,
I've committed some changes to the FDM that should improve things.
Note that previously the maximum gross weight configured was around 931lbs. You can now change the payload to add a passenger and set more realistic conditions for test flights. A unscientific quick test with the new FDM at max gross weight shows a time to climb to 5000ft of around 14.5 minutes, so the climb rate is now much closer to what it should be.
BTW - I'd be interested in your autopilot configuration. The Cub autopilot at present in unstable in roll, which makes FDM tuning difficult.
Let me know what you think :)
-Stuart
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
Sorry I never got back to you on this. I got wrapped up in making and testing my own changes to the model, which turned out to be quite an involved and time-consuming process.
I'll take a look at your changes in a bit.
I'm not sure how useful my autopilot configuration would be to you. It's just a bunch of modules hacked up for personal use and testing. Most of them were optimized for the old flight model before I had realized its problems.
By the way, in an earlier comment when I said "I would suggest cruise-speed 63.4 knots (70 mph) ...", there was a goof there which I failed to catch. 70 mph is 60.8 knots, which is what I meant to say. 63.4 knots is 73 mph. On the other hand, it doesn't make much difference either way, because I totally failed to understand the real purpose of cruise-speed, cruise-power, and cruise-rpm when I wrote it. More on that later.
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
OK, I just did a climb test of the changed model myself. It's definitely closer to the real thing now; at max gross of 1172 pounds, a full-throttle climb to 5000 feet at the best climb speed (which for the changed model is 57 mph) took 11 minutes. For the old model at the same weight, at its best climb speed of 55 mph, climb to 5000 feet took about 8.5 minutes. So things are definitely better than they were.
A look at the YASim command-line solver confirms the change in performance: the "lift ratio" figure is less than half of what it used to be.
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: colin.d.... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
So as I said, I have been tinkering with the Cub model myself.
The biggest problem I found, other than the performance issue which caused me to file this bug in the first place, is that the center of gravity is way off.
The C.G. limits of the Cub can be found either in the FAA's type certificate data sheet (TCDS) or in the Army manuals. I went by the TCDS, which is A-691 for the Continental-powered J-3 models. This can be found here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/ec36f12e6e139c5b8625785c006c09c8/$FILE/A-691%20Rev%2034.pdf
Section IV of this document covers the J3C-65 and its military versions. Page 4 has the C.G. range (loaded) and empty weight C.G. range. These are given in inches from the wing's leading edge. (See the final section, "Specifications Pertinent to all Models", which specifies that as the "datum" on page 8.) Positive values are further aft. (This can be fairly easily confirmed by looking at the values given for the various optional equipment in the final section, in particular the tail wheels on the bottom of page 14.)
Since the coordinates in the FDM file are also relative to the leading edge, but are given in meters with positive values being forward, all that has to be done is to convert the inches to meters and reverse the sign.
The loaded C.G. limits are: +10.6" to +22.7" (-0.269 m to -0.577 m)
The empty C.G. limits are: +8.5" to +20.3" (-0.216 m to -0.516 m)
The original Cub FDM has the approach and cruise configurations with no load except for fuel, so it's practically an empty weight. The YASim command-line solver gives the result as:
CG: x:-1.031, y:0.000, z:-0.100
That's a meter behind the leading edge, or half a meter behind the rearmost limit in the TCDS.
Your changes add a full load to the approach and cruise configurations, as well as adding some more weight to the engine. With those changes, the YASIM solver reports:
CG: x:-0.753, y:0.000, z:-0.370
That's certainly better, but it's still 0.176 meters behind the TCDS aft limit.
I had to adjust several things to get the C.G. in the right place. The original engine weight was 150; yours is 190; I used 198.3. (That's the sum of an A-65-8's dry weight, the prop weight, the carb heater weight, and 1 gallon of oil at 7.3 lb/gal. The engine's dry weight can be found from TCDS E-205 for the Continental A-65 series, located at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f67f14de69fae5c38525670e00450a67/$FILE/E-205.pdf. The rest comes from TCDS A-691.) More important is the location change. The original FDM has x=0.71 for the engine; with the moment arms given for the various components in TCDS A-691, I got x=0.945.
The fuel tank had to be moved too. Its location was x=-0.45, which was clearly a simple sign goof, since this puts the tank between the two occupants rather than behind the engine where it actually lies. I corrected this to x=0.45. (The proper value is listed, in inches, in TCDS A-691's Section IV, with the sign change noted above.)
All this wasn't quite enough, so I ended up replacing the negative ballast entry with the following positive one:
<ballast x="0.50" y="0" z="-0.70" mass="179"/>
which, with a full load (I used 1220 lb gross weight), put the C.G. right in the middle of the allowed range.
(I suppose I could have just increased the negative ballast entry in the tail, but those things bother me for some reason. :)
Since the center of gravity moved so much, it turned out the original elevator was now too weak, and it had to be boosted to make the configurations solvable.
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: bcoco... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: YASIM
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: stuar... (code.google.com)@gmail.com
I've (finally) checked in some further tweaks to the Cub FDM to address Colin's comments above.
To my uneducated eye, it now seems to fly better.
Colin - if you have the chance, please re-test. Note that I've increased the trim effectiveness.
-Stuart
Status: Fixed
View and moderate all "codetickets Discussion" comments posted by this user
Mark all as spam, and block user from posting to "Tickets"
Originally posted by: gijsrooy
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: Milestone-2.6.0 Aircraft-Cub