|
From: Andy R. <an...@ne...> - 2001-08-27 23:16:31
|
Tony Peden wrote: > Andy Ross wrote: > > But regardless, it does work, and the JSBSim code does the right thing > > with the plane's motion. EXCEPT when you try to interpret "Vdot" as > > an acceleration. There it breaks down, and actually has the effect of > > cancelling itself out. Think about a plane in a static turn: the > > plane is accelerated relative to the GROUND, but its velocity through > > the AIR is constant. Thus, the vUVWdot vector will be zero. But > > that's wrong -- what if the plane is in a big honkin' 9G bank and the > > pilot is about to black out? > > Since a fair amount of "extra" (vs that required for steady, level) lift is > required to maintain a 9g turn and since wdot comes directly from the sum of > the forces, vUVWdot _will_ properly reflect the acceleration of the aircraft. > (Yes, you must make more lift to pull more g's in a turn) Ack, you're making the same mistake. Take another look at my arguments about accelerated reference frames. But most importantly, look at the actual behavior in the simulator. Your statement is demonstrably incorrect. In a steady-state turn (that is, constant bank angle and constant speed) vUVWdot will _not_ properly reflect the acceleration of the aircraft. Try it. The flaw in your reasoning is the bit that goes: "since wdot comes directly from the sum of the forces...". The UVWdot value comes from the sum of the forces PLUS another factor that I was (rather uncharitably -- sorry) calling FunnyValue. In a steady state environment, this FunnyValue will be exactly opposite the force vector. Again, this isn't a Jedi mind trick, it's an honest-to-goodness reproducible bug.* You don't have to trust me. Just try it. :) Andy * No, not a bug with the plane's motion. But a bug with respect to returning a pilot "acceleration" that isn't what the pilot is feeling. -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA an...@ne... http://www.nextbus.com (510)420-3126 Why Wait? |