wizzlebippi

I read about this and looked to see if I had it in my M101 images. First image is from early April, second was from last Saturday. Both are about 200 subs, first is 45 sec LRGB with a 5" refractor, second is slightly processed color from a CPC 1100 with Hyperstar.

It's not that you couldn't fix it in fly by wire control logic, just that you would be signing up for a lot more work. Dihedral and anhedral are practically free for small angles anyway and I'm not aware of any benefits to loose or negative lateral-directional stability. The 787's wing flexes more because it's mostly carbon fiber and designed to do so to keep weight down. Keep in mind that a large aluminium wing also flexes significantly when loaded. Look up a video of a B52 takeoff and watch it's wings lift before the fuselage.

Since no one really answered OP's question, here it is. Engines throttle and propellers govern RPM. A simple constant speed prop for a piston engine uses engine oil pressure to drive a hydraulic cylinder in the prop hub. The amount of oil it is fed is controlled by a centrifugal governor mounted to the side of the propeller shaft. When the engine is throttled up, it tries to increase RPM. This drives the governor to feed more oil into the hub, which increases the pitch of the blades. This increases the load on the engine, and prop RPM remains relatively constant. Likewise, when the engine is throttled down, the pitch on the blades is decreased and engine RPM remains about constant. Multi engine aircraft have the ability to feather the prop, or turn the blades such that they are parallel to the air flow to minimize drag. I think they're supposed to automatically feather when oil pressure is lost, but don't quote me on that. The aircraft I work on have contained spinny things and I'm not multi-engine rated. Turboprops are a more complicated beast with the ability to feather and reverse pitch, usually requiring multiple governors (I've heard that the venerable PT-6 uses 3). Again, not sure how that works.

I discovered that I can't get achievements to pop. I've tried making new saves, deleting old saves, and reinstalling everything and starting clean. Still can't get them to work. I don't think I've ever used the cheat menu, but I thought it was attached to a save. Any ideas?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutta–Joukowski_theorem

Can you calibrate the instrument now to determine the error, and apply the correction to the data analytically?

@Snark I wouldn't say I'm angry about the delay. I understand the development process enough to know that these things happen. I'm frustrated to have a last minute delay, and I know this means we're looking at the first week of April at the earliest to see this patch and more parts.

On one hand, I appreciate the honesty letting us know that the update was delayed. On the other, this update is long overdue. The last console update was July 19th 2018, only a bug fix, and squad failed to communicate fot the next several months, even when directly asked. In my opinion, anyone who bought the flying tiger port should receive the DLC for free for being crapped on for the past 2 years. At the very least, squad needs to commit to a console update schedule, and make an attempt to bring features from pc to consoles in a timely manner.

Looking forward to playing with the new parts and launching missions from the mun. Also, only 8 months after the the last patch for consoles. Please don't let this be it for 2019.

I did not know that. Thanks

As an engineer who has worked on a few derivative designs, loosing how something was designed or built is easier than you might think. While the majority of the design is in the drawings and documentation, a large number of design decisions are made by individuals and not written down. Trying to improve on an existing design is amazingly difficult if you don't know why it's that way to begin with. Whoever did it first may have designed around a then known issue that you won't ever find written down. So you hope that individual still works at the same company, ask why this is the way it is, hope they respond, and actually remember. Everyone who designed the Saturn V has likely retired or died, so good luck. Building it is even worse. The process for assembling aircraft since the beginning has been lovingly reffered to as "beat to fit, paint to match", and the industry has only recently begun moving on to less wasteful manufacturing practices. I can't imagine a rocket built in the '60s is any different. This process means the knowledge to build a Saturn V existed in a few people's heads, who coached everyone around them. Long story short, you're better off not trying, and building something new from scratch.

@SQUAD Please make that altitude MSL (Mean Sea Level) instead of ASL. MSL is the actual name for pressure altitudes referenced to sea level. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude

I don't get the argument that a base on the mun breaks the game. Truth is a space center on an otherwise desolate planet, regardless of the planet, is unrealistic.

I like it. Looking forward to building a massive ion propelled ship and launching from the mun

@SQUAD What about improved burn time for consoles? It was part of the 1.5 update on pc. Is that going to make the next update?

A solid step in the right direction for consoles.

It helps with sizing a craft. I'm horrible about bringing enough fuel for missions beyond the kerbin system, and a delta v readout helps. Also, its a feature on pc, so I would like to see it brought to consoles.

I'd also like the waypoint feature as well.

I'd like to think that adding parts is the easiest part of the update. Hopefully this includes the new textures as well. The only parts I see as being a challenge are the engine plates due to the code behind them. I'd also like to see consoles put on an update schedule. I don't expect every 3 months like pc, but some commitment from squad would be nice.

Finally, some official console news. By updating to unity 2017, that should mean at least v1.4x.

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilots-Not-Told-About-737-MAX-Auto-Trim-System-Updated-231846-1.html An update from a site that understands aviation. Apparently pilots were not made aware of the system that brought down Lion Air 610 in their type rating/differences courses.

I had to take a grad level aero class to get answers to some of the questions posed here. The equation is: Lift = density * Forward Velocity * Circulation. Hold density constant (constant altitude), and the result is circulation is inversely proportional to forward velocity, assuming the aircraft is airborne. If the leading edge of the wing (usually a separate piece for repairability) isn't sealed to the rest of the wing, stall speeds are significantly increased due to air being pulled through the gaps. Because the wing isn't infinite, air flow below the wing moves increasingly outboard as you approach the wing tip. It attempts to come around the wing tip and forces air above the wing to move increasingly inboard as you approach the wing tip. This produces a theoretical (and mind meltingly complex) structure called a vortex sheet. Since it's inherently unstable, it balls up into vortices on any discontinuity, like control surface gaps, and static wicks. If the aircraft happens to be in an extremely humid environment, these vortices are visible, and makes Facebook as "the pilot left the Chem trail sprayers on." Many aircraft have vortex generators near the ailerons. They can be strips attached to the leading edge, or even finger like protrusions from the bottom of the wing. This is because near stall, high pressure air from under the wing is either coming around the wing tip or trailing edge and reducing roll authority. The vortex generators keep air moving chord wise and maintain roll authority deeper into the stall. If you see vortex generators ahead of the aileron on top of the wing, that's a fix for something else.

The problem is that insufficient speed stability resulted in a number of Leerjet crashes because the aircraft's pitching moment resulted in an increasing nose down pitch with increasing speed. The regs are written in blood. Never forget that.

The only reason it's manual flight only is AP-ON operation likely has full envelope protection. This means the autopilot will never allow the aircraft to slow to the speed that the pusher activates. I find it a bit disturbing that the pusher uses up to 10 seconds of trim movement. A 3 second mistrim is all that is required in testing. 10 seconds would have to be catastrophically high control forces, even with hydraulically boosted controls (which I think the 737 has). I also find it disturbing that a failed/malfunctioning AoA vane has an impact on all other level A sensors. Someone really failed at the fault tree analysis for AoA. Though my favorite is still the Legacy 450 with a GPS dependant yaw damper. For YNM's concern, Boeing has to have done extreme heat/humidity (105F at 100% relative humidity and 135F with 12+ hour exposure prior to testing) testing as well as extreme cold (-40F/C for 12+ hours is pretty popular). The McKinley Climactic Chamber at Eglin AFB is a popular destination for this testing. You are right, these conditions make a lot of systems not work. It generally involves one visit to see what breaks so it can be fixed, and another to actually certify. A damaged wire bundle could be the root cause, but I would like to think they would do a continuity test on the wiring.

This could be the most interesting detail I've seen yet. The left and right pilot displays use different sensors to ensure that in case of a latent failure, someone should be looking at correct data. This also factors into autopilot operation in that guidance commands are computed twice by independent systems using data from independent sensors (displayed as flight directors on the left and right displays). If the flight directors don't agree within a given tolerance, the autopilot won't work.