Is the wing dropping too much on ground?

[raflucgr 2]

7 hours ago, Ephedrin said:

Still hanging down... but that‘s based on a look, on pictures.. there might be an angle issue, zoom factor... and so on. RSR said they were looking into it so actually there is no need to argue. Until then I remain on the flight deck :D

Did he really say this ?

[BlueStar 323]

13 hours ago, Ephedrin said:

None to me. I don‘t see the wings anyway from the cockpit. 

The only folks that really know are the structural engineers at Boeing.  Anyone else is just speculating.  

[Ephedrin 418]

57 minutes ago, Bluestar said:

The only folks that really know are the structural engineers at Boeing.  Anyone else is just speculating.  

absolutely true.

And even the same model may have gone through revisions and may have been subject to changes that have consequences for the wing flex. 

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Gents,

You guys will be nasty to one another about literally ANYTHING.

As the guy who coded the wing flex, yes- I think the impact of static droop is too much.  It is something I have continued to play with and improve over time.  The version of this that will roll out with the 748 release is much closer to correct, I believe.

For all the know-it-alls (and since you know-it-alls know-it-all, you know I'm talking to YOU...  ) One of the reasons there is too much static flex is because of our efforts to tame the COMPLETELY BOGUS turbulence effects of the variou weather engines.

I spent about a month creating a process that will dynamically adjust the stiffness of the spar based on how high on the "Ridiculous Scale" the wing flex goes because of bogus weather engine turbulence.

It isn't perfect and definitely has it's flaws- but I got bored and started thinking about ways to try and make our product look and behave correctly in spite of the ridiculousness of 15-20G turbulence bursts that are so favored by the weather engines.  So I created a deflection scale (actually called it the Scale of Turbulence Ridiculousness) and the damping mathematics work downward from there. 

So stop beating one another over the head for stupid stuff, will you?

 

 

[Angelo Cosma 61]

RSR, that is cool lol. Look forward to the -8

[VHOJT 150]

That is really interesting about the turbulence!  Pity the weather engines don't do the turbulence better.  But the wing flexing up and down while you taxi looks damn good! 

Edited March 2, 2018 by VHOJT

[anden145 2,273]

There must be a reason as to why the weather engines exaggerate this effect. Perhaps it's hard to get right, without some kind of built-in factor within the system?

[YMMB 234]

9 hours ago, rsrandazzo said:

Gents,

You guys will be nasty to one another about literally ANYTHING.

As the guy who coded the wing flex, yes- I think the impact of static droop is too much.  It is something I have continued to play with and improve over time.  The version of this that will roll out with the 748 release is much closer to correct, I believe.

For all the know-it-alls (and since you know-it-alls know-it-all, you know I'm talking to YOU...  ) One of the reasons there is too much static flex is because of our efforts to tame the COMPLETELY BOGUS turbulence effects of the variou weather engines.

I spent about a month creating a process that will dynamically adjust the stiffness of the spar based on how high on the "Ridiculous Scale" the wing flex goes because of bogus weather engine turbulence.

It isn't perfect and definitely has it's flaws- but I got bored and started thinking about ways to try and make our product look and behave correctly in spite of the ridiculousness of 15-20G turbulence bursts that are so favored by the weather engines.  So I created a deflection scale (actually called it the Scale of Turbulence Ridiculousness) and the damping mathematics work downward from there. 

So stop beating one another over the head for stupid stuff, will you?

Does Kyle know this? Your thought's that is, not that you coded it, lol?

Quote

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by YMMB