This is an earlier experiment. Read the amendments below before treating its findings as current.
The question
The wing rests about 45 m farther out than the crosswind balance (which fits ideal craft) predicts. Two explanations competed: the wing carries out only a fixed fraction of the sideways command, or it has a fixed extra outward push.
What was tested
24 new half-hour runs at three pull strengths; a recorder of lane commands; wings started 100 or 200 m off.
What was found then
Neither explanation fits: offsets of 141, 129 and 100 m fall between the two predictions. Late in the run the lane rule asks for 6–10 m/s sideways but is allowed only 2.8. Yet wings started farther off come back to 137–145 m by the end, so it is a real resting point. The measured return pull is weak and one-sided; what pulls them back was not identified. About 100 craft were lost per twelve runs at every strength.
What we learned later
Reworded: the pooled return pull does not pass the test, the west-lane pull is unknown, and neither how the command reaches the craft nor what pulls them back is identified.
research/reviews/brief-c66.md
What changed
Nothing. The command recorder is off by default.
Corrections retained in the record
Earlier wording: Every single arm walked back … and was motionless by the fifteenth minute
Record correction: at 600–900 s some displaced groups were still 166–174 m off; all within 137–151 m by 900–1 200 s
research/data/oos/windplateau.md
Numbers and source references
- 24
- new half-hour runsresearch/reviews/brief-c62.md
- ±100 / ±200 m
- start displacementsresearch/data/oos/windplateau.md
- 141 / 129 / 100 m
- wing resting offset at gain 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.4research/reviews/brief-c62.md
- 6.1–9.8 vs 2.8 m/s
- sideways command asked vs capresearch/reviews/brief-c63.md
- 137–151 m; 137–145 m
- displaced wings at 900–1 200 s; at 1 500–1 800 sresearch/data/oos/windplateau.md
- ~4 mm/s per m
- return gradient, east-lane downwind groupsresearch/reviews/brief-c65.md
- ~100
- wing craft lost per twelve runs at every gain (102 / 98 / 100)research/reviews/brief-c62.md