This is an earlier experiment. Read the amendments below before treating its findings as current.
The question
The instant-response craft differs from the wing in both spacing rule and agility. Does the wing's larger spacing rule cause the sinking?
What was tested
The wing flew with the small spacing rule, a half-way rule and its own, on two layouts. A closeness check ran every 0.05 seconds.
What was found then
With the small rule the low layer settled about 5 m low, against about 17 m with its own rule: about two thirds of the sinking removed, not all. But the small rule meant far more time closer than 30 m (summed pair-minutes 136 with its own rule, 1 718 with the small one) and more time within 15 m of the other layer's craft. Crash counts did not follow that. With its own rule, most wing crashes were below 19.85 m, where its push away from the ground acts. No safety conclusion.
What changed
nothing (the closeness check was added to the test tools, output only)
Numbers and source references
- six
- runs per seedresearch/design/prio_sag_pin_record.md
- 0.05 s / eight
- closeness check interval / runsresearch/design/prio_step_census_record.md
- −4.5 / −5.3 m
- low layer offset with the small spacing rule, two seedsresearch/design/prio_sag_pin_record.md; research/design/prio_sag_pin2_record.md
- ~17 / ~6 m
- offset with own rule / half-way ruleresearch/design/prio_sag_pin2_record.md
- two thirds
- share of the sag removed by the small ruleresearch/design/prio_sag_pin2_record.md
- 136 / 549 / 1 718 / 2 124
- summed pair-minutes closer than 30 m: own / half / small rule / point craftresearch/design/prio_step_census_record.md
- 13 of 23, 22 of 29
- own-rule wing crashes below 19.85 m, two seedsresearch/design/prio_floor_contacts_record.md