The inability to stall, loop and roll the aircraft and stress it beyond it's own design specs is downright scary!!That must be it..i dunno...just guessing?My card's ready too Glen - see you at the horror show :)regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner4.jpg

I imagine Gulfstream would be skeptical of current developers producing a good enough version but maybe when they see the Airbus they will change their mind.

I actually think that Airbus has something to do with it. But then again I am probably just being paranoid!! ;-)

Yes, must be really 'scary' when that #### FBW system won't allow you to put the aircraft in a stall situation or any condition outside of it's known flight envelope.I don't know how the pilots cope.......;-)How did the F-16 ever become so succesful.....fancy gizmos and gadgets that FBW system....not for 'real' pliots you know.Personally, I find the FBW system interesting and something different. I have been looking forward to a true representation of the Airbus FBW flight laws and it looks as though Airliner XP will deliver the goods.Glenn

>>Silly names like 'Scarebus' etc come about when something>new>>is not fully undrstood (or threatens Boeing's historical>>monopoly on civil airliners)>>No, the term originates from the fact that under some>conditions, the bloody-minded computer won't allow>manual control...>Hmmm,What conditions are these then Bill?Other than flight envelope protection in normal law, where is there any lack of manual control available to the pilot?

So, let's look at this in simple numbers.How many people would it take to put together a decent biz jet? A modeler for exterior/interior 3D models, a SimConnect programmer, texture artist and a couple of guys with experience in that type of bird to work on the flight model, right?Maybe I just take a more proactive approach, but if the call is there, people should be putting some teams together.

>So, let's look at this in simple numbers.>>How many people would it take to put together a decent biz>jet? A modeler for exterior/interior 3D models, a SimConnect>programmer, texture artist and a couple of guys with>experience in that type of bird to work on the flight model,>right?>>Maybe I just take a more proactive approach, but if the call>is there, people should be putting some teams together.Always sounds simple. There's also a reason why there's only a few "top" teams.

>how many airbii is this now? I'm not saying most of them>won't be great, I just find the Airbus itself a bore. A>severely limited hal9000-like computer. We are missing whole>fleets of bizjets, high quality PMDG like kinds. Learjets,>Falcons, Citations with FMCs, Gulfstreams, BBJs.>>Or how about freight dawgs who enjoy planes like the 1900c,>B99, 402C, C208. How about PMDG-like (not express) quality>from them?>>GA aircraft are also missing, many peoples favorites are gone.>How many companies are making airbus now? Your input has been noted and all future developments on anything airbus related have been halted. Instead, you will get another 737 version. And no bizjets, sorry. Our research shows people want 737s. sigh.. threads like this trully amaze me.

Are you American?

Oh, I agree.I'm just saying that there are tons of talented people out there and if someone wants a bizjet enough, they should try to make it happen. Like I said, I'm just proactive towards these things. (Note: I'm not proactive enough to learn how to model in 3D :( )

>Yes, must be really 'scary' when that #### FBW system won't allow >you to put the aircraft in a stall situation or any condition >outside of it's known flight envelope.If you want to know where the term "Scarebus" originated, you can watch this video of an Air France demo crew putting an A320 into the trees at Habsheim airport as a result of "Hal" overriding the pilots' inputs.http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtmlI'd guess the final seconds of that little encounter were indeed 'scary' (as in poop your drawers scary) as Hal decided not to let the pilots keep the jet out of the woods...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

I am well aware of this incident. I am also aware that it resulted in modifications to the FBW system which have now been in place circa 20 years.....Time to get over it?....I think so.

>I'd guess the final seconds of that little encounter were>indeed 'scary' (as in poop your drawers scary) as Hal decided>not to let the pilots keep the jet out of the woods...The cause of that crash is disputed.http://aviation-safety.net/database/record...80626-0〈=enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296Also, you have to ask yourself, how many crashes instead did the FBW system _avoided_?Marco

>I am well aware of this incident.Great. Others should be as well. Tells a real story.Read this ALPA study titled "Pilot Authority and Aircraft Protections." It was written by a group of airline captains, qualified on a variety of aircraft with advanced automation including the Scarebus. You might want to start by skipping to the conclusions, it'll save you the aggravation of actually reading the article since you certainly appear to already have your mind made up and you probably wouldn't want to read anything that objectively challenges your love of the Scarebus and FBW. http://www.wingfiles.com/files/systems/aut...tprotection.pdfCheerioBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

>Also, you have to ask yourself, how many crashes instead did>the FBW system _avoided_?No, probably the wrong question, because non-FBW aircraft have protection systems as well, such as pre-stall warnings, stick shaker/pusher etc. Clearly, airliners are not stalling and falling out of the skies, so these alternative systems provide an equivalent measure of safety margin while still preserving the authority of the pilot as the ultimate decisionmaker.The question to ask is how many crashes did the FBW system prevent that would not have been prevented by the other systems. My best guess is none. Your guess, of course will be different...but there's no data either way.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile