I would. I like those scenarios where the pilot needs all his skills (or a good copilot :( ) to get the aircraft under control again. That includes stalls at low altitudes or stalls shortly after takeoff at a few hundred feets, which could appear if you retract the flaps to early. Those are things I do when training for the first fligths for my VA with a new addon.

Yes but you are talking about VA flying! We are referring to stalling the real thing. I don't think the passengers would appreciate it too much and I don't think any pilot would like to return with a pink slip in his mailbox and a potential law suit.JackColwill

Well, watching last video and late screenshots, a "test airplane" is included in the package. Why not to test that beauty? :( Just kidding...

Yes but you are talking about VA flying! We are referring to stalling the real thing. I don't think the passengers would appreciate it too much and I don't think any pilot would like to return with a pink slip in his mailbox and a potential law suit.JackColwill

+1Bob Lyddy

stalls shortly after takeoff at a few hundred feet

If you stall at that altitude in a 737, there's a good chance you are going in regardless of what you try, and even if you pulled it out, you'd probably be flying a desk thereafter.Al

During testflights planes will be stalled. But in normal operation never.

I think everyone is in agreement that IRL no pilot would intentionally stall the NG, however, that does not rule out the 'possibility' that such an event could indeed occur. I still remain curious if in fact the 'FSX- coding' limits to some degree the NGX from exhibiting real aerodynamic stall characteristics?Regards,jen noulet

During testflights planes will be stalled. But in normal operation never.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that test pilots do not stall airplanes at "normal" test flights. An airplane is only took to an intentional lift loss event for certification purposes. In acceptance test flights, for example, they just slow the plane down to very close of its stall speed to check if the stall warnings are working propely, but they never touch the red line displayed in the PFD. In CAA the rules are to never decelerate below the speed where stick shaker is activated or below scheduled stick shaker speed -5kts, whichever occurs first.

You can see exactly how far they go in the following vid. Not into the red tape, but the wing is certainly stalling even before this point.

EDIT: just realised this has already been posted. Weird as I would have sworn the other video was a different one the other day when I watched it :(

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that test pilots do not stall airplanes at "normal" test flights. An airplane is only took to an intentional lift loss event for certification purposes. In acceptance test flights, for example, they just slow the plane down to very close of its stall speed to check if the stall warnings are working propely, but they never touch the red line displayed in the PFD. In CAA the rules are to never decelerate below the speed where stick shaker is activated or below scheduled stick shaker speed -5kts, whichever occurs first.

I have been on test flights where they stall the aircraft until the stick pusher engages. On smaller jets like citation they do stall them and then quick recover.This is after heavy maintenance or big repairs.On the 737 its not approved to do a full stall during test flight. Here you can find the schedule. on page 8 you will find this note The aircraft must not be decelerated to the full stall

I still remain curious if in fact the 'FSX- coding' limits to some degree the NGX from exhibiting real aerodynamic stall characteristics?Regards,jen noulet

Jen,Essentially that's the problem. Take any airliner add-on (or default airliner) in FSX and take it up to altitude and stall it. The behaviour you're going to see is pretty unrealistic. To the best of my knowledge that's simply the FSX flight modelling at work.As I said in my post earlier, other add-on manufacturers HAVE managed to implement some kind of altered behaviour for stalls and (more notably) spins. These add-ons are generally aircraft that ARE more commonly operated in a near-stall or stalled or spin condition, such as warbirds, aerobatic aircraft and the like.The reality is that for the overwhelming majority of an airliners life, it will go nowhere near a stall, so why spend time (a lot of it too) coding a workaround for a manoevure that is just so unrealistic in the first place?Not to speak for PMDG but in almost all cases they are capable of simulating something, regardless of the FSX limitations. The question is whether the effort and time involved is worth it given the overall value it adds to the product. So for example coding a realistic HGS in FSX is a massive undertaking, and not one the FSX even remotely supports "out of the box", but one that will be totally worth it in the end because it IS a large aspect of the real aircraft.Lastly, you should note that there is nothing stoppping you from taking the NGX up on it's first flight and attempting to stall it. If you succeed in doing so, note that the recovery from an "FSX stall" is more challenging and dramatic than it would be from a real one!

FSX (and earlier) has the same stall AoA at altitude that it does at sea level. That alone is wrong. The result is the stall speed is the same between the two altitudes.Second, FS doesn't model a wing or the air flowing over it - that is its second major flaw.You should be able to induce stalls in multiple ways, but FSX is so detached from reality it can't be done without a lot of work on the part of the developer to try and fill in the gaps.FSX is only good for straight and level flight. Outside of that and it is wholly inaccurate. Even inverted flight is problematic (anyone who has messed with the MS Extra must have seen it tumble and impossibly gain thousands of feet of altitude!!).FSX has serious issues with yaw compared to FS2004. I took the MS Extra out for a spin (literally) to look at FSX behavior, and after landing found the aircraft start to yaw on its own then fall over and crash. You can induce that behavior by simply sitting on the ground with the engine idle and holding in full rudder for a moment then releasing it.It is quite sad how MS got it so wrong. They should have concentrated on the sim instead of adding fancy graphics that glitch and cause problems.Best regards,Robin.

Robin,You quoted: “It is quite sad how MS got it so wrong. They should haveconcentrated on the sim instead of adding fancy graphics that glitch and causeproblems.” Well, that is indeed enlightening and at the same time rathersad to think that MS spent too little time developing the aerodynamic environmentfor their fancy aircraft. But, I guess they had to figure what was important totheir business plan etc. In view of this, I wonder if PMDG has modified some of the MS coding to facilitate asmoother aerodynamic environment ?Regards,jen noulet

FSX (and earlier) has the same stall AoA at altitude that it does at sea level.That alone is wrong.

YOU'REWRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!! TOTALLY WRONG!

YOU'REWRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!! TOTALLY WRONG!

A very scientific response.

A very scientific response.

Hahahah you like that? Just havin some fun. But in all seriousness, the AoA that a wing stalls at will never change due to altitude. Thats why its called the critical angle of attack. Now true airspeed will change as you get higher. However the critcal angle of attack wont. Now i think once mach comes into play things do get squirrily.