+1Regards,jen noulet

The above postings keep leading me back to my initial post at the very start of this topic which was: RSR quoted: " the aerodynamic forces of the 800 are nearly perfectly simulated on the NGX." I assume from that being said that the 800NGX will exhibit the actual stall characteristics of the 800 NG, or is there a limitation to this because of FSX programming?Regards,jen noulet

Just to put a stop to this discussion:RSR was referring to the normal flight envelope - meaning the normal performance of the aircraft in takeoff, climb, cruise, descent etc. MSFS is notoriously bad for edge of the envelope stuff - we do not have any magic way to get around this, you do have to basically use the FSX flight modelling system and it's not really possible to code outside of it the way we do with systems gauges and stuff like that. There's tricks we use here and there to make certain aspects more realistic, but no, the NGX is not going to exhibit 100% accurate edge of the envelope flight characteristics. The NGX will stall, it's not completely unrealistic or anything, I'm just saying that if you were to compare it to the actual stall characteristics of the real airplane, it's going to be off somewhat due to the MSFS FDE limitations. That stuff is extremely difficult to model mathematically anyway and even the real life Level-D sims have trouble with it in parts of the envelope.

Glad you said that Ryan. Pretty sure I'm not alone in not wanting the PMDG NG to be a 'crash simulator'. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would go to the expense of buying what is clearly going to be the best airliner you can get for FS and then deliberately fly it so badly that it would stall. There are plenty of FS aeroplanes out there that fly badly to start off with if that's what someone wants LOL, with correspondingly low prices.I would strongly suggest that if anyone wants to experience some stalls and spins (and I do recommend it, because it is great fun and educational too), that they phone up their local flying school and arrange some training on a single cleared for aeros, because you can be sure that no simulator will ever allow you to experience what it really is like. Just remember to do a H.A.S.S.L. check before you instigate that spin, and have a light lunch, or preferably no lunch at all, which you might actually end up with if you do eat first. :( Al

As long as I get all the appropriate warnings nearing the edge of the envelope (which I'm sure I will) that's about all I need. The idea is to get out of a bad situation BEFORE it becomes a bad situation.Speaking of spins, I inadvertently got into one during my first days of stall training and promised myself I'd never let one sneak up on me again. So I did a lesson just on spin recovery and man was it a rush!

As long as I get all the appropriate warnings nearing the edge of the envelope (which I'm sure I will) that's about all I need. The idea is to get out of a bad situation BEFORE it becomes a bad situation.

Stick shaker and all of that is fully modeled - you can even see the yoke shake in the VC from it.

Thanks Ryan for your inputs. You have clarified this matter once and for all. Looking forward to the release.Regards,jen noulet

The crew's belief that the engines were failing to respond is almost certainly because they were at flight idle initially. this is relevant because at 29 percent N1, the CFM 56 engines need four seconds to accelerate up to 63 percent N1, but from 63 percent N1, there is only one second required for the engines to then spool up to 83 percent N1, thus it is not a smooth even curve for engine acceleration, but considerably more laggy when going from flight idle, and when you are looking at a potential crash from the pointy end of an airliner, those four seconds probably slow down in your mind to stretch into an eternity. ...But even if we don't believe all that evidence about N1 speeds, and even if the tales about the FDRs being switched and doctored are true, we cannot ignore the fact that there is a video which clearly shows that the aircraft was thirty feet off the deck of a runway designed for GA type aircraft, in a dirty configuration, below the height of the trees and pylons ahead of it, on a flight track they had not briefed for, doing a maneuver they had not briefed for, ending up wallowing along at 15 degrees nose up with 122 knots on the ASI as a result of that poor planning and even poorer risk assessment. The flight protection system on the Airbus might be clever, but like Scotty, it cannot change the laws of physics, and any airline pilot you like will tell you that an airliner full of passengers and fuel for the trip it was due to make after the display is not going to like going into a steep obstacle-clearing climb at 122 knots in that configuration, and sadly, we have a video of what happens if you try it.

I generally agree with your posts (or at least the ones I've read), but on this one I have to strongly disagree.First, the engines were not at idle. This is witnessed by the approach to the runway, and the fly-by itself. The aircraft would have a lot of power on at this point (I'm guessing 65-70% N1).Second, the Airbus has phenomenal climb rate at sea level when flying against alpha-max. It would not have had any issues climbing away from the trees or the terrain, even if they lost an engine. It could easily attain 6000 ft/min in that configuration.Third, you have not reckoned with the power of the French authorities.You only have to look at the recent BEA preliminaries into AF447 to see they are aligning the cards to point at pilot error.Best regards,Robin.

First, the engines were not at idle. This is witnessed by the approach to the runway, and the fly-by itself. The aircraft would have a lot of power on at this point (I'm guessing 65-70% N1).

Well you may be guessing, but I am not, I'm going off the evidence of the FDR, the spectral analysis, the data from SNECMA and the fact that it crashed.

It would not have had any issues climbing away from the trees or the terrain, even if they lost an engine. It could easily attain 6000 ft/min in that configuration.

Clearly it would have had issues, or it would not have crashed. You show me a take off with passengers on board an A320 with a required obstacle clearance of over 60 feet in less than a 1000 metres where V2+15 is given as 122 knots.

you have not reckoned with the power of the French authorities.You only have to look at the recent BEA preliminaries into AF447 to see they are aligning the cards to point at pilot error.

Oh I know that, the BEA are so bent they could hide behind a spiral staircase.Al