You can loop a Cessna 172 too, but if you do it too much, stuff starts to brake.

Edit: Also I have all X-planes reality options set to maximum. That's why I thought he just changed the G-tolerance, because my first attempt with this new mod ended up with me just ripping the wings off the second I pulled up. Learning from that mistake, I was a lot more gentle and never really did much more then 3 gs in these loops, save at the top of the arch where wind resistance is low and dramatic movements don't cause as much harm.

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by Johnny Thunder

For the record, I didn't touch the G tolerance.The G's are set at +2.5 and -1.0 so you must have been VERY gentle at 360 kts while pulling up.

Indeed!

I think I'm gonna go back to using the default 747, this one seems too underpowered for reguler take offs and landings.

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by Johnny Thunder

Well, I dont know about a loop, but a roll in a Boeing aircraft isnt out of the question!

All this time, it never occurred to me to actually try doing a loop in a 747 in FSX.I tried it...and succeeded. No payload. About 15% fuel, 1000 ft up, 360kts, gently pulled up, at the top of the loop, I added more elevator, and managed to pull a nice loop and leveled out at about 600 feet. Got a bank angle warning (????)And this was with a payware 747. (No names mentioned. There are 3 payware 747's out there that I know of.)Then I loaded up the default 747. Same thing.Very interesting.

Interesting, I get the same results in X-plane in the default 747 when it's fully loaded (Go in 1000' come out at 600')... very interesting.If I was gonna do this move in real life, I might wanna do it with the load that agrees with both simulators... time to boot up FSX.

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by Johnny Thunder

Interesting, I get the same results in X-plane in the default 747 when it's fully loaded (Go in 1000' come out at 600')... very interesting.If I was gonna do this move in real life, I might wanna do it with the load that agrees with both simulators... time to boot up FSX.

Because you went back to the original acf. The one with the engines overpowered. About 10 000 pounds of thrust per engine more than the real thing. That's one of the things I fixed. Stands to reason you can do a loop.

Well that was Interesting...I loaded the 747-400 in FSX up with 2 pilots, me and my suicidal comrade, and about 20% fuel. That loop was relatively easy and at the top of the arc I was still reading about 180 knots indicated airspeed.So I decided to load the thing up with the same amount of weight that X-plane was defaulting with, around 66,000 pounds(or is it tons?) That's me, my suicidal comrade, and about 70% worth of fuel.The first loop started out the same as in X-plane, at the top of the arc, I was doing 70 knots. However unfortunately I achieved the famous FSX death stall where the wings far exceed the critical angle of attack and the plane falls like a rock.Still I tried again, and on the second try I recovered correctly coming out at 370 knots by making sure to never let the stall indicator go off.So long as you never go into a stall, the loop in MSFSX and XPX on the default 747-400 seem to be nearly identical in performance. This is rather surprising, as I thought it was impossible to loop the 747 in FSX with full realism, now I see it can be done.Still up for debate which one is more realistic though. XPX doesn't have death stalls, the plane will correct itself or the wings will rip off. FSX the stalls are far more dramatic and far less detectable. It seems to me that FSX and X-plane have 2 completely different philosophies for how an airplane should operate in a stall.Edit: Dose anyone know how to record replays in FSX?

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by Johnny Thunder

Edit: Dose anyone know how to record replays in FSX?

With some recorder program such as Fraps. Though free version records only 30 seconds at a time.

OK, wow, I just looped the 747-400 in FSX fully loaded (85,000 pounds), with full realism at 1500' and recovered at guess what altitude...? You guessed it, 600'I know you guys probably don't believe me so I'm uploading the raw fraps video. Looks like it's going to take 151 minutes to put on youtube though.Edit:http://youtu.be/Jf8OoCpsitA

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by Johnny Thunder

Ok, re-download the acf file in the 1st post. I tested it this time. Couldn't loop it.And in FSX you can land the 747 on an aircraft carrier and if you watch the video till the end, you can click a link that shows a 747 taking off from an aircraft carrier in FSX.. Let's keep the comparisons to a minimum, yes?

http://youtu.be/NntjDsONtF0

BTW, the 747 doesn't just drop like a rock. There was a well known case of JAL 123. A Boeing 747 that lost all pitch control through total hydraulic fluid loss. It started going through phugoid oscillations (pitching up until it slowed down so much, the wings couldn't keep lift, then the nose pitched down and built speed up again.) It did this several times until it finally crashed.So if the FSX 747 goes through the first half of the loop, and then drops like a rock, then the flight model is flawed. In X Plane, the 747's nose starts to drop and slowly builds up speed again. At least my modded one does. And if you don't touch the controls, the nose will start to pitch up again as airspeed increases. Just like in the RW.

Goran, there are plenty of X-Plane (X-Plane 9) 747's landing on carriers to go around also, but it just proves default aircraft in either sim, is not a good guide to judge accuracy!!

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by tf51d

Never said it was. Apologies if it was misinterpreted as that. My aim was to point out, after a couple of people posted that x plane is "inferior" because you can loop a 747, that you cannot judge a whole platform based on one default aircraft.

Actually, the claim is the opposite... that because you couldn't loop a 747 in FSX without it stalling FSX was inferior. As the discussion has continued the claim has been 'adjusted' to now state that a flat stall in FSX is unrealistic and impossible to do in X-Plane and thus FSX is still inferior.

Inferior isn't the right word, unrealistic I think is better.X-plane prides itself on it's ability to accurately simulate the flight characteristics of any given geometric shape. This ability to to accurately simulate the flight modal of conceptual airplanes is a huge asset for some airplane manufactures, as they can test their designs in X-plane before they even start building them in reality. This allows them to see how they fly, and get a general idea for how safe the airplane is going to be during operations. There has even been one case with the CarterCopter, were one of the main design flaws was solved by using X-plane during the conceptual phase of the development of that aircraft. This is really what X-plane's primary goal is, and this is where the majority of the development time has been spent.FSX however, dose not have that same goal. As far as I know, you can't use FSX to help you figure out how a conceptual aircraft is going to fly. FSX is however set up with the goal of making better pilots in mind, that's FSX's primary goal. So when the FSX developers came to the problem of trying to solve stalls, they realized they could not accurately simulate stalls because it is impossible to collect wind tunnel data on the stalling characteristics of an airplane. So instead what they choice to do was go with a drastically more difficult simulation for stalls that is far more dangerous then real world airplanes.Is it realistic?No.Dose it make you a better pilot?Yes, as once you stall a few times in FSX, you find yourself falling to your death more often then not. Combine that with the fact that some of the missions in FSX are a few hours long, and one little mistake will requires you to do the mission all over again, and FSX can go down in history as one of the most frustrating and rewarding games ever made.

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by Johnny Thunder