Im curious which airbus will be the best

[kannwar 47]

The purpose is not to tell the pilot that you're free to kick the airplane about however you like like there's no tomorrow, it's to put a safety net there in case god forbid a situation like that ever does arise. Most pilots will go their whole careers with out even coming close to activation the Airbus FBW protections.

Consider it like a sea cliff, and the local council putting a net at the bottom most of the time in case some day, a child or small pet, wanders off too close to the edge, slips and falls. The net sometimes isn't there, like when storms get really bad and it has to be taken in, but even if it was there all the time, you don't all of a sudden get careless around the edge of a cliff, pushing people off for the craic and going Jeronimo!!! Bouncy Bouncy Bouncy!!!! You still treat the cliff for what it is, a 200ft shear drop, just like you treat the plane like a €300m piece of kit. What it does do is let people say that these cliffs are safer than others, and some day, that net probably will prevent deaths, but it doesn't give visitors to the cliff to treat it with any less caution than you would if the net was not there...

 

In cars, like you mention with the Citroen, the reason you'd stray over the line is if you were falling asleep at the wheel, again, it's not designed for you to swerve back and forth across the road until you vibrate and then swerve the other way. It's a method of stopping you crashing into others if you fall asleep at the wheel. In Ireland we have vibrator strips built into the edges of our motorways as standard, so no matter what the car, if you dose off a sway to the edge you'll get woken in a shot and know to take action. Again though, it isn't supposed to encourage you to fall asleep at the wheel, only to be there in the event you do, as we all know, it's something that happens time and time again, and usually it ends in tradgedy...

 

 

See above.

 

 

Well let's see, I've taken a 152 or 172 up into the air 3 times this summer in the past two months, and judging it purely on the lack of smoking craters, I'd say I haven't lost it, and that's after a 23 year career... ^_^

On the topic of airmanship though, airmanship isn't all that much about the ability to manipulate the controls and get the plane to do what you want it to, heck my 9 year old daughter was able to fly a 172 straight and level, and change heading with a little instruction in VMC with reasonable accuracy. Airman ship is the decision making process, on your routing, your fuel uplift, whether to hold or divert, and all the other decisions that you take every time you fly, that require the bank of experience and knowledge you've gained in your time flying, that's what airmanship really is... Not whether or not you have to hold a little pressure on the stick to keep it in a bank...

 

What I will give you on this point, is that is does take a little time, a very little time, to adjust to, but that's the same whenever you move onto a new aircraft.

 

 

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there. In the hands of a skilled pilot, you'll never notice the difference or protections, however, even the best can screw up, and usually it tends to be the best that screw up, so the added net of safety there certainly doesn't hurt.

 

 

Explain please... :P

 

 

 

That's the attitude... ^_^

 

 

:huh:

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Didn't mean my comment about taking the skill out to sound flippant or anything - I'm just thinking of the flights I've had on a 172 and all the co-ordination between elevator, aileron and rudder in a turn. Being able to just turn the stick on an Airbus and have it maintain the bank, altitude and apply the right amount of rudder etc sounds quite nice, easy and efficient by comparison from that point of view but I'm not trying to imply that I could even come within a hundred miles of the skills you pilots use every day =).

[Chris_the_Swiss 2]

The most important and imo most sensible question is "What is the best Airbus for FSX at the moment." Furthermore, about the existing ones, "Is there any potential for improvement." From that point of view I'm really tempted to buy the Blackbox offering. Of course I'm really interested in the Aerosoft product as well and, judging by their excellent and transparent forum support, I'm fairly sure that their extended Airbus will be good. FSLabs sounds promising but it is not more than hearsay. IMHO there should be more information about the progress. We've had this with other companies ... That's why I like the approach of delivering a beta product and have the customers take part in the development. I usually wait until v1.0 is out because the testing time is too unnerving for me. However, in the meantime, I can watch how the product progresses. This is much better than any review of a long past version. What I don't understand is the fact that some people buy the more or less cheap beta-version and then complain that it has bugs.

Can anyone tell me what the latest version of the Blackbox Airbus is like? The company advertises their update 0.54 as a rather big one. Can anyone confirm? Is it worth it now or would you rather wait?

 

Christoph Kühne

[Jetstream96 20]

Actually nobody knows the answer to this question. FSLabs, Aerosoft, and BBS are all working on their bus. We don't need to judge before they finish the product, right? Aerosoft will release their extended version on Sep 2, and let's wait and see which will be the best.

[mikealpha 266]

^{The Aerosoft Airbus will miss a fundamental part of the FMGS, the in real life widely used FPA/TRK mode. They do not know yet, if they will add it later.}

^{Also they answer questions regarding correct functionality of the flight director rather evasive.}

 

^{Not meant to bash the product before. But if this functionality is valuable for you, then you should wait until they MAYBE add it later.}

[wims80 121]

How often is that really used tho? Its not like VOR or just LOC approaches are very common these days, is it?

[mikealpha 266]

Non precision approaches are always flown with TRK/FPA - no matter if managed or selected (Airbus SOP !), Also if you fly the approach fully managed (means with APPR), TRK/FPA is selected.

I'd consider it an indispensable feature.

[Airbus Commander 563]

How often is that really used tho? Its not like VOR or just LOC approaches are very common these days, is it?

VOR and LOC are quite common enough. Say maybe 1/4 -1/5 of all approaches would be NPA....

TRK/FPV is a very important part of Airbus ops, I'm surprised to find it's missing, but they say it should be in an SP, so most likely you'll be sorted....

 

Ró.

[mikealpha 266]

but they say it should be in an SP

 

Not really. They say stuff like 'maybe' and 'we don't know yet' and they don't want to give any concrete statement regarding it. And one of the developers said it will require a completely new PFD.

 

For those finding FPA/TRK valuable (I do !), that's why I recommend to wait until we get a more definite info what will be in SP1, SP2 or whatever.

[Jetstream96 20]

I have a question here:

Does it mean that we can't fly a Non-precision APP in A320 with only FD (non-FPV)? We don't need FPV in 737 since FD does a nice job, why can't we do the same thing on Airbus?

[Airbus Commander 563]

I have a question here:

Does it mean that we can't fly a Non-precision APP in A320 with only FD (non-FPV)? We don't need FPV in 737 since FD does a nice job, why can't we do the same thing on Airbus?

737 has FPV... :mellow:

 

Ró

[mikealpha 266]

I have a question here:

Does it mean that we can't fly a Non-precision APP in A320 with only FD (non-FPV)? We don't need FPV in 737 since FD does a nice job, why can't we do the same thing on Airbus?

 

In a non-precision approach (NPA), you do not have vertical guidance (as with ILS), so you can't use FD for that. NPAs are e.g. VOR/DME or NDB approaches. The VOR part (usually an airport VOR) provides lateral guidance to the minimum descent altitude (MDA), from there you continue visually. The DME defines the Final Approach Fix, from where you start your descend with a Flight path angle value. Usually 3 degrees, but can be different (specified in the approach charts).

 

How to fly this ? VS would not be good, as with different airspeed you would have to constantly adjust VS. Not very practical. The answer is the FPA/TRK mode of the A320. Basically once you are on your QDM (NDB app) or radial in (VOR), you can set the track and the aircraft will keep pretty much the same track all the way down, so you can forget things like the wind backing and slowing as you fly the approach. Flight path angle allows to continue down a 3 degree slope (or whatever) without having to think about vertical speeds varying with speed. So just fly the little 'bird' indicator in your PFD.

 

In this video you can see a simmer with Wilco A320 using the bird :

 

You can also see the chart in the video, look for D6.0 MMF in the vertical profile.

 

Airbus officially recommends doing all NON PRECISION APP's with TRK-FPA ! That's what makes it also important in a good FS Addon. Airbus pilots also often use it for the visual.

 

Yes, 737 is also equipped with a FPV, but due to the reference behind it is not as sophisticated as the Airbus system. As far as I know, 737 pilots rarely use it.

 

I'm aware, my short explanation can't be quite accurate (one could write half a book about it), but I hope you get the idea.

 

By the way, Aerosoft offers two quite nice sceneries with two VERY beautiful VOR/DME approaches, CorfuX and HeraklionX in Greece :). Much recommended !

[UAE77W 16]

For me Airbus X - Extended would be the best. It has a nice 3D-Cockpit and an awesome model.

 

But I do not understand why they don't include the A319 or better A318 and A319 and wingflex.

I remember how the people were amazed by PMDGs 737ngx wingflex.

 

I'll wait for the FSLabs and the Extended version and the I'll compare.

[Airbus Commander 563]

Yes, 737 is also equipped with a FPV, but due to the reference behind it is not as sophisticated as the Airbus system. As far as I know, 737 pilots rarely use it.

 

Yes, I believe the new NG's have the bird, but they can't set FPA in the FCU. They're confined to "Dive and Drive" operations instead of Continuous Descent Arrivals CDAs. Though the option for Dive and Drive is still an option of course in the A330/A320, and used by many pilots, including myself...

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

But I do not understand why they don't include the A319 or better A318 and A319 and wingflex.

I remember how the people were amazed by PMDGs 737ngx wingflex.

A32X wings don't have particularly noticable flex, it would not be totally realistic to model flex like in the NGX.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[mikealpha 266]

I'm wondering if any of the upcoming Addons will simulate the Flare mode. That's another Airbus speciality. The flare mode adds a pitch down at 50 feet. What, a pitch down during flare, why ? It is caused by the autotrim in normal law. Without the pitch down to hold against when you begin the flare the autotrim would just trim off your flare. That would lead to ballooning and pitch over, it would retrim again and you would start all over again. So this pitch over gives you an artificial back pressure to feel during the flare.

Maybe too much to ask for in an FS Addon, but who knows, maybe we'll also see that in the future ??

[Jetstream96 20]

In a non-precision approach (NPA), you do not have vertical guidance (as with ILS), so you can't use FD for that. NPAs are e.g. VOR/DME or NDB approaches. The VOR part (usually an airport VOR) provides lateral guidance to the minimum descent altitude (MDA), from there you continue visually. The DME defines the Final Approach Fix, from where you start your descend with a Flight path angle value. Usually 3 degrees, but can be different (specified in the approach charts).

 

How to fly this ? VS would not be good, as with different airspeed you would have to constantly adjust VS. Not very practical. The answer is the FPA/TRK mode of the A320. Basically once you are on your QDM (NDB app) or radial in (VOR), you can set the track and the aircraft will keep pretty much the same track all the way down, so you can forget things like the wind backing and slowing as you fly the approach. Flight path angle allows to continue down a 3 degree slope (or whatever) without having to think about vertical speeds varying with speed. So just fly the little 'bird' indicator in your PFD.

 

In this video you can see a simmer with Wilco A320 using the bird :

 

You can also see the chart in the video, look for D6.0 MMF in the vertical profile.

 

Airbus officially recommends doing all NON PRECISION APP's with TRK-FPA ! That's what makes it also important in a good FS Addon. Airbus pilots also often use it for the visual.

 

Yes, 737 is also equipped with a FPV, but due to the reference behind it is not as sophisticated as the Airbus system. As far as I know, 737 pilots rarely use it.

 

I'm aware, my short explanation can't be quite accurate (one could write half a book about it), but I hope you get the idea.

 

By the way, Aerosoft offers two quite nice sceneries with two VERY beautiful VOR/DME approaches, CorfuX and HeraklionX in Greece :). Much recommended !

 

First thanks a lot for your explanation.

 

I don't know much about Airbus systems. Though I fly NGX for almost a year, I seldom fly to airports without ILS.

 

In the normal procedure section in 737NG FCOM, it said we can fly VNAV with VOR/LOC. I guess that should be the reason why FPV is rarely used in 737NG. VNAV is based on FMS calculation and it should play the same role as Airbus's FPA (during NPA), right?

 

Airbus pilots have FPA to help them do the non-precision approach, but Boeing pilots don't need it since VNAV has its great functionality. I am wondering that, if it's possible to fly in "managed" mode with "LOC", then everything will be fine. I have no idea whether this is possible or not. Anyone know about this? I would appreciate a lot.

 

I'm wondering if any of the upcoming Addons will simulate the Flare mode. That's another Airbus speciality. The flare mode adds a pitch down at 50 feet. What, a pitch down during flare, why ? It is caused by the autotrim in normal law. Without the pitch down to hold against when you begin the flare the autotrim would just trim off your flare. That would lead to ballooning and pitch over, it would retrim again and you would start all over again. So this pitch over gives you an artificial back pressure to feel during the flare.

Maybe too much to ask for in an FS Addon, but who knows, maybe we'll also see that in the future ??

 

I read a post from an Airbus A330 pilot several months ago. He said Airbus adds a "slight" forward pressure at 50' AGL, but he can barely "feel" that. Thus, I don't really think this thing is important as we may not really notice the effect of the slight forward trim.