Now that I know what "ground effect" is all about, I feel the same way.

 

Ground effect is also a substantial reduction of induced drag on an aircraft, specially one with a high aspect ratio. It's not at all uncommon to gain speed under ground effect :-) and complicate your landing...

 

High wing aircraft, like a Cessna C172, are less prone to the effect than low wings...

High wing aircraft, like a Cessna C172, are less prone to the effect than low wings...

 

That certainly makes sense!

You know what jcomm, your comment just gave me an idea. I'm gonna install FSX (OMG did I just said that) just to do the exact same test I did with the Bonanza but this time with the 172. I wonder what will I find! Ohhh boy.

 

I'm also gonna see if DX10 makes any difference performance wise. I've read in the FSX forums that for some users it did.

 

 

I'm also gonna see if DX10 makes any difference performance wise. I've read in the FSX forums that for some users it did.

 

We are all waiting for a product that will automatically apply all patches to make fsx work properly in dx10 mode, with various add-ons and sceneries.  Check the FSX DX10 forum!

 

I used DX10, but since PMDG recommends not to use it with their products, and I am mainly using their NGX and 777 with FSX ( and the A2A's P51d and C172 too), I decided not to activate it yet. When that product get's available I'll give it a try if not to expensive :-)  But yes, when I tried DX10, I did notice even better results, the shaders, higher fps, etc...

 

 

But yes, when I tried DX10, I did notice even better results, the shaders, higher fps, etc...

 

Interesting, ok then, if this patch does have a positive effect on my system, I won't mind having FSX along side XP. I do miss some of the aircraft I bought for it. I won't shed any more cash into it, that's for sure.

I must be sooooo.....invisible!!!

 

 

I will try it with one of the weather injectors I am currently testing.

Do tell jcomm when you do.  I already have AS2012 and is quite happy with it, but I am also eyeing the FSGW program especially their intention to also support X-Plane.

 PMDG and ORBX are making it impossible for the hard core simmers to stay with xplane

PMDG is creating payware for XP10 and Frooglesim announced on his youtube channel that ORBX is looking into Xplane10 but no decision yet.

PMDG is creating payware for XP10 and Frooglesim announced on his youtube channel that ORBX is looking into Xplane10 but no decision yet.

Interesting...considering John Venema didn't have very nice things to say about X-Plane.

Good to see he may change his mind.

x-what?

 

Jeff

Okay everybody...........the video in question, is a Van's RV7. I have hundreds of hours in various RVs. I owned a RV6A. With a constant speed prop.........forget ground effect while landing. The plane just won't float. It will fall right through the flare, and smash into the runway, if you let it. You either make a steep approach, which bugs a few passengers, or use a bit of power all the way through the flare. You have to maintain enough airspeed for the elevator to keep the nose up. So, it's either a steep descent, with a flare at the precise second, or use some power.

 

 

This is one problem with simulations. There is a lot of generalization, that just won't apply to all of these airplanes. For instance, the highwing Cessna balloons nose up, with flap deployment, while the RV does a definate nose down. Low wing Pipers will be slightly nose down, or almost neutral. Just not near abrupt as the RV is.

 

 

And.... you might sometimes hear....treat every landing as an engine out. That means not using power on final approach. Another bunch of BULL! If you think the engine is going to konk out on landing, then don't fly the dang thing! Some planes float in ground effect, and some just don't. I'm happy that both sims can simulate ground effect when nessesary....as they're both capable.

Interesting...considering John Venema didn't have very nice things to say about X-Plane.

Good to see he may change his mind.

That would be a good thing.

PMDG is creating payware for XP10 and Frooglesim announced on his youtube channel that ORBX is looking into Xplane10 but no decision yet.

That's news to me too (Orbx - XPlane) If true that's great! Meanwhile they just announced a global vector product teaming up with PILOT's, similar to UTX but worldwide coverage. for their FTX Global project, So their FSX/P3D development isn't ending anytime soon.

The "flying on rails" debate....never ends!

 

 

I did a couple of tests FSX vs XP with this "flying on rails" debate gong on a while back and the test consisted on how long would each aircraft (used Carenado's A36 Bonanza on both) would take to settle down on rw.

 

What I found:

In the case of FSX when cutting throttle, at a speed of 75kts, while flaring, it took quite a bit of runway to settle down, it felt as if there was a cushion of air underneath, it felt weightless, did NOT have to use the throttle to accomplish a smooth landing. I can do perfect landings every time in FSX.

 

 

On the other hand with XP, while doing exactly the same test, same aircraft, airport, rw and speed, it took half the rw to settle down, and another thing, I could feel the weight of the aircraft, I had to used some throttle in order to accomplish a smooth landing. It's a little more of a challenge to do perfect landings in XP

 

This is my personal view of what I consider "flying on rails" in FSX. I'm not saying this is right or wrong as I'm NOT a rw pilot and yes, this may be a bunch of baloney like LAdamson says, but this is how I see it and feel it. Just my own personal perception. Of course, personal perception IS personal, so results may vary.

 

By the way this was done with calm weather on both sims.

 

I remember it being mentioned on some X-Plane forums, that FSX didn't model ground effect, while X-Plane does. Of course FSX models it, just as you found out. I mentioned the RV's in my prior reply. Take an RV7 without a constant speed prop, and it will float. A pilot has to slow down far in advance, to land, as compared to the constant speed version. That could mean many miles in advance. I could drop to a 80 knot approach speed from 120 knots in downwind, easily. And BTW....all constant speed props don't work as air brakes either. I know of some three bladed composite props on RVs, that don't have near the effect of a two blade metal C/S prop. So once again, you can't generalize about hardly anything.

 

 

Okay everybody...........the video in question, is a Van's RV7. I have hundreds of hours in various RVs. I owned a RV6A. With a constant speed prop.........forget ground effect while landing. The plane just won't float. It will fall right through the flare, and smash into the runway, if you let it. You either make a steep approach, which bugs a few passengers, or use a bit of power all the way through the flare. You have to maintain enough airspeed for the elevator to keep the nose up. So, it's either a steep descent, with a flare at the precise second, or use some power.

 

Yeah, admittedly not my best landing, for the conditions, I should have added some power, as I was right on the edge, and when I chopped power, she dropped,

Yeah, admittedly not my best landing, for the conditions, I should have added some power, as I was right on the edge, and when I chopped power, she dropped,

Then it's very authentic!

 

While doing some practicing in a friends RV9A, before I did my RV6's test flights, the owner was going to show me just how much it could slow, to land. All of sudden, he yells stall, and we drop it in from about four feet. Of course, there is still forward motion too. I managed to do it, a bit higher than that. The 9A, lands ten mph slower than my 6A did, and the vertical approach descent is about half, to maintain airspeed. It just has a bigger wing, and a higher lift airfoil, along with slotted flaps. But with the C/S prop, the airspeed still decays extremely fast, and you have to watch it.

any link to this video. i have  a hard time believing this about orbx