Airbus anyone?

[WR269 367]

 

Let us look at the A320 accident at the airshow demonstration.   The aircraft had decided it was landing, and that was that.   When the pilot tried to pull up, the elevators would have none of it and pitch the nose down instead of up.

 

Now, had this been a Boeing, even the 777, the pilot would easily have climbed away from those trees because with the flip of one switch, the pilot is back in control and the aircraft won't decide for him that he does not have the authority to do something like that.   That is what Boeing's philosophy has always been, and that is what I mean when referring to the differences between the two.

 

Werner, I think you need to do more reading on this, it has been discussed to death, and those who look at an Airbus with Boeing logic in their heads come to the conclusion you just did. The accident investigation panned the pilots for performing a low fly by with passengers, way below the altitude they planned to fly at. They also flew the demonstration on a runway they had NOT briefed nor planned for, and they were unaware of the forest of trees at the end of the runway. The engines spooled up correctly when the pilot applied full power but by then it was too late. he had kept the aeroplane on a high Alpha attitude for too long (barely above stall speed), so the aeroplane was not going to climb. Basic airmanship.

Had this happened on the 777, the result would have been likely the same...why?  Simple, if pilots put an aerroplane full of people in the same situation, you can expect a different degree of disaster, but a disaster nonetheless.

[FLEX1978 373]

Werner, you made yourself look pretty silly, however in fairness below 50ft alpha floor is inhibited on the bus, the argument has been made that the pilot was not aware of this, you could say it was the fault of Airbus/Air France incorrect training, most however would say if you are going to be in command of a new airliner at an air show with passengers on board you should know your machine, and even more important know the differance between 30ft RA & 100 ft RA

[CaptCraig 226]

[kevinh 409]

Well as far as know for FSX only one study sim A320 is being developed, same goes for other types, only one Indepth 777,767,MD11,ATR, Dash 8, 747-400, Tupolev,F18, 737 classic. In fact the only aircraft that I can think of that has been duplicated to a high level in FSX is the PMDG NG & Ifly NG.

 

Aerosoft Airbus x,PSS,Wilco and even black box are entry level sims. I don't think black box are even trying to compete with FSlabs.

According to Blackbox announcements they do plan to make a full depth Airbus simulation. The current product (Prologue) is just the beginning, as the name implies. Airbus Extreme will be twice the price of Prologue and so in the same market sector as PMDG and FSL, pricewise.

 

Even at the lower level the duplication between Aerosoft, BBS and the older Wilco Airbus is unfortunate.

[CaptCraig 226]

According to Blackbox announcements they do plan to make a full depth Airbus simulation. The current product (Prologue) is just the beginning, as the name implies. Airbus Extreme will be twice the price of Prologue and so in the same market sector as PMDG and FSL, pricewise.

 

Don't you get it?  Companies feed you "prologue" and "V0.1" etc to make you buy before it's even finished.  You become the beta tester, while the rest who are waiting hear ###### reviews and might be put off the product.  Mind you, the AEX and BBS have come far in their development, but I'm the kind of guy who doesn't want major development happening to the plane after I've bought it.  Why should I have to pay for the finished product if I already paid for it?  

 

FSLabs and PMDG are good companies.  This is why their forums are filled with people screaming for their planes.  They get them right pretty much the first time.  

 

I wouldn't be comparing BBS to PMDG quality my friend, because we who bought Prologue are all beta testers for them.  FSLabs is a different story.  They are working in the background to make sure they have a product worthy of releasing.  Just like PMDG does.  In that respect in my mind they are a PMDG quality company.  

 

Did that makes any sense?  I've been drinking.  

[Ponk 51]

I feel there are enough Boeing liners now, an Airbus would be great, but there is one coming.

 

Since the BBJ came to nothing, I would love a business jet, something like Gulfstream.  Or PMDG could go bit wild and try a TU 154, that would be something different for us to get our teeth in to!

[Fabo 213]

 

 

Or PMDG could go bit wild and try a TU 154, that would be something different for us to get our teeth in to!

 

Go get your teeth in to Project Tupolev 154... Guaranteed sleepless nights...

[Ponk 51]

I forgot about that one, you mean that In a good way or bad way? Bugs or just tough to learn?

[Fabo 213]

In a very good way. The FSX B-2 is teeny tiny less modeled system-wise compared to the FS9 M, but both are still very good, and relay the feel and atmosphere of flying a Russian airliner extremely well.

 

Don't forget to learn your cyrilics, no English panel in this one!

[kevinh 409]

Don't you get it?  Companies feed you "prologue" and "V0.1" etc to make you buy before it's even finished.  You become the beta tester, while the rest who are waiting hear ###### reviews and might be put off the product.  Mind you, the AEX and BBS have come far in their development, but I'm the kind of guy who doesn't want major development happening to the plane after I've bought it.  Why should I have to pay for the finished product if I already paid for it?  

 

FSLabs and PMDG are good companies.  This is why their forums are filled with people screaming for their planes.  They get them right pretty much the first time.  

 

I wouldn't be comparing BBS to PMDG quality my friend, because we who bought Prologue are all beta testers for them.  FSLabs is a different story.  They are working in the background to make sure they have a product worthy of releasing.  Just like PMDG does.  In that respect in my mind they are a PMDG quality company.  

 

Did that makes any sense?  I've been drinking.  

Of course I get it, my friend, do you think I'm stupid or something?  You take your chance buying 0.x versions of development products. I read reviews and forum comments before opting in. At least this way you get a usable, mostly complete sim much earlier than you would otherwise do, but you take the risk they may fail to complete it.  I'm quite happy to act as a public beta tester as long as they listen to customer feedback, so far they seem to.

 

Don't forget, before the 777 was released the forums were full of people offering to be beta testers for it and quite a few suggestions to release it now, incomplete, and have the rest as a post release update.  So clearly people are willing to take unfinished products, as long as they are confident they will be finished.

 

Also I never compared BBS with PMDG or FSL. I said their quoted price (which is €90) puts them in the same part of the market as the likes of PMDG and FSL.  So their "Extreme" product will need to be comparable to sell many copies.  So potentially there may be another high end Airbus.  BBS certainly have the capability, but who knows whether the have the resources to deliver.  Clearly their "Extreme" must offer more than the current "Prologue" for the extra €45 and that must come in the form of extra depth, such as a complete ECAM.  BBS Extreme may well be a slightly less deep sim but offering a wider range of models.  FSL are starting with just one version, the A320, others will follow eventually but at extra cost. BBS have offered most of the A32x family and all engine options so far. So it may turn out to be more iFly than PMDG.  I certainly won't be paying for the upgrade until I know whats included.

 

Those who bought the current Prologue version aren't going to get the Extreme version free, but they will get a discount representing what they paid already if they want to upgrade.  No one will be charged twice for the same thing.

[Kerlix 99]

 

 

Did that makes any sense?  I've been drinking.

 

Probably my favorite closing remark in a post. Ever.

[Werner747 107]

Werner, you made yourself look pretty silly, however in fairness below 50ft alpha floor is inhibited on the bus, the argument has been made that the pilot was not aware of this, you could say it was the fault of Airbus/Air France incorrect training, most however would say if you are going to be in command of a new airliner at an air show with passengers on board you should know your machine, and even more important know the differance between 30ft RA & 100 ft RA

Yes, I have to agree, my apologies gents, I had a look at it again.   I was under the impression that the Alpha was part of the landing mode and that the aircraft sort of refused to leave landing mode and that that was why it acted in the way that it did.

 

I also have to confess that since I'm not a big fan of the A-team's products, I don't really know what makes them tick!   Anyway, thank you guys, the other two posts about the correction to my statement as well, I actually learned something here today again  :blush: .

 

Kind regards.

[hopskip 253]

Yes, I have to agree, my apologies gents, I had a look at it again.   I was under the impression that the Alpha was part of the landing mode and that the aircraft sort of refused to leave landing mode and that that was why it acted in the way that it did.

 

I also have to confess that since I'm not a big fan of the A-team's products, I don't really know what makes them tick!   Anyway, thank you guys, the other two posts about the correction to my statement as well, I actually learned something here today again  :blush: .

 

Kind regards.

 

Like most silly pilot error Airbus incidents... what do you get when you pull full aft stick (up elevator) and don't push the engines to max thrust?

 

Just like with any airplane, Airbus, Boeing, Embraier, Bombadier, or Cessna... you get a Stall.

 

I know the Airbus "Protects" itself by applying full thrust 'automatically'... right up until it stops working.

 

If you want full power, you push the throttles forward. Yes the Airbus can catch a mistake, but it can be harder to protect against deliberate stupidity.

 

Not to mention just deciding to go below the minimum planned height, etc etc.

 

When marketing turns into training, something's bound to go wrong. "This plane protects itself against stall" is not the same as "We shouldn't bother teaching Airbus pilots to recover from a Stall", or "Lets deliberately try to stall it at 30ft with passengers on board."