While the wording sounds odd at first, it's valid.  You can do things in the simulator that you'd never do in real life.  For example, lots of people in the earlier days of flight simming flew the 747 inverted under the Golden Gate Bridge.  That might be an extreme example.

 

An example closer to home is a flight I had a couple of years ago with a local pilot in a C172 and he mentioned flying under a bridge.  While I do this all the time in FSX, it wasn't something I was keen to try in real life. 

 

Hook

 

Exactly, I am constantly getting in a plane I know nothing about in FSX (like the comet) with warning signs going off, etc., and I still take off and have a little fun.

 

I don't think I would attempt this in real life.

 

I will avoid the "FOD" expression from now on.

 

I don't know how long people have been using computers on this forum, but I remember playing "Chuck Yeager's Flight Simulator" for the Commodore 64. In the instructions, he mentioned another word (I forget what is was) for crashing.

 

 

he mentioned another word (I forget what is was) for crashing.

 

Actively avoiding the sky?

he mentioned another word (I forget what is was) for crashing.

 

Augering in, I think.  Was in his autobiography, too, a highly recommended read.

 

Edit:  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger

 

Hook

Augering in, I think.  Was in his autobiography, too, a highly recommended read.

 

Hook

 

That's it. You are a genius! LOL!

 

Was that an expression used by most pilots, or just him?

n reality the PMDG doesn't come close to replicating how a real world pilot would operate in a real environment.  It does manage to replicate the physical aspects of manipulating systems to an impressive, and RL degree, the FM is really good for FSX, but that's only a fraction of what you need to know and consider when operating in the real world.    It's close enough in what it does model that those aspects feel like work, lol. 

 

If you have a really solid grasp of pitch power trim, the 73NG is not hard to fly IRL.   There are things however missing in the sim that would be a surprise:

 

-Control feel in general... desktop control devices don't give you a sense of how much force or sensitivity is required for any controls

-Very sensitive rudder inputs are required on takeoff about about 80 knots to prevent 'skating' back and forth - less so in calm wind with a new airplane.

-Typically, 1/2 degree of left rudder is required through takeoff roll and cleanup, unless you want to dance more on rudder pedals (typical from new factory aircraft)

-A small amount of counter aileron is almost always required to hold a standard rate turn.... less than 15 degrees of bank or so this is not a factor

-Rudder trim change needed to trim out yaw on takeoff needs to be retrimmed as necessary in climb and again once at cruise altitude and speed.. this is not typical for other airliners

-Pitch moments due to power changes are not noticeable in FSX... some of this I think is due to poor gust rendering... but it's something you deal with all the time IRL

-Single engine yaw induced roll, and associated rudder and trim required are nothing like a real swept wing jet... let alone the 73NG.   This is something that is fixable within FSX files.

-40 flap landings which you need for shorter field landings are not even close to appropriate drag, especialy compared to what's modeled for other landing flap settings...

 

Those are some of the obvious items as far as handling goes, things that define the character of the NG as opposed to other airliners is missing to a degree.

 

The PMDG does a great job flying by the numbers, as far as power and drag are concerned.   As someone with 3600 hrs in 73-800s, I wouldn't use it for review not because it doesn't have depth of systems with educational value, but mostly because the physical aspects of interfacing the sim through a computer screen and peripherals is so far from reality for me.

 

 

Was that an expression used by most pilots, or just him?

 

I've seen it other places, but you have to remember that ALL pilots try to sound like Chuck Yeager on the radio. 

 

Hook

n reality the PMDG doesn't come close to replicating how a real world pilot would operate in a real environment.  It does manage to replicate the physical aspects of manipulating systems to an impressive, and RL degree, the FM is really good for FSX, but that's only a fraction of what you need to know and consider when operating in the real world.    It's close enough in what it does model that those aspects feel like work, lol. 

 

If you have a really solid grasp of pitch power trim, the 73NG is not hard to fly IRL.   There are things however missing in the sim that would be a surprise:

 

-Control feel in general... desktop control devices don't give you a sense of how much force or sensitivity is required for any controls

-Very sensitive rudder inputs are required on takeoff about about 80 knots to prevent 'skating' back and forth - less so in calm wind with a new airplane.

-Typically, 1/2 degree of left rudder is required through takeoff roll and cleanup, unless you want to dance more on rudder pedals (typical from new factory aircraft)

-A small amount of counter aileron is almost always required to hold a standard rate turn.... less than 15 degrees of bank or so this is not a factor

-Rudder trim change needed to trim out yaw on takeoff needs to be retrimmed as necessary in climb and again once at cruise altitude and speed.. this is not typical for other airliners

-Pitch moments due to power changes are not noticeable in FSX... some of this I think is due to poor gust rendering... but it's something you deal with all the time IRL

-Single engine yaw induced roll, and associated rudder and trim required are nothing like a real swept wing jet... let alone the 73NG.   This is something that is fixable within FSX files.

-40 flap landings which you need for shorter field landings are not even close to appropriate drag, especialy compared to what's modeled for other landing flap settings...

 

Those are some of the obvious items as far as handling goes, things that define the character of the NG as opposed to other airliners is missing to a degree.

 

The PMDG does a great job flying by the numbers, as far as power and drag are concerned.   As someone with 3600 hrs in 73-800s, I wouldn't use it for review not because it doesn't have depth of systems with educational value, but mostly because the physical aspects of interfacing the sim through a computer screen and peripherals is so far from reality for me.

 

Thank you so much. That was the most interesting post I read in a long time. It is a shame that $80 can't get you more :-)

 

Good to know what your getting though.

 

Thank again.

 

 

This is something that is fixable within FSX files.

 

Seems like a lot of those would be fixable within FSX files.  Odd that they didn't do it.  Well, they were concentrating on systems modeling, and who flies that bird by hand anyway?  Probably really good for an $80 simulator.

 

Hook

 

 

I will avoid the "FOD" expression from now on.

 

FOD is OK... Foreign Object Damage.

 

 

 

Augering in, I think. Was in his autobiography, too, a highly recommended read.



Edit: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger



Hook

 

Actually, "augered in" is common in the USAF speak, and probably USN/USMC/USA as well.

So... I think I'd give it a 7.... due to a coupla things.    Two tough things to do well in the 73NG are landing precisely - it's fast and very sensitive to speed changes away from app speeds in the flare and with gusts, and doing typical single engine handling for a swept wing jet.   I don't think it does either of those well.   The landing issue is mostly due to limitations of FSX, the surface detail and visual perspective is not there to make tiny, quick adjustments like the real thing, I can't tell exactly where I am in the flare in FSX etc.

 

Single engine handling is a huge part of heavy jet pilot competency that doesn't work here.

 

Other than that, it represents impressively well

(I)n reality ... for me.

 

Awesome post.  I'd wondered about rudder trim and how an older aircraft would react versus a new one because of wear in the control surface actuators.

 

Enjoyed reading this one.  Thanks!

I can't get my head around why Microsoft broke the engine out behaviour in FSX, it worked fine in FS9. Has anyone attempted to fix to yaw effect in FSX?

 

As it stands Vmcg & Vmca do not even need to be considered.

 

 

The "fear of death" is probably exactly the same as getting in your car.

Around here, "fear of death" may equate to fear of a CTD or an unexplained 10  FPS drop in frame rate.

 

 

I can't get my head around why Microsoft broke the engine out behaviour in FSX, it worked fine in FS9.

 

It seems to work just fine with prop aircraft, along with pitch changes coming from power changes when the engine/prop isn't along the centerline of the aircraft.  It sounds like someone didn't set up the thrust axis properly.

 

Hook

So... I think I'd give it a 7.... due to a coupla things.    Two tough things to do well in the 73NG are landing precisely - it's fast and very sensitive to speed changes away from app speeds in the flare and with gusts, and doing typical single engine handling for a swept wing jet.   I don't think it does either of those well.   The landing issue is mostly due to limitations of FSX, the surface detail and visual perspective is not there to make tiny, quick adjustments like the real thing, I can't tell exactly where I am in the flare in FSX etc.

 

Single engine handling is a huge part of heavy jet pilot competency that doesn't work here.

 

Other than that, it represents impressively well

 

This is just gold. Now I have to ask you something that is probably going to get some people on this forum mad.

 

If I became a master of PMDG's 737 and knew everything I could using the simulator, do you think I could really take off, get to my destination and land.

 

Specifically, if the weather was perfect, the plane was setup to go, and I had you to talk to remotely.

 

I remember a recent episode of "Myth Busters". They wanted to know if someone could land a plane with help from an expert on the ground like they have sometimes done in movies.

 

They got into a REAL simulator, and basically were able to land the plane.