Larry are you kidding? Give me a bit more credit mate.. I know what I am talking about. 

 

I am glad it works for props, however it does not work for Jets. Fail an engine on a twin & allow speed to bleed off below Vmca, it's a joke.

 

I understand that this is a game at the end of the day, but why break something that worked in previous versions?

If I became a master of PMDG's 737 and knew everything I could read about in a book, do you think I could really take off, get to my destination and land.

 

The last time this question was asked, the poster wanted to know if he could take the aircraft from cold and dark at the departure airport to cold and dark at the destination.

 

My feeling is, there's so much you need to know that's not modeled that it would be pretty much impossible.  For example, he'd probably wreck the plane beyond its ability to fly just taxiing to the runway.  That is, IF he could convince the ground controller to give him clearance.

 

Edit:  Landing a simulator isn't the same as landing a real plane.  See "fear of death" above.

 

Larry are you kidding? Give me a bit more credit mate.. I know what I am talking about.

 

I figured you did!  That's why I qualified it with "prop aircraft."  Does it work right if you define a propeller for the jets and give it the correct parameters?  Sometimes I know something might work, but I don't know how or why.

 

Hook

Some handling changes you might notice on older aircraft:

 

-a little bit of the 'skatiness' on takeoff roll due to very slight wear (I think) in nosewheel tolerances

-Some nosewheel shimmy after airborne on wheel spindown due to unbalanced tire assembly (probably uneven rudder wear with a tiny amount of bearing pack slop)

-usually a very small amount of play moving control wheel from neutral position.

-,more rudder trim required than normal for a given flight state.... you don't find many 'bent' aircraft, and this may also be partly due to rigging and the indicator

-noticeable roll-pack tension... annoying  with gusty crosswinds on final, in the flare or on departure leg - compensating yoke input past (what is it.... 7 degrees of throw??) the point where roll spoilers kick in to assist aileron you get some additional force required on the yoke.  Normally it's an imperceptable mesh of the two roll controls.

 

So as you're compensating for gusts with back and forth roll inputs, you quickly hit a point of increased force required, making it difficult to precisely counter roll moments from gust.   Always workable, but annoying, especially in the flare.   This are fixed when they get too bad, and some older aircraft (over 10 years old) have this rebuilt to like new feel.

 

That's the typical old-NG wear stuff, as far as handling goes.

Well I had always figured it was just an FSX limitation, otherwise PMDG or other developers would have fixed it by now.

The short answer is no.

 

1-PMDG NGX is great for procedures and it models the day to day in a 737 very well. Its very limited because let's not kid ourselves here, we're dealing with a desktop sim. It doesn't matter how realistic or accurate a fsx aircraft development is, it will always fall short because it's a desktop.

 

2- Even a Level D simulator has what we call "simisms". Everybody that has flown both airliners and done training in be it a Level C or D certified simulator, know that the sim and the real thing fly different and feel different. The simulator is designed for procedure training. To get the muscle memory, emergency procedures, etc. At a lower cost . They are designed to be a bit more sensitive than the real aircraft. So most of the time flying the sim ok will result in flying the aircrat very good.

 

3- Unless you have the "seat of your pants" sense of things I do not believe it would be possible.

 

Now, with all that said, The NGX is arguably the best 737 development in FSX. I absolutely love it. It's as realistic as FSX allows it to be and PMDG did a great job on her.

Well I had always figured it was just an FSX limitation

 

Adding a prop definition to a jet may not be possible.  But it's the kind of outside-the-box idea that many developers may not think of.  I have no experience with jets in FSX, so someone else will have a better chance of figuring it out.

 

Does *anyone* model this correctly in jets?

 

Hook

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.

Assuming no airborne threats or emergencies and perfect flight and ground conditions, without having to interact with controllers etc, with someone talking you through parts of it..... I think you'd be successful sometimes.    Which is great, but not really acceptable odds for real life aviation, lol.

 

Here's a good story:

 

At one point a few years ago, after 9-11, our Flight Attendant training department wanted to give their people some confidence that they could potentially land the aircraft if the flight crew was incapacitated.   So they put them in a sim, motion and crash off, gave them a quick brief on how to land the airplane, then put them on short final configured and on speed, and let them have the controls.   Of course conditions were perfect, and they weren't allow to move the controls until the instructor told them to pull power to idle, and raise the nose so much.   Didn't matter how hard the impact, it was always smooth because the motion was off.

 

So word got around, that flying was easy, and some flight attendants thought.. if they just had that extra two weeks of training, they could have been a pilot and made more money. (4 wk initial FA training, 6wks for new hire pilot I think).

 

They had to stop that 'confidence' training due to inappropriate, and uninformed, disrespectful attitudes in some cases towards the pilot group.. in other words, it was meant as a moral booster in anticipation of a potentially deadly situation, but ended up having a counter productive effect.   Not among most of them, but with enough...

 

Anyway, with your general knowledge of aircraft handling and systems, particularly this plane, it would be fun to try out in a full sim, or IRL, even though that's impossible.  I think you would fare well, finding some of the handling familiar and relatively easy, if not most of it.

 

I WOULD NOT have you attempt to land IRL on a gusty, rainy, dark night, on a short field with an ocean for an overrun, like Grand Cayman, lol.

 

 

They had to stop that 'confidence' training due to inappropriate, and uninformed, disrespectful attitudes in some cases

 

Flight simmers would never be like that.  Would they?

 

Hook

How amazing is this! Wow! To think that with $200, you could even have a 1/100 chance in perfect condition to take off and land a real 737. Would anyone have though this possible 10 years ago?

 

It shows how good flight simulator is, and how stable and reliable a real 737 is.

 

One last question. How does the flight computer compare to the real thing? I am assuming this would also be hard to get right perfectly.

Some handling changes you might notice on older aircraft:

 

-a little bit of the 'skatiness' on takeoff roll due to very slight wear (I think) in nosewheel tolerances

-Some nosewheel shimmy after airborne on wheel spindown due to unbalanced tire assembly (probably uneven rudder wear with a tiny amount of bearing pack slop)

-usually a very small amount of play moving control wheel from neutral position.

-,more rudder trim required than normal for a given flight state.... you don't find many 'bent' aircraft, and this may also be partly due to rigging and the indicator

-noticeable roll-pack tension... annoying  with gusty crosswinds on final, in the flare or on departure leg - compensating yoke input past (what is it.... 7 degrees of throw??) the point where roll spoilers kick in to assist aileron you get some additional force required on the yoke.  Normally it's an imperceptable mesh of the two roll controls.

 

So as you're compensating for gusts with back and forth roll inputs, you quickly hit a point of increased force required, making it difficult to precisely counter roll moments from gust.   Always workable, but annoying, especially in the flare.   This are fixed when they get too bad, and some older aircraft (over 10 years old) have this rebuilt to like new feel.

 

That's the typical old-NG wear stuff, as far as handling goes.

 

 

From the A+P side of things, I would opine that you're getting shimmy and shudder in the NLG because of wear in the torque collar, actuator mount trunnion, and buttom end wear in the shock strut in an older aircraft.

 

The comment you made above about a little slop in the yoke (I'm paraphrasing); why in the Just Planes vids do I always see the pilot or FO that's in command doing a LOT of constant side to side and fore/aft motions in the yoke? Like left-right-left-right like the tick-tock rythym of a clock, like my wife used to do in the car when she first got her permit... is there that much slop?  The instruments and camera are indicating level wings, smooth rate of descent.

I don't have much of a fear of death by flying, either when doing this:

 

or this:

 

(or even this: 

)

Trent, so you are Musical Aviator?  I really like your videos mate, have started watching them recently.

I don't have much of a fear of death by flying, 

IMO, in the real world, that can be a bit dangerous. I am a private pilot, and I have a realistic understanding that every time I go up, there is a chance that I may not come back in one piece. I know that my aircraft is maintained well and I have great confidence in my abilities as a pilot, but having a bit of 'fear' in the back of your mind can prevent you from making dangerous decisions. (Really, fear is a bit of a strong word, I would more equate it to respect for Murphy's law and the fact that I am not bullet proof). 

How amazing is this! Wow! To think that with $200, you could even have a 1/100 chance in perfect condition to take off and land a real 737. Would anyone have though this possible 10 years ago?

 

It shows how good flight simulator is, and how stable and reliable a real 737 is.

 

One last question. How does the flight computer compare to the real thing? I am assuming this would also be hard to get right perfectly.

I think you have a much better chance than that, lol.

 

The FMS is for pilot purposes exactly like the real thing, at least for normal use.   I didn't check some of the pages, certainly not maintenance info.   The software in the FMS varies slightly from company to company, and ours is not exactly like the one represented by PMDG, but I think it represents a typical one.

From the A+P side of things, I would opine that you're getting shimmy and shudder in the NLG because of wear in the torque collar, actuator mount trunnion, and buttom end wear in the shock strut in an older aircraft.

 

The comment you made above about a little slop in the yoke (I'm paraphrasing); why in the Just Planes vids do I always see the pilot or FO that's in command doing a LOT of constant side to side and fore/aft motions in the yoke? Like left-right-left-right like the tick-tock rythym of a clock, like my wife used to do in the car when she first got her permit... is there that much slop?  The instruments and camera are indicating level wings, smooth rate of descent.

That's probably pilot reaction to very small uncommanded changes in aircraft attitude in windy conditions.  Plus probably a little bit of PIO, as you can't always dampen an unwanted movement exactly the right amount.   It might not be obvious in video or even on instruments; it would be very obvious looking outside referencing the horizon and other things in the environment moving.

Take it easy on Pongress,He could be stuck on 3rd shift with Tuesdays and Wednesdays off until he dies (edit forgot holidays too).

 As an ex airline mechanic( from general aviation to B747-400) he has my sympathies.

That's why I work on Subway trains now,You cant fly them out of the country for cheap labor, hack job maintenance.

Flying airliners is not rocket science,It's the systems knowledge and decision making skills that matter in the end.