Donny, That's truly a wonderful story! Regards Blue

This was the most intense piece of reading I had in the last year. Thanks for sharing.

Mr. Adamson, I have read and enjoyed your contributions to this and other forums for as long as I've been a member and know that you are a RW pilot with considerable skill and knowledge.I don't mean to "disagree" with you because I learned long ago that the functionality of all things FS related depend a great deal on individual rigs but having said that...Just to make sure I wasn't delusional, I just did the following test hops in the default 172 at SeaTac.1. 80 kts/20 deg. flaps/zero wind/ 3 fpm descent rate/over the numbers at 20 ft. agl/flared out and achieved a "no bounce" "chirp" touchdown at on the fifth white strip. That would equate to ZERO float.2. 65 kts/500 fpm descent/ZERO flare...just drove it on nose down...and another "chirp" arrival. As you well know, what I have just described would at a minimum send any skyhawk ever built into a MAJOR bounce, a visit to the local A&P and with a pilot so unskilled as to do what I did, most likely a series of PIOs that could very well ruin the poor guys whole day.As for my rig, it includes PFC yolk, single and ME power quads, and industrial strength hydraulic rudder pedals.I agree with you that the landing phase of flight, simulated or otherwise, is the "payoff" which I enjoy immensely. I am very pleased for you that you experience a fairly realistic amount of ground effect on your rig, but it does not exist to any realistic extent on mine with the vast majority of default, freeware and/or payware aircraft I fly and does not exist AT ALL in my default 172.BTW all of my realism settings are maxed out.Regards,JimPS: Since this thread has received a fair amount of attention I am going through my entire hanger to make sure I am not missing something and I would be remiss not to report that the best ground effect model I have reviewed so far is the RealAir Spitfire.

make that 300 fpm not 3.

Landing using MSFS is indeed pretty boring most of the time. What I like to do is add turbulance below 5000AGL. Heavier the a/c - like a jet rather then a GA a/c - the more I add turbulance.Add 10-15 kts or more to the gusts line, and that really does add a little more realism to the landing. A gust when flaring will cause the a/c to float. Other times it'll keep you busy while you wrestle it to stop it smashing the concrete. Not perfect or REALLY realistic. To me thogh, it makes it a bit more interesting at least!

I'm no expert about this flight dynamics stuff, but I gave it a try myself in the RealAir version of the Cessna 172. Coming in at about 80 the plane bounced three times before settling on the ground and I wasn't able to slow it down before running out of runway. This was at a small airfield...it certainly wasn't a pretty landing. I also had some trouble with crosswinds and keeping the plane lined up. It was quite a challenge. :)

>Landing using MSFS is indeed pretty boring most of the time.There are some, that are quite interesting & "fun" to land.May I suggest the RealAir Spitfire, using just the small side windscreen triangles to see a bit of the runway on each side, since you can't see over the nose.It's these type of simulated aircraft, that I get a big kick out of!L.Adamson

>>1. 80 kts/20 deg. flaps/zero wind/ 3 fpm descent rate/over the>numbers at 20 ft. agl/flared out and achieved a "no bounce">"chirp" touchdown at on the fifth white strip. That would>equate to ZERO float.I tried it too...In so many words, I was driving it onto the runway, and still had airspeed left for flight, should I pull the elevator back. As I remember, it was FS2000 that "over exaggerated" the bouncing effects with extremely flexing landing gear. The landing had to be near perfection, or you could count on two or three bounces everytime. IMO, Microsoft tamed the effect a little too much.My previous comment on the Cessna at 80 kias, had to do with the fact, that you still had to drive it onto the runway, as a positive angle of attack would want to fly.>2. 65 kts/500 fpm descent/ZERO flare...just drove it on nose>down...and another "chirp" arrival. As you well know, what I>have just described would at a minimum send any skyhawk ever>built into a MAJOR bounce, a visit to the local A&P and with a>pilot so unskilled as to do what I did, most likely a series>of PIOs that could very well ruin the poor guys whole day.The bounce still has to do with the gear. An F-18 would do a lot better.

that big story, was that really true?true or not, you need to quit flight simming and start writing novels, you're right up there with Clancy, i'd buy one of your novels!ciao!Brian S

The Handley Page Victor was a four-jet bomber with a crescent- shaped swept-wing. It was said to have a very marked ground effect that resulted in it flaring out and landing perfectly with no inervention from the pilot once it was stabilised on the approach.

Found a good floater & bouncer! The Flight Factory Simulations RV-7. Approach & begin to flare with too much airspeed, and the floating sensation is excellent. It just doesn't want to come down. Hit with the gear & bounce, and the ballooning effect well also.I've flown both the real RV6A & RV9A (not a whole lot of hours, yet), but never experienced or practiced with higher speed approaches. So I had to look this subject up in the RV builders archives; and sure enough, the float effect is well documented for approaches with too high of an airspeed. I also know that the RV6 will fall through ground effect and plop on the runway, if the airspeed gets to low; kind of like a Piper Arrow with the "Hershey" wing.L.Adamson

I just got the 7A from ffs today too (got the RV-7 ages ago) and am rediscovering how much fun it is to fly. :)