Also, there is an error in fs2004, when flying aircraft and you extend the flaps, the motion of the plane is to sink, this is not accurate, when extending the flaps the plane should start to climb at first as you push the yoke down to counter act this.

 

OK ...... deep breath and let's reset.  Above is your statement in your ORIGINAL post.  Evidence has been shown that this is NOT necessarily the case.  FACT:  The behavior of an aircraft when flaps are deployed is AIRCRAFT DEPENDENT.  THAT is your answer to your original question.  Your blanket statement is incorrect.

 

As to your observation regarding the behavior of "a simple Cessna 172 to a Cessna CJ1+ or a King Air 350" aircraft during flap extension ...... I believe you.  You're the pilot of the craft that you have flown and you have first-hand knowledge of that craft's behavior under those conditions.  I don't think anyone is saying your observations on PARTICULAR aircraft are false.  We all have to now agree your generalization regarding flap deployment = always pitch up is incorrect.

 

Further, it appears that there is additional information, proof if you accept, that Newton's Third Law has negligible effect AT BEST regarding this phenomena.

 

Your observation that certain (certainly most) aircraft do not exhibit their real-life counterpart's flight dynamics is right on.  There have been many discussions in the past regarding this subject.  Quite frankly, I have observed that the flight dynamics and characteristics of almost every flight sim aircraft has VERY little to do with "reality".  For instance, flying a Cessna 172 in the flight sim is very much like flying a B777 or A380 for that matter.  The "feel" of flying either is actually quite similar.  Sure, the Cessna isn't going to climb at 3,000 fpm, but the flight characteristics of the tube liners are not modeled well at all either.

 

OK.  It appears that there is some measure of truth to BOTH sides of this discussion.  There are some real-world pilots that have certain misconceptions regarding the behavior of aerodynamics on the performance of their aircraft.  There are some (actually many..... neh MANY) flight sim pilots who haven't a clue as to how a "real-world" aircraft behaves or handles.  I dare say most have never sat in one of the front seats of an aircraft, much less have any "real" flying time on the stick/yoke.

 

To those who resorted to maligning the experience or background of another poster ....... shame on you.  Enough facts and experiential information has been presented so that belittling is entirely unnecessary.

 

We can all get along together, even if we share differing backgrounds or disagree on certain ideas ...... and ....... if elected, I promise to serve this community with all of my being ...... and only raise your taxes to the fullest amount allowed by law.

 

 

like I said, id like for a pilot on this forum to tell me how the plane (piper or Cessna )reacts when they extend the flaps.

 

OK, I'll bite.  I'm the former owner/pilot of a single engine Piper.  Lowering flaps on my plane resulted in no appreciable pitch changes whatsoever at typical CG.

 

Now - a question for you... with the information I've given you, can you guess what my plane was and why it behaved differently from your generalized statement?  The answer has to do with things others have mentioned, and with one thing that has not.  The bottom line is - there's LOTs of variability in aircraft behavior on flap extension, depending on many, many factors as well as the interplay of those factors.

 

The real point here being that you're being taken to task for rather large generalizations in terms of both RW and sim.  Those generalizations indicate somewhat limited experience on your part as you're extrapolating a small sample into all planes and all of FS 2004.  Neither is appropriate.  THAT's what people are reacting to.

 

Scott

you're extrapolating a small sample into all planes and all of FS 2004

Exactly.

To the OP:

Welcome to FS2004. If you are dissatisfied with stock aircraft models and a stock install, you are in good company.

Most folk around here have forgotten what a stock install even looks like.

 

There's a great deal of experience and skill to be drawn on.

Pitching a question (rather than a condemnation of our beloved sim B) ), will probably result in a fix to your satisfaction. Ed has alluded to this above.

 

There are of course, limitations in 10-year old computer software!

So you have to assist a little yourself, in achieving the ultimate aim of the hobby, to wit:

The Suspension of Disbelief.  

Is it a plane?  Is it a sim?  No its Superma ... well you get the idea.   :rolleyes:

 

Jetblast if you can do better than MS and LM and Laminar,  well we have the readies. 

The simple fact is there is no PC based simulator that has complete fidelity to real world flight. Only full motion simulators can come close but still can not simulate the complete array of physical (body) inputs such a negative or positive G forces for any longer than the hydraulic motion system can produce based on piston length.

 

As others have clearly stated FS9 is old, but the best there was at the time. We as a community, real, real world pilots, developers, artists, engineers, etc. etc. have spent FS9s entire life making it better. We are still working on it. It will never be perfect unless we can find someone with a perfect intellect to take over and finish the job. To the OP, are you up for the job? We would certainly appreciate sloped runways, wet and dry runway simulation, a complete photo real planet ( no frame rate hit ), every building, road, river, stream, railroad in the proper place to within 1m and elevation data to within 1m. While we are at it could we have oceans that rise and fall with the tides? Please fix the mostly unbelievable night textures. By all means fix all the aircraft models, flight dynamics and system modeling so we can all consider ourselves Type Rated in our aircraft of choice. Thank you.

 

I am not a pilot. I don't have a license, doubt that I ever will and thus would never claim I do. What I do have is Eletro-Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science and Art all this includes Physics etc. I do not consider any of that to make me qualified to be a expert in those fields or in flight simulators. As a matter of fact I have never mentioned my education until now. I spend my FS9 time trying to learn more, help others a little if I can and working to improve my FS9. I do not spend my time disputing issues with others. If I question someones opinion or knowledge I do not take the person to task. I research to find out more not to bolster my point of view. Last but not least, I read these forums for years and learned from everyone (thanks to all) before I dared think about posting let alone posing as a expert on anything. Many have tried to pose as something they are not and are usually soon found out by exposing themselves.

 

Please take that as a polite attitude adjustment. BTW way welcome to AVSIM Jetblast

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

Jetblast if you can do better than MS and LM and Laminar, well we have the readies.

 

Well that is certainly a much more brief and to the point way of saying what I rambled about. But, . . . but,but I got to us more of the dictionary. :Big Grin:

Guess it's still dog pile season ........ anyone else?