Larry, Ron,The zero thrust setting for the Seneca to simulate feathered a prop is around about 15". Not sure if that is useful data or not.One thing I don't recally paying any attention to in FS is setting the pitch find and diving. Does the engine actually overrev? Must try this later.P.S. We need another thread!

>> Generally jet transports do have a vertical thrust offset.>>Which is due to both the distance from the vertical CG and the>>turbines angular offset. It is usually desirable to have the>>nose pitch down with increased thrust.>But in airliners with wing mounted engines, the position of>these latter should generally produce a nose pitch up, right?>Marco Yes. However, the turbines may also be mounted at some incidence that adds a nose down moment. Turbine incidence could be set in FS98, and 2 deg was the default. Ron

>Larry, Ron,>>The zero thrust setting for the Seneca to simulate feathered a>prop is around about 15". Not sure if that is useful data or>not. There is a table in the C310 POH that also shows the prop beta for zero thrust.>One thing I don't recally paying any attention to in FS is>setting the pitch find and diving. Does the engine actually>overrev? Must try this later. A FP prop will overrev. I set the Prop's power coefficient so red line is just hit in level flight at full power. Any descent would increase RPM. Less likely with a CS prop if the blades can increase enough in pitch. Regardless, too high a speed and the pilot had better pull the prop and power back.>P.S. We need another thread! YES! So, start one. ;) Ron

Over hear we call that kind of tech talk by another name "bollocks".Strange thing is, either method should produce the same result ;-)Even stranger (sadder?), I actually Googled googleplex.....you learn something new everyday!Dreamfleet Project ManagerGreatest Airliners - DC-8Greatest Airliners - 727 Whisperjethttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Is this the longest ever thread on Avsim? If so, should we not mark it in some way? A little memorial or something..Did YOU take part in the Flight Dynamics Thread of January 2006??Sorry, just wanted to see it at the top again..}(

Funny that, I was thinking of Henry V only this morning:We few, we happy few, we band of Simsters;For he to-day that sheds light on the FDE with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so unbalanced,This day shall gentle his rudder:And gentlemen in Avsim now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,And hold their CH Yokes cheap whiles any writes That fought with us upon Flight Dynamics day.Yeah, OK it is really really cheesey. But good for a giggle no doubt :D

:-lol Excellent cheesy stuff. And the thread rolleth on...Ian

>Is this the longest ever thread on Avsim? If so, should we>not mark it in some way? A little memorial or something..>>Did YOU take part in the Flight Dynamics Thread of January>2006??>>Sorry, just wanted to see it at the top again..}( >>It's getting close, but it hasn't beat this one yet:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=23149&page=2Doug

Just ten, errrm, make that nine posts to go!

Best Heavy Jets:LDS 767-300, Hands DownPMDG 747, Close Runner Up----------------------------------Best Helo Dynamics:Jordan Moore's Bell 412, untouchable-------------------------------------------Best Single Engine Dynamics:Realair Decathlon (freaking amazing)------------------------------------------Best Taildragger Dynamics:Realair Decathlon (still freaking amazing)---------------------------------------------Best Twin Turboprop:Aeroworx Kingair B200 Deluxe (pure freaking magic)------------------------------------------------Best Twin Engine single engine ops simulation:Aeroworx Kingair B200 DeluxeFlight Sim Developer's Piper Seneca, close runner up------------------------------------------------------------Best all around single engine simulation:Tie between Realair SF260 and Realair Spitfire-------------------------------------------------------The single most fun Flight Simulator add-on ever:Realair Spitfire-----------------------------------------------------------------The single WORST flight dynamics I've seen in a light twin simulation for a variety of reasons:DreamFleet Baron 58-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, for those that can still stomach it, and that

Bob,Why are you and I the only ones who noticed this stuff? Your observation is very well explained and I concur with you 100 percent. As the author of this record-breaking thread (insert applause here), I'm actually happy that it sparked some actual decent debate.

All this talk got me thinking about stuff that I never tried in FS.Tried the prop overspeed last night. CS props don't overspeed in fine pitch, which they should. Also, I think it is too easy to get to Vne in stuff like Arrows and C172s. In reality the drag is so great that from 3000' you would be hard pressed to get near it before running out of sky. In FS the aircraft just blat straight to it and beyond.Also played around and noticed something with regard to stability. I set an aircraft up at cruise S&L. The dropped to descent power waited for the a/c stabilise, then increased back to cruise, waited to stabilise and then climb power and waited to stablise. I didn't use the yoke at all.Default 172 TimingsDescent = 2:35Back to Level = 0:50Climb = 1:00DF ArrowDescent = 2:00 (on a second go it took 5:00!!!???)Back to Level = 1:20Climb = 2:05Flying Club WarriorDescent = 2:45Back to Level = 1:05Climb = 2:30Flying Club SenecaDescent = 3:00!!Back to Level = 2:20Climb = 2:00Suprisingly the default 172 is the most stable. The Arrow suddenly went a bit wild on one descent for no reason and took 5 mins to stabilise. The Warrior starts with huge fluctuations which do damp quickly. The Seneca makes the most sense as one would expect and increase in stability with an increase in power as there is a greater downforce on the tail then.They all had the same fault, they all settled at the same speed (individual for each aircraft) for the three regimes. This is wrong, the climb should settle at a lower speed and the descent at a higher one. Somebody mentioned that aircraft over the tail isn't done very well. I tend to agree.Another couple of faults. The slipstream effect on the DF Arrow and Warrior were almost none existant (very slight, probably just controller calibration!). Also, I need to re-check, the DF Arrow occasionally seemed to react in the opposite sense!?! The default 172 seemed to have more. Regardless, the effect was nothing compared to similar aircraft in reality.

>Ok, for those that can still stomach it, and that

>They all had the same fault, they all settled at the same>speed (individual for each aircraft) for the three regimes.>This is wrong, the climb should settle at a lower speed and>the descent at a higher one. Somebody mentioned that aircraft>over the tail isn't done very well. I tend to agree.I may be wrong, but prop induced velocity on tail surfaces is not modeled in FS9.Marco