Best Flight Dynamics I've seen

[Guest av84fun]

I am not sure that is correct. I could easily be wrong but I think that the restrictions you mentioned were A) Social Security numbers are no longer included and :( the airman can opt out of having his/her address published. But the airman's name MUST be included in the database."The Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, and other statutory requirements require us to make airmen certificate information available to the public. Airmen meeting the active criteria receive notice of these requirements and can withhold their address information from release. If your address appears in this database and you would like to remove it, or if it does not appear and you would like to add it, you may write or email us your preference. You may provide us with your preference anytime."Regards,Jim'

[Manny 1,293]

Real Air's Decathlon has best flight dynamics.. I fly the Decathlon for real... and this is so spooky. It freaks me out.Turning downwind to base.. for whatever reason.. when you maintain the speed at 65-70 kts...and you try to maintain it as you turn....the real world decathlon rapidly looses altitude.. and so does this.. its creepy.Amazing.. Bur for some reason.. I never cared for the real air 172. flying it feels like the 172 reacts so good to your input..almost instantaneous.. which is not the case.. When I was learing the 172, I preferd the dreemfleets Piper Archer.. I like that very much. There is a slight lag and heavy feeling when you fly the archer.. The Cessna is more responsive but not like in realair's 172. But then,.,,I think, I am one of the few who don't care for the realair 172.BTW... I like the flight 1's ATR-72 500. But I can't speak for how real the flight dynamic is..cause I have never flown one in real life. But I would be interested to hear from anyone who may have flown the the ATR for real.

[Manny 1,293]

><even gain altitude instead of sinking without airspeed gain as>it should. >>>>Just as a PS to my other reply, I note that you have now>changed your tune with respect to the Baron's slip>characteristics. In your post on the other thread you stated:>><like a real aircraft should (i.e. lose both altitude and>airspeed).>>>> So, first you said that in a slip, the aircraft should LOSE>altitude AND airspeed. You will recall that I corrected you on>that misconception and at least, I am glad to see that you>were paying attention to me.>>Plese review my other posts in this thread for further>corrections to your other misconceptions.>>Regards,>>JimIt would lose airspeed too (everything else remaining constant). You just made a clean airplane into a dirty airplane. You introduced Drag. Its going to slow down. YOU the pilot has to consciously keep the airspeed the same as it was before you entered into a slip as part of the procedure to slip.I don't want to get between y'all in your argument.. but I thougt I had to comment on just that one.:)

[Guest]

the only person without a clue, is yourself. the post I responded to said they adjusted the sensitivity to be less realistic so people wouldn't complain it acted like a fighter jet. I suggest you go bother somebody else, you are wasting my time with your useless responses. The simple fact is the airplane is dumbed down so people don't complain, I think instead of doing that they could have gave us choices. End of story

[Guest av84fun]

<>No manny. In a nutshell, when cross-controlled, lift is lost due to the lowered wing. Because lift is lost, rate of descent increases. Because rate of descent increases airspeed WOULD increase except for the drag you mentioned. Because of that drag airspeed does NOT increaase...which is the whold point of the slip in the first place...i.e. to lose altitude without changing power or increasing airspeed.Here is a quote from a respected aviation site. Just Google for hunreds more.Regards,Jim"The greatly increased drag from the exposure of the fuselage side surfaces to the oncoming airflow enables an increased angle of descent without an increase in the approach airspeed."

[Guest BOPrey]

What about using a force feed back joystick? Does FS do a good job simulating that?

[N562Z 4]

This is so subjective, I don't understand the point. http://www.graphics-free.com/animations/tr...ges/plane_6.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[Guest av84fun]

<>1. Hmmm...Just on the downwind to base turn? Not base to final?2. I too have time in a Declathlon. I took my first aerobatic instruction in one and yours must be improperly rigged. Any aircraft will lost SOME altitude in a turn without offsetting control inputs due (among other things) to the loss of lift on the downward tilted wing and the increased lift of the higher wing that is traveling at a slightly higher airspeed and therefore, generating greater lift than the slower moving lower wing. Suffice it to say that altitude loss is a result of the reduction in the vertical component of lift in banked turns.But not RAPID loss. Just a touch of power and/or back pressure will offset the sink. VERY little needs to be done in normal pattern turns. And even in steep turns no RAPID loss of altitude occurs.3. I don't own the RA Decathlon so I can't comment on how rapidly it loses altitude in turns but their flight models are generally SO good that I doubt it is excessive.4. Of course, when turning onto base you have already passed your key position and ought to be in a descent anyway so in normal pattern work, that loss of lift and the resultant loss of altitude is convenient, normal and not creepy.Regards,Jim

[Guest av84fun]

<>But in this thread, you complained about the flight dynamics of the DF Baron. RA produces no twin engine aircraft and modeling twins is an order of magnitude more complex that modeling SE aircraft.Therefore, it is not logical to expect the same "astounding fidelity" from any twin add-on vs. a single wouldn't you agree?Regards,Jim

[Guest av84fun]

Getting a little testy there Alex. Speaking about clues...and/or the lack thereof, what airplane are you aware of that would require, let alone permit hundreds of pounds of stick force under ANY circumstance?Certainly not one certified by the FAA."Part 23 (23.143) of the FARs specifies that for prolonged application the stick force shall not exceed 10 pounds. For short durations, using a yoke, Part 23 specifies that, using one hand, stick force shall not exceed 50 pounds and with two hands 75 pounds.>>And no jet...commercial or military that I am aware of would require anything resembling such forces since their stick forces are generally "boosted". The entire stick movement in an f-16, for example, is about 1/4 INCH. The electronic flight control system senses pilot stick force pressure and reacts accordingly with FAR, FAR less than "hundreds of pounds."I can just see and F16 jock hauling back on the stick with both hands during an 8 G turn. TOO funny!:-)Regards,Jim

[michal 44]

>Does FS do a>good job simulating that?Very poor job. The uselessness of FF in MSFS has been discussed here many times.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Dillon 2,197]

"most average people would not expect a huge aircraft like a 747 to roll like a smaller agile plane, even if you told them it basically does..."Ryan this is exactly why I kept saying the PSS 777's FDE is right on the money... :-roll

[Guest]

>Getting a little testy there Alex. Not in the least, just responding to an accusation against me by somebody who has come across as bitter>Speaking about>clues...and/or the lack thereof, what airplane are you aware>of that would require, let alone permit hundreds of pounds of>stick force under ANY circumstance?>Don't ask me, I wasn't the one to throw out 100 lbs of force, I just took the stupid example given to me and used it against him>Certainly not one certified by the FAA.>>"Part 23 (23.143) of the FARs specifies that for prolonged>application the stick force shall not exceed 10 pounds. For>short durations, using a yoke, Part 23 specifies that, using>one hand, stick force shall not exceed 50 pounds and with two>hands 75 pounds.>>Tell that to the person who brought it up>>And no jet...commercial or military that I am aware of would>require anything resembling such forces since their stick>forces are generally "boosted". The entire stick movement in>an f-16, for example, is about 1/4 INCH. The electronic flight>control system senses pilot stick force pressure and reacts>accordingly with FAR, FAR less than "hundreds of pounds.">>I can just see and F16 jock hauling back on the stick with>both hands during an 8 G turn. TOO funny!>>:-)>>Regards,>Jim >Umm yeah, so my point is valid regarding simulating force feedback and the desire to allow the customer to decide if they want it more realistic or not rather than a company figuring a percentage would hate it and think it was unrealistic

[tf51d 284]

How much will you give me? I did three landings on my second lesson. The instructor decided we should do some circuits round the field as the weather was not up to much else. He said he'd take over just before landing but in the end he only needed to help out with the pedals. I had the stick the whole time. Was he right to let me? Perhaps not. Was I pleased as punch? You bet. I like to think the simming helped a lot, but of course I never mentioned it.Three safe returns to earth with less than two hours. So I reckon you owe me a few thousand quidI'm (unfortuneately) currently a sim only pilot, but I do have 1 hour flight time in a P-51d Mustang (Actually a TF-51D) which included landing. (Check my videos out at my web page below!!) That being said, I don't think I could have done it without the guidance of an instructor pilot.

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

>>then it must be fair for others to comment negatively on RICO's >>capabilities. Wouldn't you agree?No. Find a different way of expressing your disagreement.>>Certain suggestions, like for example, the proposal that correct slip >>modeling includes a gain the the rate of decent and airspeed lead one >>to believe that the suggestion did not come from a pilot at all, let >>alone one with 250 hours in a given make and model twin and by >>inference, multiple hundreds of hours in other types of aircraft. Rico didn't write that. Try re-reading :) Nothing you have written tells me you're for real. There is no mileage in this second guessing game.