>Furthermore I can never understand opinions like "99% of the>people in this forum are NOT qualified to tell if the flight>dynamics were accurate even if they were sitting in a full>level D simulator much less simplistically approximated in>MSFS" what can't you understand about it ??? This is factually correct. Actually 99% is probabaly too low. ;)>- so it does not matter if the flight-dynamics are completly wrong.Who said that? You did. Of course it is ludicrous. I ma glad you disagree with your own nonsensical statements.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>what can't you understand about it ??? This is factually>correct. Actually 99% is probabaly too low. ;)>>>- so it does not matter if the flight-dynamics are completly>wrong.>>Who said that? You did. Of course it is ludicrous. I ma glad>you disagree with your own nonsensical statements.Do you enjoy insulting people? Obviously it is REALLY impossible nowadays to post a message on a forum without getting insulted by someone sooner or later...and about your "sensical" remarks: ever heard of a method called "reading between the lines" ? And apart from the exotic method of "reading between the lines" it has been stated more than once on this forum by some people in different threads that flight dynamics need not be too accurate because nobody would notice the difference anyway. Of course, you would certainly notice the difference because you belong to the expert 0,01%...

>it has been stated more than once>on this forum by some people in different threads that flight>dynamics need not be too accurate because nobody would notice>the difference anyway...I read these forums frequently and don't recall such statements ever, so if it did happen it must have been a rather obscure event. So rather than feel insulted you should have explained what exactly you had on your mind in the first place. Not everyone can read your mind.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>I read these forums frequently and don't recall such>statements ever, so if it did happen it must have been a>rather obscure event. So rather than feel insulted you should>have explained what exactly you had on your mind in the first>place. Not everyone can read your mind.No need to read my mind - just read my first message... I don

>Actually, the controls on aircraft like 737, 777, 747 are>desensitised at speed. The hydro-mechnical servos are actuated>in proportion to the classic 0.5*rho*V^2 formula. Actually>more like V^2, V^2.2 and V^3 for ailerons, elevator and rudder>respectively. So the faster you go, the less sensitive and>heavier the controls become (for obvious structural reasons).That's interesting. If I understood correctly, the same control deflection (for ailerons, for example) produces roughly 1/2 surface deflection if IAS is doubled, right? Do you have any information on how servos sense dynamic pressure? IAS indicators maybe? What if all the sensors fail?Marco

Randy, I'm more of a kebab man myself. Never really been into tacos.In Wellington we've got two things, well, three if you include the rain!The best natural harbour (harbor for the Americans) in the world, great to fly in to, and awesome kebab shops.Especially if you find one that gets a good BBQ flavour on the chicken! TimNZWN

Airspeed (IAS) is sensed by the Pitot/static tubes/ports system. There are usually two sets, Captains and F/Os. The IAS is processed by the air data computers (of which there are also multiple for redundancy) to calculate the CAS (calibrated air speed). The information from the air data computer is used to modulate the servos.One correction, the system makes the controls heavier, not less sensitive!

>>I read these forums frequently and don't recall such>>statements ever, so if it did happen it must have been a>>rather obscure event. So rather than feel insulted you>should>>have explained what exactly you had on your mind in the>first>>place. Not everyone can read your mind.>>No need to read my mind - just read my first message... I don

HI TimI`m in Wellington myself. Which is the best kebab house for a lunch on or around Courtenay Place? I go to Sahara but am open to suggestion.CheersJamesPS you`re right about the rain - NZWN 180900Z 34022G36KT 260V020 10KM SHRA SCT008 BKN015 19/17 Q1002 WS RWY34 TEMPO 3000 RA BKN012 BECMG 19018G30KT RMK KAUKAU 32045KT

>>Actually, the controls on aircraft like 737, 777, 747 are>>desensitised at speed. The hydro-mechnical servos are actuated>>in proportion to the classic 0.5*rho*V^2 formula. Actually>>more like V^2, V^2.2 and V^3 for ailerons, elevator and rudder>>respectively. So the faster you go, the less sensitive and>>heavier the controls become (for obvious structural>reasons).>That's interesting. If I understood correctly, the same>control deflection (for ailerons, for example) produces>roughly 1/2 surface deflection if IAS is doubled, right? Do>you have any information on how servos sense dynamic pressure?>IAS indicators maybe? What if all the sensors fail?>Marco I'm not sure about the above. I know the rudder deflection is limited by hydraulic pressure, above TO speeds it 'blows down' to about +/- 5 deg maximum. Jet transports typically have two sets of ailerons. Both sets move at lower speeds. OTOH, the spoilerons also provide a roll moment, and they are set to come in at around 10 deg aileron deflection. The 727 has a 'spoileron mixer' that helps maintain desired roll control. The object is to provide the same roll rate, regardless of speed. Also, the roll rate increases once the spoilerons come in. One has only one set of ailerons in MSFS. Tables in the AIR file allow one to contour deflection vs q (for all three axis). While one can also set how much the spoilers move relative to the ailerons, and set the roll moment the spoilerons create. By properly adjusting the tables and parameters it is possible to get close to the desired criteria of 'roll rate independent of speed'. Also, a roll rate that increases once the spoilerons come in. In the simple case of one set of ailerons, roll rate depends on aileron deflection times TAS. With direct connections the the ailerons, roll rate in WWII fighters was primarily limited by pilot strength in moving the ailerons. The force on a control surface should vary as dynamic pressure, q, times deflection. q varies as 1/2 rho * TAS^2 (TAS in ft/sec). Which is proportional to EAS^2. IAS is near EAS at lower speeds and altitudes, so IAS^2 is a reasonable indication of dynamic pressure. For 'fly by wire' control, it is desirable to provide force cues on the Yoke. Typically, all that's required is to spring load the Yoke's two axis and vary spring forces with speed^2. For jet AC that use JS's, the forces need only be high enough so the pilot gets a reasonable force cue. Fore/Aft forces give a good indication of G load, much better than the 'seat of your pants'. When not in a significant bank, G = 1.00 is a good indication the AC is in trim, even if climbing or descending. Thus, the Yoke/JS will be centered with no force on it. Dynamic pressure, q, is easy to calculate in XML gauges. Control surface deflection is available. Thus, it should be simple to generate FFB variables that are realistic at least in the linear region of control. Forces which move a good FFB JS from the center when pitch trim is changed. Holding the JS for level flight would mean one would feel the need for trim. Something missing in the current FFB system. Ron

The actual method of rolling the aircraft (Spoilers and/or Ailerons) is probably not really an issue in relation to the feedback given to the pilot. The use of inboard ailerons and spoilers is more due to the twisting forces and potential flutter problems associated with tapered thin swept wing designs.I think you are probably right anout the use of EAS vs CAS. It seems logical as EAS <= CAS at any one time.Thanks for your detailed post.

>The simple reaosn that flight models cannot be 100% accurate>is for the following reasons:>>1: The FDE has never had a SDK. Decompiling and exploring the>intricacies of the modelling of flight as represented by the>MSFS engine continues. It is not finished, it probably never>will be.I know that flight models cannot be 100% accurate but I think (at least) the payware-developers should strive to produce aircrafts which are as accurate as possible within the FS-boundaries. To be fair I have to admit that the better payware-companies do this anyway.>>2: The designers of the aircraft don't have `hands on` time in>the real thing, nor are they designing within a `real` world>environment- they design within the limits of their own>knowledge and the overall coding within FS. How would/could>you expect a simmer to get hands on time in a fully-loaded 747>in order to create a more accurate flight model? Oh but companies like LDS or DF (as far as I know) DO have real world 727 or 767 pilots in their development team! Another fine airplane, the Lago MD-80 (which has often been written "bad" unfortunately in this forum) has got a very good review from a real-world DC9-captain: http://www.hilmerby.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=422So, obviously, producing good representations of the real plane CAN be done. Of course even those good simulations will not be 100% accurate, probably not even 90%...well, the question still remains... 90% of WHAT? The Aerowinx 747-400 has all of its flight-parameters within 1% of the real-world 747, as far as I recall. This should be good enough when only speaking of data. Of course, even this simulation will never FEEL like the real plane. But obviously it is good enough to give pilots some initial training in glass cockpits: http://www.aerowinx.de/html/ps1pro.htmlhttp://www.aerowinx.de/html/reviews.html>And in the flip, how many of us have been in a lightly loaded airliner>and seen just how fast and manouevrable they are - I read>recently in a real world flight test a jet liner and jet>warbird pilot pointing out that a lightly loaded 767 intial>climb rate is FASTER than most fully-loaded fighter jets! Yes, I have read this, too!>How many hours do you have in the MSFS default Wright Flyer? None, I have to admit. I

Hi James,Not sure about C/Place - the missus raves about Abrakebabra in Manners Mall though.I usually hit the kebab place down in the BNZ Centre at lunch time - surprisingly good.CheersTimRani seems to have passed....I "flew" the LDS767 into Wgton last night with AS6, quite a good representation.

<>I didn't quote "internet descriptions" but rather excerpts from respected areodynamic experts that happened to be posted on the internet. And when the subject is the science of aerodynamics, "literal" interpretation is quite appropriate.But just to make sure that mere internet heritics are not the "experts" being quoted here is an excerpt from Stick & Rudder."Sideslip is useful in maneuvering an airplane to a landing...since it permits the pilot to get rid of altitude without picking up airspeed.<>I respectfully disagree. I know of no situation in which a sideslip would be recommended as a means of losing airspeed. As Mr. Langeweische states above, a LACK of airspeed increase is the characteristic of the slip. In fact, absent any change in power, attempting to lose airspeed in a slip would require back pressure on the yoke/stick which would be an excellent way to become a stall/spin accident statistic.You are correct that an airspeed increase is POSSIBLE during a sideslip if the pilot were to lower the nose and/or increase power but that airspeed increase is not BECAUSE of the slip but rather IN SPITE of it.<>Again, by stating "if you try to keep the nose at the same altitude" you are injecting a variable into the equation (back yoke pressure) that COUNTERACTS the areodynamic effects of the sideslip.Recall that Rico's post was specific to slip behavior in the landing phase. Therefore, porperly flown, the sideslip will cause a downward pitch moment and a increase in the ROD, due to the loss of lift, and increased drag which will PREVENT an increase in airspeed.Each of those characteristics can be offset by mistaken pilot intervention but an appreciable increase in airspeed in an attempted sideslip would have to result from either pilot error or changing wind direction.I hope you find this helpful in understanding sideslip dynamics which, by the way, are quite well modeled in the DF Baron within the limitations of FS.Rgards,Jim

Sounds like marketing to me.Take a 767 at 95,000kg and one at 175,000kg. Assume the heavier one can climb at 2000fpm.Assuming the a/c climbs at Vy of 200kts heavy and 190kts light (educated guess!).A climb rate of 2000fpm = a verical speed of 20ktsTheta = Angle of Climb.Using pythagoros: Sine(Theta) = 20kts/200kts = 0.1 = 6deg angle of climb.Sin(Theta) = (Thrust - Drag) / Weight.0.1 = (Thrust - Drag) / 175000kg or (Thrust - Drag) = 0.1 * 175000kg = 17500NFor the 95,000 kgs a/cSin(Theta) = 17500N / 95000kg = 0.18 = 10deg angle of climb!So using Pythag again to find the light a/c rate of climb:0.18 * 190kts(Vy) = 34kts = 3400fpm Rate of Climb.I doubt a Vy of 3400fpm would keep up with a fighter climbing at 600kts!!