Jim,The quote from Stick and Rudder is one of three possible applications of sideslip. I don't understand why you argue to strongly that you can't use sideslip to reduce speed. It is a nonesenicle argument. If I'm flying I can use the extra drag of a sideslip coupled with pitch and power to give me any speed combination between 1.3*Vs and the PoH limitation. It isn't a black & white answer, it is a matter of judgement, knowledge of one's aircraft and one's capabilities.>>I know of no situation in which a sideslip would be recommended as a >>means of losing airspeed. I can tell you one straight away. A forced landing.

> 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. >> RonHi,FS Force does just that, except that the user himself has to set the relation IAS->Centering force for each of the 2 axis (pitch and roll).It also varies the centering position of the joystick to simulate trim, but it's obviously limited by the fact that MSFS (and all the others PC simulators) have to model the trim by "shortening the cables", so the use of the "default FS trim" may be still required if out of joystick control authority.Marco

>> 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.>> Ron>>FS Force does just that, except that the user himself has to>set the relation IAS->Centering force for each of the 2 axis>(pitch and roll). I had an early evaluation version of FSForce, but no longer have a FFB JS. Can you feel turbulence with that app? IAS will vary if there is turbulence, so it should be felt by the JS. >It also varies the centering position of the joystick to>simulate trim, but it's obviously limited by the fact that>MSFS (and all the others PC simulators) have to model the trim>by "shortening the cables", so the use of the "default FS>trim" may be still required if out of joystick control>authority.>Marco FS doesn't move the elevator, while a trim tab does. However, it would seem the effect of elevator trim could be included in the JS force. Actually, changing trim should move the JS; and any force one adds from that neutral position would un-trim the AC. Ron

> Can you feel turbulence with that app? IAS will vary if>there is turbulence, so it should be felt by the JS. Uhm, unfortunately turbulence is not felt with FS Force. I don't have details on how turbulence is modeled in the MSFS flight model engine, but probably it wouldn't be too hard to roughly model surface control reactions due to turbulence gusts.Marco

<>First, I don't refer to your comments as nonsensical and it is unfortunate that you refer to mine as such because I happen to be right and you happen to be wrong.You need to take a deep breath and read up more on your aerodynamics.The scenario you present to refute my statement that a sideslip does NOT result in increased airspeed is utterly erroneous because you inject into the equation, the application of a control force (up elevator) that DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY REPUTABLE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "SIDESLIP."Of course, any specifically defined maneuver can be CHANGED by the use of control forces not included in the definition.Sure and aircraft can slow down after an increase in power...just raise the nose.The FACT of the matter is that the definition of "sideslip" (as quoted here from a Cessna publication is..."To fly sideways and downward in an airplane along the lateral axis to reduce altitude without gaining speed."Again, you can screw up the sideslip to an almost unlimited extent by the use of control forces not contained in the definition but when you do, you are no longer executing a sideslip as defined...you are performing SOME OTHER maneuver...sir.<>Again, you are wrong. A PROPER sideslip MIGHT be called for in a forced landing IF YOU ARE TOO HIGH and need to dump altitude WITHOUT A COMMENSURATE INCREASE IN AIRSPEED. But you WOULD NOT use a sideslip for the primary purpose of slowing down because a PROPER sideslip WILL NOT produce that result.If you want to slow down in a forced landing POSSIBLY after having used the sideslip primarily to lose altitude, then you would reduce or eliminate power, deploy flaps and raise the nose. THAT is how the primary purpose of slowing down is accomplished while OTHER actions, such as sideslipping are used for OTHER primary purposes.JimRegards,Jim

>Jim,>>The quote from Stick and Rudder is one of three possible>applications of sideslip. I don't understand why you argue to>strongly that you can't use sideslip to reduce speed. It is a>nonesenicle argument. ............... That's the trouble with 'common definitions'. For one thing, there is no aerodynamic difference between a 'forward slip' and a 'side slip'. The difference is how the pilot controls the aircraft's track relative to the ground. I think a forward slip would result in the AC flying in the direction of a runway (with no wind), though the nose would point to one side. While one uses a side slip to compensate for a cross wind; the nose is aligned with the runway so the wheels touch down appropriately. Relative to the air, the AC is slipping sideways. In either case, slip angle Beta is less than or greater than 0. To have adequate X-Wind landing capacity, an AC should generally be able to slip at 15 degrees or greater. That's about 0.25 radians, so if landing at 60 kts, one can compensate for a 15 kt cross wind. The IAS reading drops relative to actual CAS, since the pitot tube is no longer aligned with the 'wind'. Maybe only 3% at 15 deg, but variations in flow near the wing can change that. Some time ago I determined that drag increased in FS with CY_Beta * sin^2 (Beta). Doubling slip angle increases drag due to slip by four times. However, I'm not sure that accounts for all the extra drag there should be; I remember losing speed/altitude more rapidly in a PA-28 I flew decades ago than in the DF Archer PA-28 I modeled for DF. The Concorde has a 'slip indicator' (it doesn't work in the FS2K Concorde panel). I noted that if I didn't have any slip trimmed out in my FM of the Concorde that it wouldn't perform at cruise as expected. Just one degree of 'Beta' (determined by a test gauge) would have a noticeable effect in cruise climb. Where very little excess thrust is available for climb as fuel is burned. In more common AC, one degree of slip isn't very significant, other than that turns don't change the heading rate as expected at a given bank and TAS. Ron

As I mentioned earlier, I think we should ignore pitot/static position errors for the sake of everyone's sanity.I tend to agree Ron. It is interesting that you mention Forward Slip, because Side and Forward slip seem to interchangable depending on who you speak to (as you have demonstrated). I believe the most common definition is the one you quoted, where a Forward Slip is what we have been calling a Sideslip (high drag). Where as a Sideslip is more commononly but not universally recognised as the Wing Down technique alternative to the Crab appoach. How's that for confusing!I'll stick with the terms as we have used in the majority of this thread: The reality of my experience is that executing a Wing Down approach does not result in the same levels of drag and increase in RoD as the height/speed reducing Sideslip. This makes sense to me as the Wing Down really is really only experiencing the crosswind (or a component thereof) as a side relative wind because the a/c is, more or less, lined up with the runway during the final approach. Obviously with a Sideslip one is exposing the side of the a/c to the majority relative wind (or component thereof).

>As I mentioned earlier, I think we should ignore pitot/static>position errors for the sake of everyone's sanity. I couldn't in my tests, since I set IAS SPD Hold to see how drag changed in a slip, and the change in Indicated Speed resulted in actual speed changing. Which would invalidate my drag calculations. The extra error in IAS also makes it harder to hold TAS constant as one sets up a slip. Of course, I never thought about such details flying a real PA-28. >I tend to agree Ron. It is interesting that you mention>Forward Slip, because Side and Forward slip seem to>interchangable depending on who you speak to (as you have>demonstrated). I believe the most common definition is the>one you quoted, where a Forward Slip is what we have been>calling a Sideslip (high drag). Where as a Sideslip is more>commononly but not universally recognised as the Wing Down>technique alternative to the Crab appoach. How's that for>confusing! Either kind of slip requires the same amount of "wing down", otherwise the AC would turn. Just how much wing down / aileron is required depends on how much roll moment the rudder creates. Slipping to a landing with a cross wind is about the most difficult flying one normally runs into. Especially since winds change near the ground, and and even more control is required to compensate for gusts. One has to adjust the rudder, ailerons, trim/elevator and Throttle. I remember using the rudder to keep the PA-28 heading in the runway direction, ailerons to keep the AC from drifting off the centerline, and elevator/trim to hold appropriate IAS. Finally, one uses the throttle to control rate of descent. If the rudder pedal hit the floor I was at the AC's slip limit and would have to go around for another try. Will this thread never end? ;) Ron

>> Will this thread never end? ;)Keep going - LOL!>> Either kind of slip requires the same amount of "wing down", otherwise >>the AC would turn. Just how much wing down / aileron is required >>depends on how much roll moment the rudder creates.Re the wing down, I would assume it would shift laterally sideways if it wasn't for the wind. Enough, my brain hurts now!>>Slipping to a landing with a cross wind is about the most difficult >>flying one normally runs into.Yes it can be pretty tricky. The main problem I have with our Cub is that the stick comes too far back in the flare and the, achem, gap between the upper part of my legs prevents me from keeping enough aileron on for the into wind wheel to touch first so I usually crab and straighten out in the flare, but frankly my personal x-wind limits are deliberately kept low. The Super Cub is much easier to handle in this respect. As wheeler landing is an option but I need more practice at those really, I never seem to get it to settle with forward stick the way the books describe.

I didn't know you could see flight dynamics ;-)hehe, just messin...Yeaaaah buddy, I feel you on all of your choices. I also believe the FeelThere ERJ has one of the best RJ FDE's around!Oh yeah, DOWN WITH THE "FS HATERS"!!:-)

w00t and a half! I should have stumbled across this post sooner so I could have written an outline of what it would evolve into. That said, my outline would look something like this (as it always does when someone makes one of these lame posts every 3 months):I Intro i. original poster posts about FDEs he likes and why he feels some are better than othersII Body i. Poster IIa criticizes poster I for not agreeing with his personal   views on the subject ii. Poster IIb replies asking for clarification from poster I iii. Poster IIa replies with comments about poster Is apparent lack   of credentials, despite probably having none himself    a. Fails to realize subjectivity of comment    b. Acts like as big a buttpipe as Poster I iv. Poster IIb notes that Poster IIa did not help his question any v. Poster III chimes in, actually answering a question instead of being   a jerk in general vi. Enter the self-appointed physicists! Sometimes real pilots,   generally not, usually debating with copy-and paste definitions   from google between looking for nude photos of Natalie Portman.   This is a sub-argument to the one above. You will not see the   posters arguing about the FDE here, generally.    a. poster IVa proclaims that I and IIa have no idea what     they are talking about, explaining with facts that usually     are suspect    b. poster IVb says that poster IVa is citing incorrect information,     going into his own long-winded argument.     c. poster IVa and IVb call each other names. At least one     of the two will claim that the other is being childish     and resorting to insult, ignoring the fact that he's being     equally dumb. this continues for about 10 posts until    d. poster IVc, an accepted 'expert' chimes in and the argument slowly dies vi. Poster Va chimes in saying 'it's only a game, nothing can be perfect' vii. In an attempt to sound equally 'level headed,' poster Vb posts   something along the lines of OMG U R SO RITE viii. Deja vu, so does poster Vb iv. thread winds down somewhatIII Conclusion i. Basically all parties ignore the point, and at some point it turns   into an all-out flamewar ii. Moderator locks threadQEDThe fun thing is that everyone forgets how stupidly subjective the subject is. What makes a realistic FDE for me may not for you. When people say 'ask 10 pilots and you get 9 answers and the 10th changes his mind,' they mean it. Even the 'correct' characteristics, ignoring the limits of FS, which are fewer than people make them out to be with the right FDE guy, are different for people who fly the real thing. The cool thing is when self-proclaimed experts feel the need to put everyone who isn't 'hardk0rz' enough down for their thoughts on the subject, despite usually not even having the 'qualifications,' if they exist, to comment themselves.The bigger fun comes when people plant perception into what they think should be realistic versus how things really behave. I read a review of my 727 once where the reviewer claimed '727 X' was more realistid because the inner spoiler textures were more detailed and the engines didn't take time to spool up, completely ignoring the fact that my 727s spoiler textures are photoreal, and everyone who has operated a real JT8D found the spoolup and startup times to be basically spot-on. Is the FDE perfect? Probably not. Frit did it in a day or so, but I've yet to find jet engines from anyone else that perform remotely like real engines do. Does that makes it 'better' than someone else's? For me, yeah. To me the engines are a huge part of the mix. That's just MY opinion on the subject. Other people focus on other things.Another one of my anal retentive thoughs has always been reverse thrust, where we, as developers, get told we're 'wrong' because our reverse thrust is too 'powerful' despite most FDEs having values that are way too weak. People sidestep the fact that real pilots use idle reverse a great deal of the time. This is what passengers experience. To me this is irritating. Other might not mind it.Some people find low roll rates realistic (although no airliner rolls as slow as people like to think, pilots limit deflection to small angles for your comfort). Fine. I don't, neither does Frit, so our planes don't handle that way. If it doesn't feel 'heavy enough' to you, use something else, although to be quite honest people overinterpret the word 'heavy.' Control harmonics are not solely a function of size, weight and inertia...Overall, posts like this are lame. The only purpose they serve is to bring out the worst in the biggest crop of egos.

hey erick...:-beerchug:-beerchug:-beerchug:-beerchug:-beerchug:-beerchug:-beerchugbravo

OMG U R SO RITEWTFROTFLBBQSorry, Erick. I couldn't resist. :-)

mmmm...bbq...okay, go ahead and lock it now :-)

<>Generally yes but specifically, whether the nose AND the ground track are aligned with a given line (typically the runway centerline) as in a SIDE SLIP. Or, whether the nose IS NOT aligned with that line but the aircraft IS tracking along it as in forward slip.<>Exactly...but if I may refine your phrase "flying in the direction of" to the word "tracking"...but I am sure we both mean the same thing.<>Exactly. Therefore, as you quite correctly point out...and not surprisingly given your near-legendary status as a flight modeling guru...the forward and side slips are utilized for ENTIRELY different purposes and to repeat, they are NOT interchangeable terms as AY seems to think..nor have I detected any widespread confusion on that subject in my 30+ years as an airman. In fact, one is supposed to learn the difference in order to avoid incorrect answers on the PPL written and/or various orals over time.Primarily for AY's edification, I have quoted below from a NOTED aviation information provider."The ***sideslip*** is an aircraft maneuver that uses opposite aileron and rudder. This maneuver is often used when landing in a crosswind, as an alternative to a crab landing