Calm down

[Superdelphinus 718]

WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN

[Rimshot 1,135]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

Trajectory is wrong, a Cessna doesnt survive flying sideways, getting them flying sideways makes them land vertically on cars in carparks, or in fields with the wings ripped off. Often with forever young kids in the back. so you wont find such real cessna videos on youtube.

To be honest I have no clue what you mean exactly. Would you care to elaborate? Particularly concerning the 'sideways' notion.

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

Plenty of videos on the topic of cessna stalls and unrecoverable stalls on youtube if you do care.

Yes indeed, and a lot about actual spin training too. Good stuff. To me the MSFS spin video looks pretty accurate compared to those real life videos. Maybe you can share a video from another simulator that shows a C172 spinning correctly according to you?

[Murmur 3,941]

I think the Cessna in the MSFS video banks in one direction and yaws in the other one. Whereas a real C172, in a spin, should yaw and bank in the same direction.

Someone else here already made this remark months ago, after the video was released.

In any case, it's certainly possible that the flight model will go through revisions and improvements before the final release.

[FDEdev 955]

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

I think the Cessna in the MSFS video banks in one direction and yaws in the other one. Whereas a real C172, in a spin, should yaw and bank in the same direction.

Someone else here already made this remark months ago, after the video was released

Yes, that was me. I've mentioned that the stable spin attitude is aerodynamically impossible for a 172. The roll attitude should be wings level, or even a bit in spin.

This could be a basic flaw which can't be easily fixed or a simply 5min finetuning item.  

msparks trajectory 'explanation' again clearly shows that he doesn't know a lot about aerodynamics and FDEs (politely put). By throwing in ripped off wings, crashes and children he obviously tried to disguise this fact and lead the discussion into a different direction. 

[mSparks 2,086]

11 hours ago, Rimshot said:

To be honest I have no clue what you mean exactly. Would you care to elaborate? Particularly concerning the 'sideways' notion.

The next phase of flight after 6 seconds, as it plummets sideways vertically would be an unrecoverable flat spin. avoiding an unrecoverable flat spin requires nose diving to regain airspeed.

7 hours ago, FDEdev said:

By throwing in ripped off wings, crashes and children he obviously tried to disguise this fact and lead the discussion into a different direction.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20001214X44242&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

Edited February 3, 2020 by mSparks

[tweekz 2,165]

5 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Yes, that was me. I've mentioned that the stable spin attitude is aerodynamically impossible for a 172. The roll attitude should be wings level, or even a bit in spin.

This could be a basic flaw which can't be easily fixed or a simply 5min finetuning item.  

msparks trajectory 'explanation' again clearly shows that he doesn't know a lot about aerodynamics and FDEs (politely put). By throwing in ripped off wings, crashes and children he obviously tried to disguise this fact and lead the discussion into a different direction. 

Thanks for your expertise and ending the site-long drama. 😄

[Rimshot 1,135]

7 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Yes, that was me.

I missed that, thanks for explaining.

[charliearon 3,022]

8 pages of bickering and name calling is now over!