>>>>Oops, and I said the tail should lift from the prop wash due to the horiz stab. In the simple case it should only lift if the stab is at an angle, or has camber. Since the prop blast is pretty much at the same AoA as the stabilizer is.<<<

>>>>>Oops, and I said the tail should lift from the prop wash>due to the horiz stab. In the simple case it should only lift>if the stab is at an angle, or has camber. Since the prop>blast is pretty much at the same AoA as the stabilizer>is.<<<<>>Speaking of the stabilizer being set at an angle, here

>Curiously, while I was browsing accross X-Plane.com I found>the lattest additions to the upcoming 8.60 release:>>"Helo flight-model fixed: There was a problem with tail-rotor>effectiveness in beta-7.>>Also, the propwash should be improved for airplanes and helos>across the board... this will effect control effectiveness >of prop airplanes on the ground as well, since the elevators>and rudders are in propwash">>So, again, while X-Plane evolves, MSFS steps-back....Austin is always diddling with the X-Plane modeling. He seems to break a lot that he attempts to fix in the next X.XN version. Sorta the opposite of the MSFS guys. Ron

The limitations with FS aren't so much the flight model, but the architecture. MSFS is geared towards providing an architecture that is relatively easy for hobbyists and professional developers to extend, which is the raison detre for the vast majority of FS users. If FS wasn't like this it would die.The simulator flight models you refer to are suitable for training because of the vast quantity of data used to represent the behaviour of a specific aircraft type. There is specific code to model an individual types foiables that don't fit into a generic model.ELITE was mentioned, because it is as close to a full flight simulator flight model as you can get for a PC. The PC software uses the same flight model and instrument code as the Seneca FNPT2 software which I used to log 30 hours in towards my JAA instrument rating. But ELITE is not entertaining!I think that if MSFS provided the means to create the high levels realism that many want, its user base would shrivel-up because there would a tiny fraction of the freeware addons that we see now. Without the user base addons like ATR and Level D would not be financially viable.

>>>>In the real Stearman, it looks like that tail angle helps raise the tail with prop blast. Even if the elevator is neutral.<<<>>>Douglas, have you checked the effect of prop blast on the Horiz Stab? Seems you said it was lost in recent MSFS versions. I never checked that, but know H.S. incidence does change the tail moment due to normal airspeed.<<<

>..........>>>>>Douglas, have you checked the effect of prop blast on the>Horiz Stab? Seems you said it was lost in recent MSFS>versions. I never checked that, but know H.S. incidence does>change the tail moment due to normal airspeed.<<<<>>Changing incidence for the stabilizer causes an appropriate>pitching moment and trim change. In FS2002 and FS9 it also>affected induced drag, but I haven

> I don't think I ever learned to do such takeoffs. Using>that technique on a hard runway would increase TO distance>since Induced Drag would be higher on the TO roll. In fact, I>think I've pulled the nose way up on some of my MSFS SEL's and>wasn't able to TO. >It's been a while for me, doing these type of takeoffs, but just a few years ago, I went up in a Cessna 206 out of Canyon Lands (Moab,Ut) where the pilots were using the short field/soft field technique as a matter of proceedure on the hard surface runway. I no longer remember the aircraft's airspeed when the wheels left the runway, but it is quite a bit slower than the normal rotation speed. You DO have to remain in ground effect until airspeed increases, but you can become airborne in a shorter distance.You can also feel a tremendous amount of lift being generated as airspeed builds in ground effect, as you normally won't have it trimmed out. In a way, to simulate the effect, it would have to be like the "balooning" when flaps are deployed, that requires a bit of forward pressure on the yoke or stick. So far, I've never flown a desktop sim that simulates this feeling when using short field/soft field techniques.And BTW, many hours on IFR type simulators bored me too! I remember junking "ON TOP" many years ago, because I wanted more out of simulated flight than just proceedures.L.Adamson

>>All in all post like this prove there was so much more that>should have been done for FSX than what we got. To much>underlying enhancements needed to be addressed. All Aces>focused on was improving the look of this existing engine. >There's a few bells and whistles here and there but for the>work this community has to put in to convert to this new>version, so much more should have been looked at (Bill Leaming>who wonders why I continue to harp on this fact).>I still wonder why you harp on the fact too!:-hah Regarless of everything that's wrong with FSX, and everything that it's missing; it still has a lot going for it, that's completely different from FS9. It's far more than just a few bells and whisles as you say. If it wasn't, I'd be content with FS9 and my hundreds of dollars worth of addons. And yet, I continually prefer FSX. There MUST be a reason!In all seriousness, since you don't own the product, and supposeably have a machine that won't run it.........Then how can you truthfully & honestly make comments on what bells and whistles FSX really does have? And before you wonder why I'm responding... :) And once again, this is the FSX forum. It's a type of thread I'd be reading; and since I have a solid three months of use out of this product, I'd also give more merit to my opinion, than yours.L.Adamson

>> I don't think I ever learned to do such takeoffs. Using>>that technique on a hard runway would increase TO distance>>since Induced Drag would be higher on the TO roll. In fact,>I>>think I've pulled the nose way up on some of my MSFS SEL's>and>>wasn't able to TO. >>>>It's been a while for me, doing these type of takeoffs, but>just a few years ago, I went up in a Cessna 206 out of Canyon>Lands (Moab,Ut) where the pilots were using the short>field/soft field technique as a matter of proceedure on the>hard surface runway. I'd have to wonder if that really gives the shortest TO roll on a hard runway. Though, it does give practice for soft fields. The Take Off programs I've seen assume CL is increased to 90% of stall CL at rotation. That sounds too close; I assume Ground Effect results in a lower percent of stall near the ground. A fully loaded C172 should be rotated at 52 kts for best obstacle clearance, note that's close to the no flaps stall speed. I always delayed to a higher speed on normal runways. One might use a short field landing technique on a long runway to hit the first taxiway; so he doesn't have to take the 'long route'. Once I managed to land a C172 (real) in the width of an intercepting runway, 250 ft. I certainly had a good headwind. >I no longer remember the aircraft's airspeed when the wheels>left the runway, but it is quite a bit slower than the normal>rotation speed. You DO have to remain in ground effect until>airspeed increases, but you can become airborne in a shorter>distance. I tried to rotate early in a PA-28 at Lake Tahoe when loaded with other flying club members. I wanted to take advantage of GE. I didn't notice much GE and was criticised for rotating too early. A lot of short field operations involves planning, have an idea before rolling how far down the runway you would abort a TO, or go around when landing.>You can also feel a tremendous amount of lift being generated>as airspeed builds in ground effect, as you normally won't>have it trimmed out. In a way, to simulate the effect, it>would have to be like the "balooning" when flaps are deployed,>that requires a bit of forward pressure on the yoke or stick.>So far, I've never flown a desktop sim that simulates this>feeling when using short field/soft field techniques.>L.Adamson Perhaps the sim experience is limited due to no GE on the horiz stabilizer. That might be possible to partially simulate with a 'gauge' that offset the trim, depending on how far the tail is above the ground. Ron