What makes Fenix the better A32 over FBW...or is it?

[Noel 4,576]

1 hour ago, gdjak said:

Just so you know, any rudder input during normal operations is very much not expected outside of takeoff and landing - so the fly by wire system may run into issues since it's already trying to fly coordinated and has control of the rudder .. so if the plane gets wobbly on you, that's one of the probable causes.

Thanks, so far so good.  I'm in the first 1/4 of LFPG > GMAD and all's well.  I've decreased the rudder maximum deflection perhaps that helps.  It's flying very stable and predictable so far.  I hand flew some but mostly right now getting proficient w/ the MCDU and managed flight.

As directed by FBW's help page on performance issues I drained the community folder except for a couple of apps I will always be running which are few, but the pauses persist.  I've posted on their Discord channel so see if anyone can respond and help and here is the first reply:

[Z-5] holland — Today at 4:21 PM

Known issue, being worked on

Sounds hopeful.  I read in their docs they warned it's not been performance optimized quite yet.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Noel

[martinboehme 586]

7 hours ago, Noel said:

 It may become troublesome with crosswinds I imagine, not having independent rudder and aileron.  I don't portend to be a valid pilot I just have a blast pretending and learn bits and pieces along the way so mainly it's "whatever works" to allow me to score high in my APL career 😉

That's perfectly fine of course! Just wanted to point out that controlling aileron and rudder from the same axis could cause problems down the road -- but if you're aware of this and it allows you to do what you want to do, then great. (You can always call it the Ercoupe version of the A320...)

7 hours ago, Noel said:

7 hours ago, martinboehme said:

he CG scale is on the left of the trim indicator, right next to the trim wheel. Simply set the trim so that the triangle marker is aligned with your takeoff CG. In the screenshot, takeoff trim is set for a CG of about 27%. (Yup, no computers involved - on an Airbus!) 

That's interesting because the tutorial I watched said because CG was 25% it need 1 up trim which is way more than is shown in that screenshot which shows CG would need to be about 22% for that.  Thanks!!!

Correct.

I suspect the tutorial you were looking at may have been for a different variant of the A320? The FBW models an A320neo. For the A320ceo, one unit of up trim corresponds to a CG of about 24% -- closer, but still not quite there. Or maybe the tutorial was for an A319 or A321? (Do you have a link to the tutorial?)

[bennyboy75 100]

Guys you’re way over complicating the trim in the A320.

You can either set the trim using units up or down which you can see on the flight control page or you can set it as a percentage via the trim wheel. 

I think Airbus recommend setting it as a percentage these days but I just use the up/down units as it’s easier to see directly on the flight control page in the sim than it is looking down at the trim wheel. 

How to do it? Well when you import your flight plan, in the ATSU page of the MCDU you’ll see that in the received messages page there is a loadsheet. This is the preliminary loadsheet and gives you a zero fuel weight (ZFW) and on the next page down a zero fuel weight CG. Simply enter these in the appropriate box in the INIT B page.

When you do your take off performance, the calculator will give a trim up or down, i.e DN 0.4. In the take off page, enter the data as the flap setting and the trim without any spaces i.e 1/DN0.4 or 2/UP1.0. 

After engine start, waggle the joystick and the flight control page will appear on the lower display. Just drag the trim wheel to the value up or down that you’ve set in the take off page. Go fly. 

Note that there will be a final loadsheet sent to the ATSU page which might have slightly different numbers to the ones in the preliminary. Simply overwrite the original values in the fuel prediction page as the INIT B page is unavailable after engine start. I can’t remember off hand the exact numbers but if the preliminary and final loadsheets are very different (for example a load of passengers who are checked in didn’t show up) then you’d need to run the takeoff performance again but the differences in the Fenix are always very small. 
 

If you want to do it the recommended Airbus way, leave the ZFW cg box empty in the INIT B page and wait until the loading is complete. In the payload page of the EFB you’ll see the ZFW cg as a percentage. Enter this into the blank space in the INIT B page and then after engine start just move the trim wheel to the percentage value that is displayed on this page.

Hope that helps! 

Edited January 23, 2023 by bennyboy75

[martinboehme 586]

24 minutes ago, bennyboy75 said:

Guys you’re way over complicating the trim in the A320.

Not sure what we're over-complicating?

My whole point was how easy it is to set takeoff trim in the A320 because there's a CG scale right on the trim indicator. Set the trim to the takeoff CG on that scale -- done!

[crimplene 634]

Regarding rudder on the aileron axis:

The A310 (inibuild version) is quite verbal about rudder input in-flight. It shouts at you: "Stop Rudder Input! Stop Rudder Input!" So it should be clear that rudder input is only expected at takeoff and during the last seconds of the approach.

[Noel 4,576]

9 hours ago, martinboehme said:

I suspect the tutorial you were looking at may have been for a different variant of the A320? The FBW models an A320neo. For the A320ceo, one unit of up trim corresponds to a CG of about 24% -- closer, but still not quite there. Or maybe the tutorial was for an A319 or A321? (Do you have a link to the tutorial?)

Nah, I viewed an FBW A320NX tutorial and it was very well done, but that piece was missed obviously by the Aussie who recorded it.

 

[Noel 4,576]

Where can I find the data to enter into the BARO or RA field in PERF > APPROACH > BARO/RA fields?  I think this comes from charts which I don't use so is there another way to estimate this or what have you?  

[martinboehme 586]

3 hours ago, Noel said:

13 hours ago, martinboehme said:

I suspect the tutorial you were looking at may have been for a different variant of the A320? The FBW models an A320neo. For the A320ceo, one unit of up trim corresponds to a CG of about 24% -- closer, but still not quite there. Or maybe the tutorial was for an A319 or A321? (Do you have a link to the tutorial?)

Nah, I viewed an FBW A320NX tutorial and it was very well done, but that piece was missed obviously by the Aussie who recorded it.

I suspect the person who produced the video used a chart for an A320ceo (instead of A320neo). The CG in the video is 24.5%, which would correspond to about 1 unit of up trim on the A320ceo.

[martinboehme 586]

54 minutes ago, Noel said:

Where can I find the data to enter into the BARO or RA field in PERF > APPROACH > BARO/RA fields?  I think this comes from charts which I don't use so is there another way to estimate this or what have you?  

Yes, this information comes from the approach chart. If the approach has a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) or Decision Altitude (DA), you would enter that in the BARO field. If it has a Decision Height (DH), you would enter that in the RA field.

If you don't have the charts, a good guess for a CAT I ILS is a DA of 200 feet above the touchdown zone elevation.

You might ask: If the navigation data contains all the other details of the approach and sets these automatically, why doesn't it also contain the correct value to put in the BARO or RA fields? The answer is that a single approach can have multiple different minima, and only you as the pilot know which one applies in your situation. For example, an ILS could have all three: A DH for CAT II and CAT III minima, a DA for CAT I minima, and an MDA for a circle-to-land.

[crimplene 634]

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Where can I find the data to enter into the BARO or RA field in PERF > APPROACH > BARO/RA fields?  I think this comes from charts which I don't use so is there another way to estimate this or what have you?  

You don't have the minima without charts. You can find many charts online for free, for example at skyvector.com. If you don't want to read charts you can simply take a guess. ILS minimum very often is 200 feet AGL, so you put in 200 in the radio field. This would be correct in most cases. If you do an RNAV approach you are obligated to enter a baro DA - I'm not sure if the A320 would even attempt to fly the glidepath without (and you need VNAV, if I remember correctly, so only with FBW experimental of Fenix). You have to add an altitude to the runway elevation. RNAV (RNP) at KPDX 10L for example has a DA of 365 feet barometric, which is 335 feet AGL. Usually I would add 400 to 600 feet to runway elevation, but at more complicated approaches with obstacles like hills and stuff that might be lethal. 🙂

Disclaimer: If I explained stuff you already knew, I apologize.

Edited January 23, 2023 by crimplene

[JSmith2112 317]

12 hours ago, crimplene said:

It shouts at you: "Stop Rudder Input! Stop Rudder Input!"

A bit off topic, but possibly because of this fatal accident that occurred with an A300:

FAA to Airbus: Install rudder warning after fatal crash (usatoday.com)

[Noel 4,576]

44 minutes ago, crimplene said:

Disclaimer: If I explained stuff you already knew, I apologize.

No worries I only know enough to be dangerous...except here there is no real danger!

All I knew about these fields were that they had to do with Decision Height, and I've always defaulted to 200' in decades of doing this as I never wanted to get into charts.  What does "DA" stand for?  Is that Decision Altitude?  How does "Baro" come into play?  I think only of barometric pressur.   RA I believe refers to Radio Altimeter to assess elevation above ground and that the RA is somewhere around in the beginning of the runway threshold is what I recall reading.

Anyone know how to turn down the volume of the cabin announcements?  I don't see it in Settings > Audio on the Flybag

Edited January 23, 2023 by Noel

[Bobsk8 12,960]

1 minute ago, Noel said:

No worries I only know enough to be dangerous...except here there is no real danger!

All I knew about these fields were that they had to do with Decision Height, and I've always defaulted to 200' in decades of doing this as I never wanted to get into charts.  What does "DA" stand for?  Is that Decision Altitude?  RA I believe refers to Radio Altimeter to assess elevation above ground and that the RA is somewhere around in the beginning of the runway threshold is what I recall reading.

I have used Avliasoft EFB for years, and all that info that needs to be put into the MCDU, is easily available. Temp,  Baro Reading, Wind, Baro Alt and RA. Makes it really easy to input on the approach page of the MCDU. 

[Noel 4,576]

10 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have used Avliasoft EFB for years, and all that info that needs to be put into the MCDU, is easily available. Temp,  Baro Reading, Wind, Baro Alt and RA. Makes it really easy to input on the approach page of the MCDU. 

Trialed it and while it's really clean looking and functioning app found I just don't need it I'm good w/ the Flybag which provides everything but Baro Alt and RA, so will just stick with fudging in 200' unless conditions warrant something higher.  In the end it just doesn't come into play for what I do w/ MSFS, but nice to understand more what it's there for those compelled to match RW behaviors.  Thanks

Here's my guess as a graduate of the Trial & Error Flight School, from which I graduated with Honors...

Baro Alt is using a much higher resolution of barometric pressure then we are privy to in the plane or the METAR, else how else could altitude be correlated w/ barometric pressure?

Edited January 23, 2023 by Noel

[speedyTC 206]

23 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

"Up" is forward, "down" is back is the way I remember it. 

Correct. "Up" is "push" to Managed mode and "Down" is "Pull" (towards the pilot) for Selected.