FlyByWire (C*u ?) in the modern "Boeings"

[jcomm 5,930]

Boeing has it's own FBW laws - C*u - and 737NG recorded a new video about how they're implemented in the default 787 in MFS, and leaving an hint for the upcoming PMDG 777.

Understanding the 777 & 787 Fly By Wire Laws | Real Airline Pilot - YouTube

It's actually a bit more specific in the 787:

787 special: Flying right | News | Flight Global

[cavaricooper 2,615]

Jose- I agree C*U was the PMDG 777’s single biggest shortcoming. I am hoping the MSFS version will change that.

C

Edited June 6, 2023 by cavaricooper

[Dominique_K 10,144]

This is where I see that I am not a real, seriously committed simmer after about 40-odd years in this hobby. Just a pitiful gamer after all.

Watching the intricacies of how an automaton trades speed and pitch, well, not for me 😄  . Back to my Merlin...

[Maxis 1,864]

40 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

This is where I see that I am not a real, seriously committed simmer after about 40-odd years in this hobby. Just a pitiful gamer after all.

Watching the intricacies of how an automaton trades speed and pitch, well, not for me 😄  . Back to my Merlin...

I had to smile when i saw your post.. Funny how i  strive to learn the details and features of aircraft, aviation navigation and operating procedures ....

but you wont find me on Vatsim .... 😁

Everyone has their limits from when it changes from fun to a chore i guess. 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Maxis

[Dominique_K 10,144]

 

1 hour ago, Maxis said:

i  strive to learn the details and features of aircraft, aviation navigation and operating procedures ....

I was teasing a little bit our friend Jose, of course, after he forced me to search what  he meant by the exotic acronym c*u 😉. 

The first thing I do when I get a new simcraft is to scour the internet for the original handbook so I am with you here. But I'd rather pretend to be in charge, joystick in hand, than just monitoring an automaton.  

Edited June 6, 2023 by Dominique_K

[ErichB 3,642]

13 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

 

I was teasing a little bit our friend Jose, of course, after he forced me to search what  he meant by the exotic acronym c*u 😉. 

The first thing I do when I get a new simcraft is to scour the internet for the original handbook so I am with you here. But I'd rather pretend to be in charge, joystick in hand, than just monitoring an automaton.  

I know what you're saying, however, managing automation accounts for probably 99% of all current commercial aviation.  The emulation of that on VATSIM (with everything and everyone involved)  is done very well. To quote the original Flight Simulator slogan, it is pretty much 'as real as it gets' .

The great thing about this hobby is that we can choose any place on the spectrum of manual or automated flight possible.  Modern day PC simulation is spectacular on many levels.

 

 

[jcomm 5,930]

Curiously the closest to the full flight simulator experience I had in a desktop simulator with an Airbus A320 was Aerofly FS 2.

I never bought AEFS4, and I read they even fine tuned their FDMs even more for that new version, but when I remember my 1 hr CAE full flight sim experience at TAP's training center not far from my office at LPPT, one of the peculiarities was how much the feel of the FBW was close to a non-FBW aircraft... What I mean is, each and every Airbus I have tried in desktop flight simulators like FSX, P3D, XP and now MFS, the best addons for each platform, always felt "too plastic" / "on rails" compared to the feel provided by the full flightsim, and from the intuition of watching the pilot flying controlling an Airbus on a few jumpseat flights I was allowed to do. 

The Aerofly FS 2 Airbus was the one that felt closer to my full flight simulator experience, when manually flying the A320.

[Dominique_K 10,144]

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

The great thing about this hobby is that we can choose any place on the spectrum of manual or automated flight possible.  Modern day PC simulation is spectacular on many levels.

We, simmers, are a motley crew, aren't we ? And thats good, it makes interesting conversations ! 

Modern airliners à la 320 or 737 do cover 99% of commercial aviation but the 1% left aren't bad either 😉. Utility aircraft à la Pilatus Porter, helicopters, DC6 etc.

 What I'd miss in a modern airliner is the simulated interaction between man and machine, beyond monitoring the latter, the active balancing act to stay in a given 3D trajectory at certain speed while managing an engine with its own personality.  

Prejudice ? Maybe ...

[ErichB 3,642]

3 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

the active balancing act to stay in a given 3D trajectory at certain speed while managing an engine with its own personality.  

Yes, a great sense of achievement when managing to fly the DC-6 correctly. 

Makes you realise how much more 'skilled' pilots of that generation needed to be (in a different way) in order to get the job done.  Even though being an airline pilot has always seemed glamorous to earth bound plebs, I do sometimes think to myself when flying the PMDG DC-6, that there was actually nothing glamourous about flying that noisy ensemble of metal and rubber at all.  It was a constant game of Russian roulette.

[jcomm 5,930]

What about those complex, imbricate, Russian airliners and cargo aircraft... 

Navigation using the kind of support used in USSR was for guys with a degree in geographical engineering / geomatics 🙂

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by jcomm