On 9/1/2024 at 10:21 AM, Claudius_ said:

The floaty flare seems improved now, but they ruined everything regarding the flight model, now the A320 handles like a F16. You can feel this in manual flight and landings, here a video showing this new (wrong) creative flight model in a creative approach at Paro. A 60 tons airplane flies like a dragonfly:

 

Revised comment by the author…

Please disregard the following. As @Donstim has pointed out to me, the A320 is not a Part 23 aircraft but a Part 25 aircraft, for which there is no specific roll rate requirement.

I have no real-world experience in A320s, but what I can do is to compare the performance we see in this video to the certification standards.

The FAR Part 25 [corrected] certification standards applicable to the A320 family require a minimum roll rate of 8 degrees per second to be achievable in the landing configuration.

Let's look at the final roll to the left before landing, which starts at 9:20 with zero angle of bank and ends at 9:23 with 20 degrees angle of bank to the left. This gives a roll rate of 7 degrees per second, which is below the minimum that the airplane must be able to achieve.

I haven't checked the other maneuvers in the video, but they look similar, and it's likely that the pilot used a large control input on this particular maneuver given that they ended up overshooting the centerline slightly.

This doesn't prove that the behavior is realistic, but it is at least consistent with what the certification standarfs require the airplane to achieve.

Edited September 2, 20241 yr by Ray Proudfoot
Incorrect info now corrected.

3 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

Maybe the flight model was better before the patch than now? And you before the patch was flying a "defective" flight model without problems, claiming the Fenix A320 the best airplane ever?

Anyway, the problem is there, Aamir says that you can correct the inertia acting on the joystick adjuments (!). Never seen similar overturns on a simulated airplane before, Fenix is on a wrong way if they are claiming their project goodness just because the real pilot and the majority of the people say this. If true, PMDG is largely superior to Fenix: no compromises from this point of view.

You have no idea what you are talking about. 

And yet another Avsim discussion where someone that has never even flown an aircraft in real life, is claiming that the professionals that fly these aircraft for a living "don't know what they are talking about"😏

35 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

And yet another Avsim discussion where someone that has never even flown an aircraft in real life, is claiming that the professionals that fly these aircraft for a living "don't know what they are talking about"😏

And yet another wise guy that isn't capable to distinguish a real plane from a flight simulator. Anyway, I'm expressing my opinions on this last patch with respect and appropriate language as usual, opposite your usual sarcasm and personal attacks.

9 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

And yet another wise guy that isn't capable to distinguish a real plane from a flight simulator. Anyway, I'm expressing my opinions on this last patch with respect and appropriate language as usual, opposite your usual sarcasm and personal attacks.

What makes you think I was talking about you?   

Edited September 2, 20241 yr by Bobsk8

4 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

What makes you think I was talking about you?   

Because it seems that you are not able to stay in topic, instead of comparing your experiences with those of other flight sim enthusiasts. I'm in love with the Fenix A320 and I consider it a very good work and I liked the dev approach to discuss things. But after the last patch I find the A320 flying worse than before (see my posts above), it's not a bug, it's just an overturning regarding the FM, when the previous FM was very good when flying it manually. It's impossible that a 65 tons airplane overeacts like this, especially when rolling, it reminds me the glorious old FW 190 now, not a liner! 😅

 

15 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

Because it seems that you are not able to stay in topic, instead of comparing your experiences with those of other flight sim enthusiasts. I'm in love with the Fenix A320 and I consider it a very good work and I liked the dev approach to discuss things. But after the last patch I find the A320 flying worse than before (see my posts above), it's not a bug, it's just an overturning regarding the FM, when the previous FM was very good when flying it manually. It's impossible that a 65 tons airplane overeacts like this, especially when rolling, it reminds me the glorious old FW 190 now, not a liner! 😅

 

I have hundreds and hundreds of hours flying the A 320 prior to this update, and about 20 hours post update. I don't see any difference in the handling. I also read the Fenix Discord several times a day, and there is no mention of problems with the A 320 after the update. What can I say??

4 hours ago, martinboehme said:

This gives a roll rate of 7 degrees per second, which is below the minimum that the airplane must be able to achieve.

Indeed, the A320 family has a maximum roll rate of 15° per second in normal law.

In direct law, the maximum roll rate is 30° per second in clean config and 25° per second with slats out.

1 minute ago, F737MAX said:

Indeed, the A320 family has a maximum roll rate of 15° per second in normal law.

In direct law, the maximum roll rate is 30° per second in clean config and 25° per second with slats out.

This is true, but I don't think this implies that these roll rates can be achieved at all airspeeds -- just that the FBW system makes sure that roll rate does not exceed these limits. (IOW, these roll rates are an upper limit.) It does give an idea though of the fairly brisk roll rates that can be achieved at higher speeds.

The 8 degrees per second, on the other hand, is a lower limit that the aircraft has to be able to achieve in the landing configuration, at Vref.

14 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

IOW, these roll rates are an upper limit

Of course. What I wanted to show was that the roll rate of the A320 is limited to a maximum of 30° per second.

The F-16 apparently has a max. roll rate of 224° per second. 😵

I think it's fair to say that neither the earlier linked video, nor the real world specs of the F-16, demonstrated that the Fenix A320 is capable of handling like a F-16 on approach.

46 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Of course. What I wanted to show was that the roll rate of the A320 is limited to a maximum of 30° per second.

The F-16 apparently has a max. roll rate of 224° per second. 😵

I think it's fair to say that neither the earlier linked video, nor the real world specs of the F-16, demonstrated that the Fenix A320 is capable of handling like a F-16 on approach.

Mine F16 was a methaphor and a hyperbole, and the FW 190 comparison was in the same line (for god sake). So in your personal experience are you guys finding that the Fenix A320 is somewhat overeacting when rolling (in manual flying)?

Edited September 2, 20241 yr by Claudius_

3 hours ago, martinboehme said:

The 8 degrees per second, on the other hand, is a lower limit that the aircraft has to be able to achieve in the landing configuration, at Vref.

The A320 is a part 25 airplane, not a part 23 airplane. Part 25 does not have an explicit degrees per second roll rate requirement.

Edited September 2, 20241 yr by Donstim
Fix typo

43 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

Mine F16 was a methaphor and a hyperbole, and the FW 190 comparison was in the same line (for god sake). So in your personal experience are you guys finding that the Fenix A320 is somewhat overeacting when rolling (in manual flying)?

No 

45 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

Mine F16 was a methaphor and a hyperbole, and the FW 190 comparison was in the same line (for god sake). So in your personal experience are you guys finding that the Fenix A320 is somewhat overeacting when rolling (in manual flying)?

No.

45 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

Mine F16 was a methaphor and a hyperbole, and the FW 190 comparison was in the same line (for god sake). So in your personal experience are you guys finding that the Fenix A320 is somewhat overeacting when rolling (in manual flying)?

 Nope