20 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

An Airbus is way easier to land than a 737. An Airbus has auto trim and the flight systems hold your trajectory with your hand off the stick.

 

Have you flown both in real life? What you write have absolutely no sense. How about this no stick landing? LOL

 

Do any of you Airbus pilots fly Concorde? Because if you think landing an Airbus is tricky I can assure you Concorde is in a different league.

Approach speed is 190kts reducing to 160kts at 800ft. No flaps so to slow the aircraft the nose is pitched up to 10.5°. Autothrottles engaged until 15ft then pitch up ever so slightly for a smooth landing. No reverse thrust until the nose wheel contacts the ground too. Then you have the ground effect of the delta wing. All good fun! 😁

I can regularly manage <200fpm but it’s taken years of practice. Sorry for deviating. 😉

Just now, Ray Proudfoot said:

Sorry for deviating.

Someone get a moderator in here!

1 minute ago, Farlis said:

Someone get a moderator in here!

I did say sorry. 😁

On the matter of your question: It's been ages since I flew Concord. Probably back in FSX. Landing her was not the biggest problem I had. Finding a proper descend calculation without ending up too high on the approach was the challenging part.

7 minutes ago, Farlis said:

On the matter of your question: It's been ages since I flew Concord. Probably back in FSX. Landing her was not the biggest problem I had. Finding a proper descend calculation without ending up too high on the approach was the challenging part.

The FSL version for P3Dv5 does include calculations for the decel position and the virtual crew will retard the throttles at that point for you. But it’s down to you to engage the relevant action on the AFCS.

I still prefer to use the supplied calculator to ensure that’s the correct point.

It’s a challenging aircraft requiring a lot of forward planning which adds to its appeal.

Apologies for the deviation. I won’t continue unless I’m asked questions.

9 hours ago, alanw2005 said:

An Airbus is way easier to land than a 737. An Airbus has auto trim and the flight systems hold your trajectory with your hand off the stick

but correct me if I'm wrong (I havent flown an Airbus in ages in the sim)

in the actual landing phase (" flare mode") isn't the autotrim inhibited?

You now have a basic stick to elevator interaction, like a conventional aircraft.

18 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

but correct me if I'm wrong (I havent flown an Airbus in ages in the sim)

in the actual landing phase (" flare mode") isn't the autotrim inhibited?

You now have a basic stick to elevator interaction, like a conventional aircraft.

During flare mode, airbus logic has the auto trim push the nose down forcing the pilot to pull back on the side stick to keep the nose from falling too quickly.

Airbus is full automation. A Boeing is like a 75 Chevy. They say Airbus is designed by geniuses for idiots and Boeings are designed by idiots for geniuses.

I wish there was a Concorde for FS2024 that was in the same league as the FSL one. There is one by DC Designs which is a good effort but it just doesn't quite scratch the itch for me. It's not accurate enough to be able to follow along the real procedures.

Quote

Have you flown both in real life? What you write have absolutely no sense. How about this no stick landing? LOL

Of course I have not flown both in real life. Have you? Is this the basis for your initial statement on this subject? If so please do pray tell.

My comments come from a friend that was a captain on an A320 and is now a captain on a 787. He couldn't stand his time on th A320 because it had too much flight automation.

Anyway, this is an age old debate. In the sim world, I find a Fenix A321 way easier to fly than a PMDG Boeing 737-800 or an iFly 737 Max.
 

 

Edited January 22Jan 22 by alanw2005

17 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

During flare mode, airbus logic has the auto trim push the nose down

My understanding is that elevators are pushing the nose down, and not the THS?
But again, I'm absolutely not an Airbus guy.

26 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

My understanding is that elevators are pushing the nose down, and not the THS?
But again, I'm absolutely not an Airbus guy.

I am not an AME nor do i play one on TV. But my understanding is that the trim adjusts the stabilizer. The side stick controls the elevator.

 

Edited January 22Jan 22 by alanw2005

39 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

Of course I have not flown both in real life. Have you? Is this the basis for your initial statement on this subject? If so please do pray tell.

My comments come from a friend that was a captain on an A320 and is now a captain on a 787. He couldn't stand his time on th A320 because it had too much flight automation.

Anyway, this is an age old debate probably best discussed by real pilots who have flown both. In the sim world, I find a Fenix A321 way easier to fly than a PMDG Boeing 737-800 or an iFly 737 Max.

I don't fly either, so am just speaking from a sim perspective but I don't find one necessarily easier than the other. To be honest I find it easier to achieve softer landings in the 737 than the A320 - which may be just to do with the view perspective and being able to judge height off the ground better, I don't know, but the fact that one has auto trim and the other doesn't makes very little difference. If the 737 is properly trimmed for the approach, which when you disconnect the AP then it should be, then it doesn't really take much trimming unless you're making big power adjustments.

I do fly light aircraft and have to say the concept of flying a 737, or probably any Boeing that uses conventional controls, is much more similar to the sort of flying I do than the Airbus is - and the principles of using trim to relieve control forces and making adjustments for changes in airspeed are still very relevant.

8 minutes ago, Tom Wright said:

I don't fly either, so am just speaking from a sim perspective but I don't find one necessarily easier than the other. To be honest I find it easier to achieve softer landings in the 737 than the A320 - which may be just to do with the view perspective and being able to judge height off the ground better, I don't know, but the fact that one has auto trim and the other doesn't makes very little difference. If the 737 is properly trimmed for the approach, which when you disconnect the AP then it should be, then it doesn't really take much trimming unless you're making big power adjustments.

I do fly light aircraft and have to say the concept of flying a 737, or probably any Boeing that uses conventional controls, is much more similar to the sort of flying I do than the Airbus is - and the principles of using trim to relieve control forces and making adjustments for changes in airspeed are still very relevant.

Fair enough Tom. Horses for courses.

58 minutes ago, Tom Wright said:

I wish there was a Concorde for FS2024 that was in the same league as the FSL one. There is one by DC Designs which is a good effort but it just doesn't quite scratch the itch for me. It's not accurate enough to be able to follow along the real procedures.

It's an extremely complicated aircraft Tom and FSL have access to r/w Concorde pilots to ensure all the flight characteristics are correctly modelled. Andrew Wilson wrote the software for the Concorde simulator at Brooklands. There's no higher reward.

The DCD is a great effort for the price. The XP Colimata was the next best but still has issues and the developer hasn't released an update in a long time.

It all boils down to what is most important for each of us. Aircraft or Simulator. I have all the aircraft I want in P3Dv5. Hence why I haven't switched and I'm unlikely to do so.