SAS443

Does simcheck A300 work for 64bit prepar3d? It was a terrific analogue cockpit airliner back in the days...

I don't agree with this at all. The Q400 is leaps ahead (not counting the graphics), but that does not mean b350i is not enjoyable.

Hard to compare them. KingAir is different than a 65ton airliner. I have had it since december last year and it has improved big time. It's the only reason I still use p3d v4.5. But compared to FSL the 350i is not as polished. For exampl the Autopilot FMS Nav turn trajectory on most SIDs i fly (overshoots sharp turns). Loc / GS modes of the AP uses default P3D commands, meaning a rather small speed envelope where the Aircraft performs proper tracking. 2d popups for all displays and FMS.

The cabin pressure controller onboard the Airbus regulates max VS to -750fpm during descent in the auto-mode. Thats as bad as it gets. Upon landing (which was a pipe dream, sadly), any residual pressure is released at 500pm rate (your standard descent rate in a Cessna or Piper)

Then I wholeheartedly agree. Little "disturbing" information here: Imagine they were actually 250ft higher. Airbus A320 clean exhibits a glide number of 17(?) meaning for every vertical unit lost, you gain 17 horisontally. So 250ft x 17 = 4250ft or 1295 meters will be travelled horisontally. AvHerald reports crash site is approx. "1350 meters/0.74nm short of the runway threshold"

Only way is to check your country's AIP (Part 2, Enroute 4: Radio Navaids and systems) . Keep in mind many enroute NDB's and VOR's are being decomissioned. So it's not outlandish to assume that SMF NDB is no longer there.

But that is not how it works. They were never 250ft lower due to the QNH being 1004HPa. Correct setting of QNH ensures AD. ELEV. will be indicated during landing. I am talking about performance parameters (lift, thrust, weight and drag), which would reflect that AD ELEV on this day would be 2.750ft higher up. So if it was colder, the engines would probably be able to take them to higher (true) altitude before quitting on them, giving them more potential energy. Had it been 34C instead 35C that would be enough to basically cancel out the lower QNH... I will maintain that QNH is not the big issue - temperature is. As a side note: warmer than ISA will make indicated altitude < true altitude. But since the air is less dense TAS will increase and effect on L/D is unchanged (you will go faster and lose altitude faster)

I will give you the temperature, that worked against them. But Q1004 is hardly anything? ISA deviation of the temperature caused density altitude to be 2.500ft. (aerodrome elevation is just 100ft). Whereas the QNH penalty is a minor 250ft(ish)

EDDN - Nurnberg is always a pleasure to fly into and depart. No tricky approaches or weather but the layout is very "german" and logical. Also has a great GA apron aswell (me and friend are toying with idea to rent a SEP and fly there IRL next summer) This particular scenery in P3D is made by 29Palms/Captain 7

I'm quite content with the latest update. Obviously it's no FSL, but it still good value for sure. Descending into ORBX ESGG (Landvetter)

Well it's the same banter in the local flying clubs so ofc desktop pilots do that as well 😉

Didn't FS Labs also toy with the idea of bringing their Concorde to 64bit simulators?

Heh. No. See and be seen is what we VFR flyers practice. And it is actually quite hard to spot a small aircraft in flight at certain angles and lighting conditions. I was no 3 in in the pattern a few days ago (uncontrolled field) and this fella in front of me decided to do a 360 orbit(!) prior to turning base due to spacing on short final and I could seriously not see him.

Forgot about this piece of wonder. Glad to see it it still alive and doing well.

I'm afraid we havent seen nothing yet. https://sawadeesiam.com/business-finance/thai-airways-files-for-bankruptcy/