SAS443

yes. temperature. I posted the rule of thumb above.

The displayed DA seems to be allright. Depending when the image was taken. Using current METAR as base. Find pressure altitude (4hpa below QNH) From there apply rule of thumb correction of 120 x ISA dev 525* + (120*11)= 1.845ft Density Altitude. *That is PA derived from field elevation of 645ft. Current QNH puts PA 120ft below field elevation, ergo 525ft. 1 hpa=30ft for simplicity....

Energy Management/descent planning. Heavy or lightly loaded?Early or late descend clearances all have their issues to tackle. Add descent out of a jetstream and you can be in for some nasty surprises. Airmiles for ground miles conundrum. Also throw in FMS /VNAV behavior to above, off path descent checks. (Blue/white range rings)

I am a real pilot, I'd love to try this out. Flies maybe 40-50hrs per year in Cessnas and Diamond Stars. Carry on your work @MrBitstFlyer, the majority of us roots for you and wishes you nothing but good fortunes.

I have flown a few tailwheel planes IRL. One particular interesting (and humbling) moment was on Cap10 and a flapless landing on a short field with 13 kt x-wind. Ground loop or tipping the nose over. Pick your poison....one puts your wingtip in the grass, the other puts your prop in it. 😄 That said, I prefer tricycle gear simply because I have way more experience on those.

Reduce power. Apply slight back pressure of the controls (to maintain altitude) Increase power to maintain the reduced airspeed (if necessary) Trim out the control forces.

Yeah. Need some addtional 100-150 RPM in order to match the performance of the 172SP I fly. My reference: Approach in F20 @ 1450 RPM, I can easily maintain 70-74KIAS. But in the sim, airspeed is slowly bleeding off despite being far from heavily loaded. Not a big deal, but I concur with your experience. Redundancy in IFR is really not about which system is more likely to fail . It’s about making sure primary + stand AI by don’t fail for the same reason.

Well, bottom line. Pneumatically driven gyros are vulnerable to any accelerations (change in airspeeds or turning) This acceleration will (after procession) indicate a false right roll, whereas the pendulum vanes will sense a false vertical and indicate an incorrect pitch-up movement. And the opposite goes for deceleration. For electric driven Attitude Indicators, the above do not really hold true. They have corrections applied to the platform and spins much faster. But gentle maneuvers and sustained turns can - in some designs (Mercury tilt switch)- cause gyro erection errors and indicate level flight in banked turns. Sorry if I misunderstood the question

Old school? I would say that in plenty of areas, the MD-11 automation exceeds the 737NG (which is understandable due to commonality requirement) Not sure conventional is the right word for it. But as you alluded to, It's there to reduce unwanted pitch oscillations. AFAIK, LSAS is attitude biased, not energy. So even if you bleed off speed, attitude will be maintained (or at least that is the object it will try to achieve) via elevator commands primarily, and with auto pitch trim to ensure elevators always have 5 degree authority. LSAS will lose authority when >2lbs of force is applied on the control column, and I know TFDI had issues with this modelling in earlier versions. On my end, I think it flies very stable and precise, much better than at release.

Awesome! I will probably "just settle" with the 145-series. I will fire up the ERJ tonight along with Dataref-tool and build a Streamdeck profile (which is just as fun as actual flying)

Custom made CDU and fonts, IIRC. on the NAV IDENT page, you will see software version "XP 12.X.X" That's a dead give away. Doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. The default FMS is quite capable. But I guess you will not find some specific ERJ quirks if you went looking for them.

Release seems to be imminent. Trailer - by Aviationlads - was published yesterday on their YT-channel. Definitely a purchase for sure.

Only if visual separation is being applied by the pilot. You can be cleared a visual approach and ATC still maintain that responsibility.

Thanks. Yesterdays real world weather is giving me 11,5 SM (roughly 18km) in XP. That's when the screenshot was taken. Whereas the published data from our weather office for yesterday was 75 km (aside for a slight dip to 65km at 08 UTC). That’s a 3-4 times visibility shortfall in crystal-clear winter air, based purely on the reported data versus the in-sim result.

Somebody is very well aware of it. But XP’s haze + exposure makes the scene nuclear. If XP in the future can tweak its depiction of "visibility 10 kilometers" as our met-report was for today, this issue would not be remotely as profound. That's all.