SAS443

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.

But when the athosphere actually is "clean and transparent", like we have at Arlanda. 1030h hPa, -6 C outside today. Visibility is virtually endless on days like these. Then you fire up XP and is greeted with doomsday nuke as you depart. So MSFS is Disney, I guess Xplane leans more towards Michael Bay then.

Try to increase screen birghtness. Also, the Citation X comes with an LCD alternative (available in the EFB) which is worth trying out.

Weight does not scale linearly with dimensions. it scales with volume =3. So scale of 1/19th would actually put the RC-model at: 193= 6859. 236.000 kg/6859 = approx. 35kg (don't worry, DaVinci made the similar assumption when he designed his Ornithopter) Regarding the speed, RC scale models all battle physics: adverse aspects of low reynolds number, earlier separation of boundary layer and what not. It's a long list. So RC planes will - in reality - need to fly much faster than a theoretically applied "down scaled" airspeed. Perhaps not twice as fast, but a factor of 1,5 is not uncommon. bottom line, It's not possible to compare a real A350 and it's performance envelope, try to scale it towards a small RC-model, fraction of size and weight. (former RC-flyer myself)

Hey. Not at my computer, but it is under 'scripting' tab, and then 'watch simulator events', I believe. Check the box to ignore spam events and you should be good.

I have created a fully functional AP panel for the TFDI MD11F using Stream Deck+/ Pilotsdeck (by Fragtality). Only AAO scripts I used is to control the COM Radios. For the rest, I used AAO event logger and mapped all AP buttons (virtually the whole glareshield + parts of the overhead) to MSFS/RPN Code. All variables where identified using AAO. Button Graphics done in Gimp Graphics Editor. https://imgur.com/a/Bghg20P#cQY8Kfu The same setup works fine in XP12 and Rotate Md11, just swapped to XP Datarefs / commands instead. But good Lord it is a time consuming chore.

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

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.

Are you sure you are not confusing the old legacy fonts with the modern fonts, which are found in the G1000NXI? (and not portrayed in XP12 afaik?) Because the fonts in XP12 looks ok to me. Sure, not 100% replica, but close enough. If anything, the font size is more off. 🙂 comparison vs real G1000 (imgur image, so sorry my british friends)

I have used Garmin pilot since 2022. It's come along way since. RW IFR = GP RW VFR = SkyDemon No need for FF. Let it burn, make a statement that Private Equity never gain end users.

It's little bit quirky. AP and ATS is intertwined in the MD11, just observe how the ATS will "change columns" on the autopilot annunciations, depending on which phase of flight you are in. (notice ATS OFF is indicated on the right column on ground, and on the left most column during an approach) Another give away of the MD system philosophy is that ATS will engage if you press PROF pushbutton if you are above 400 ft RA. MD in short, blends the ATS modes, depending on if it's an altitude control mode, such as "T/O THRUST" or if ATS is in speed control mode, such as "180kts THRUST", which is somewhat of a departure from Boeing philosophy where the A/T always had it's separate mode column on the PFD.

what kind of competitor did the 747 face, until the A380 showed up? It's not like customers could choose from 3 different manufacturers when purchasing 747-size widebodies. Which would be situation with a twin engine MD. And I repeat; it would be the least attractive choice. re: 737, different matter. Boeing had the financials to continously improve it (but as you might know, they also took a few shortcut in the QA department recently). Also, airlines are locked in since it already existed in the thousands among fleets world-wide, not financially attractive to opt out. So not comparable to a hypotethic twing engine MD which would have zero commonality with a predecessor.

It would not have succeeded. You must realize that the airframe+wing was a thing from the late 60s by the time it entered into service in 1991. Twin Engine or not, it would still be the least viable option between the B777 and A330 family. It had no growth potential carrying that legacy design into the 90s and 2000s. Zero. MDC cut every corner possible with the MD11, not because they wanted to, but their fiscal situation did not allow for anything else.

Fly it in NAV+PROF. Important: fill in the "min prof altitude" in the STAR page (where you Select the RNAV approach), this is the charted MDA value