Alpha Floor

I experimented a little with engine failures after take-off (EFATOs) with a Cessna 172 and collected my conclusions in the following video. I hope you find it entertaining and/or interesting ;)

I'm sorry for bumping the thread but... What's the current consensus on the Airfoillabs C172 and how does it compare to the A2A? I just started PPL training on a C172 and would like to know which is the best C172 available on the market right now, be it on FSX or on XP10. Thanks for any help!

Here's the Short Period Mode, visualized through Flight Test: https://youtu.be/yqIsuOYqQw4?t=3m7s

I never use it no matter the weather conditions. In the simulator it's really great fun to land a 737 at 0 visibility, fully manual and raw data. Feeling of accomplishment!

Great one, I'll remember that one! Ahhh, The Simpsons, always providing appropriate quotes in every real life situation, haha

The same thread over and over again. I always say YES (even though I know I will be heavily downvoted here, oh wait, that's Reddit). A properly trained flight sim pilot can fly a real, highly-automated aircraft provided that ALL CONDITIONS ARE OPTIMAL (aircraft in perfect condition, perfect weather, straight-forward ILS approach etc.). In the end flying a big jet is all energy management, programming and procedures. All of which can be learnt on a high-fidelity simulation. Pilots are there basically for if anything goes wrong or not as planned. When it comes to Stick&Rudder flying, then definitely not. This requires real world practice.

Great to know!!

After much experimenting myself I've also come to the conclusion that the FBW is not "perfectly" modeled. But I think this can be forgiven since it's probably impossible to reproduce the real plane's behavior on a home computer with home controls... I try to hand-fly it as smooth as possible, using very little input and just correcting when necessary. A big mistake with FBW is over-controlling. In principle you fly it like a 737 but in practice, when you enter a turn on a 737 you're already adding back pressure to compensate for nose-drop. On the 777 I only add a smooth roll input and see how it behaves. If it holds altitude on it's own then I don't do anything else. If the nose starts dropping then I'll add slight backpressure.

Sure, but the OP wanted to inhibit the "autotuner" from selecting the same station on both receivers. Why would one want that? If you need a specific VOR tuned, then tune that one manually. Another option nobody mentioned is going to the FIX page and selecting the desired VOR. This will show BRD/DST info towards that VOR without abandoning the "autotune" function of the FMC. You won't be tuning the VOR per se, but the information you will receive is essentially the same.

Not really. The only way is going manual. There is a way to inhibit the FMC from auto-tuning specific VOR/DME stations, but that's not what you're asking for.

In IVAO, the rules say flights must be done in real time. About the weather, if you want to use older weather, go ahead. Just note that the ATC will issue "wrong" altimeters, winds etc.

Thanks for the confirmation Rich. It's "Jaime", by the way

Interesting topic. I've read a lot on this and there's much diversity of opinions. In my opinion it boils down to whatever representation you're most used to. Dual-cue (X-bars) seems to be much more common today than single-cue (V-bar). Single-cue seems to be easier to follow, dual-cue allows you to ignore one of the two axes. I prefer dual-cue and that's the one I'm most used to.

A man needs his cave. And if you listen to Neil Young, his maid also

Why? Well, for starters its a far better and superior application per se