Just tested. The link works for me.
The topic is in the beta forum, that’s why.
1 Like
Ooops, correct.
Oh dang, I didn’t see that! Maybe you can copy it to the normal forum when the Beta is done! Good points!
Ah I see.
Anyway hope it can be fixed soon, and as for now when I don’t intend to go into any stall or breakdown style of play, the FBW flight dynamics under normal condition feels quite good enough fo me, meanwhile the default 787 which is my all time favourite aircraft feels weird
Weird in which way? Apart from the wrong Airbus style FBW implementation the 787 feels ok to me.
It feels too light and balloonish.
And that in mild turbulence or say during crosswind when I change bank angle the FBW A32NX changes rate of descend a bit as I would expect irl but the 787 kept way too stable
Can’t confirm. Feels similar to the 767 I used to fly.
For the vertical speed to change when banking you to either need a high bank angle, and/or rapid left/right alternating roll input.
Furthermore because the A320 does this, it doesn’t necessarily apply to the 787.
Not sure about this, isn’t Airbus fly-by-wire system automatically compensating for rolling off the lift vector in normal mode?
It does, but it’s way too slow for such quick changes (and such rapid pitch changes would be rather inconvient).
Again, with normal roll input you wouldn’t either notice it, and/or it doesn’t even occur.
That’s a very old video, but it demonstrates the FBW system nicely.
Note the very high pitch rate you can achieve in the real A320 at 12:40
I think it does this in AP, but when flying full manually the fbw stabling effect should not be able to even out gust winds, which in the fbw a32nx this feels quite right and the default airliners feels way too stable, the gusts or turbulence only shake your screen a bit but then the VS don’t change
I didn’t know we were talking about crosswind. When flying manually (normal control law) the A320 fly-by-wire automatically compensates in turns so back-pressure on the sidestick is not needed. As @PZL104 says for turbulence this is probably too slow in response.
It is difficult to accurately compare this as it is subjective. A real airliner like the 787 or 747 has a lot of mass and therefore a lot of inertia which keeps following the original flightpath initially following a disturbance.
Watching the recent Q&A session, in the section where they talk about flight model improvements coming for SU6, I noticed that in this video snippet of the A320 there is a downforce on the horizontal stabilizer:
This is new, right? I didn’t see them address this specific point in the Q&A but could it be that they’ve actually fixed this for SU6?
They do talk about a change they’ve made so that the center of pressure moves forward as the angle of attack is increased. All in all, this makes me hopeful that SU6 will see some noticeable improvements in the flight model.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.