Yep, or completely condemn a plane that is not rated for intentional spins and illegal to do aerobatics with, and claim it is a “ripoff”, because the developer did not spend weeks/months perfecting the details of its behaviour in an Immelmann or inverted flat spin that you are not allowed to do in that aircraft anyway.
I don't get the obsession with stall behavior
I guess you’re partially making my point. You can do that now in the sim. What you can’t do in the sim is fly it with any realistic air movement other than calm wind. They should change their focus to that, perhaps, by enveloping the aircraft in up and down moving air and everything from puffs of wind to stronger gusts…so people have to use their hands to keep the plane steady. Imagine stalls in that kind of air.
Lack of gusts and wind shear is a separate issue from stall behaviour.
While I somewhat agree that accurate behaviour in the normal envelope is a priority (and we’re not there yet), I also think proper behaviour outside the normal envelope is important. And if the latter is done properly, the former comes for free.
It’s supposed to be a flight simulator for everyone, not just you wimpy “flying safely from A to B in my Cessna 172” types.
Some like to do aerobatics - where an accurate or at least plausible flight model is relevant.
Glider pilots practice stalls/spins on every checkout of a new model/type. No instructor present in single seaters. Might have to do with our urge to seek out thermals (“turbulence” in your parlance) and fly tight circles at minimum speed in them.
I’d be wary of flying with pilots that are too afraid of stalls or even stall training. Also - where’s your sense of fun?
SU9 might just be right up your street then.
As my first instructor always says, “Why would I want to teach you how to stall an airplane for? I want to teach you how NOT to stall an airplane!”
If the plane stalls you better restart it real quick or you’re in trouble!
(I wasn’t a very good student)
My first CFI was nearly opposite. He would have me hold the aircraft with the stall horn going for one minute… timed. The idea was to “lock in” the feel of the airplane near stall. We also used to practice turns about a point with the stall horn going on and off. Why? When you’re in the pattern you’re slow… and making ninety degree turns. It’s all about learning to stay in the safe operational envelope.
After a time, you didn’t need to even look at the panel while flying in the pattern. You didn’t need a stall horn either. You learned to feel what the aircraft is doing.
That was his method of teaching you not to stall the airplane.
It is far more important to fix the weak ground handling and friction modeling which is still really bad and never even gets mentioned.
I question the idea of the thread, that presumes repeated mention of stall improvements means a bug dejour will be ignored. Stalls are one of the critical boundaries for flight performance. How could you imagine approaching design of flight without a reasonable estimate of stall? It doesn’t matter if you ever stall a plane, you need the flight envelope to be correct.
Yep… practiced landing on top of the rock aside st Barth several times with a ggravel…
The landing part was somewhat doable ( let’s say 4-5 out of 10 attempts…)
Getting the wheels on the surface is the ‘easy’ part, come to a full stop without tipping the nose over and order a new prop is a different cookie
But surely assessing stall behaviour is a reasonable way of assessing how well the flight characteristics of a plane are represented in the sim. As the OP said, it’s all about how the air flows over the fuselage. If that is modelled correctly then the plan will stall exactly per the published figures. I don’t feel that people are concerned about stalling per se, it’s just that looking at stalling is a convenient way of assessing how accurate the modelilng in the sim is.
Agreed, everyone wants to see those things. That’s what simulation is all about. But I don’t see how those things will ever be modelled correctly while stalling is modelled incorrectly. They’re different aspects of the same whole. Looking at stall behaviour is one metric for measuring the total aerodynamic accuracy within the sim. Get the aerodynamic modelling correct and everything will fall into place.
Maybe the stall behaviour receives a lot of attention because one of the key points of this version of MSFS compared to previous versions, apart form the scenery streaming, is the modern flight model that is advertised as allowing a more realistic behaviour of the aircraft across the whole envelope and especially during stall with effects such as the wing shadowing the tail, etc
Unfortunately, so far it has fallen short in many areas, such as stall, which is not the most important itself, but in other such as propeller effect on single engine aircraft, inaccurate drag modelling of feathered props, etc
I think the point here is we want all the simulator to become its best version, and we are lucky to have the developers being open to feedback and with a plan to improve the sim in the long term.
Now it’s up to us the community to provide the necessary feedback for MSFS to reach its true potential as the best simulator out there.
On the wall of the local aeroclub:
“The superior pilot uses their superior knowledge, superior situational awareness and superior foresight to avoid situations that would ever require them to call upon their superior skills” .
No it’s not, at least not if you know what you’re doing. If you stall, the aircraft starts to drop a wing, and you try to pick up the wing with aileron then yeah, you’re asking for an “over the top” spin. But if you’ve had any spin training at all you would have been taught to never do that and use opposite rudder to stop any rotation (along with forward stick/yoke to break the stall).
When I used to fly gliders, doing spins was quite routine when we had a few 100 ft to burn before entering the circuit. You get good at spin recovery when you do them all the time
Sorry, but that’s a poor instructor. Yes, you need to learn to fly proper speeds and make coordinated turns to avoid stalling, but if that is all you ever learn then you will be poorly prepared when the inevitable accidental stall happens, especially if it happens close to the ground and in a turn.
I flew sailplanes for years, and part of the standard curriculum was extensive training in stall and spin recognition and recovery, as well as recovery from unusual attitudes. I also did some aerobatics, though that wasn’t required. That training was invaluable because it made me completely comfortable and prepared for any unexpected upset that might (will) occur.
In sailplanes, we often fly at minimum controllable airspeed and at steep bank angles while thermaling. We’re always flying just a few knots above stall speed in those situations, and all it takes is a sudden gust or less than perfect speed control for a moment to cause a stall. But the incipient stalls that happen every now and then are no big deal because we’ve been well trained in stall and spin recognition and recovery. We are also constantly focused on making perfectly coordinated turns which not only maximize aerodynamic efficiency (the main reason we focus on it) but also reduce the chance of a spin. I cringe when I fly with friends who are only rated in powered aircraft when I see them barely if at all use the rudder pedals when turning. They’re slipping and worse, skidding around their turns because they were never taught to fly with precision.
Of course I’m biased, but when it comes to stick and rudder skills most sailplane pilots are like skilled surgeons while the typical powered aircraft pilot is more like a truck driver. I’m convinced that’s one of the reasons why so many pilots are killed in stall-spin accidents. It’s because they were never taught to be precise in their coordination, have not really been taught how to assess the aerodynamic performance of their aircraft, and therefore when the engine suddenly quits during climb out they are slow to assess the situation and lower the nose, then often decide to attempt the “impossible turn” back to the runway and seeing the ground rushing up to meet them they pull up (causing a stall) and skid their turn in an effort to rush it (which initiates the spin).
Had they been taught to use better judgment and been more skilled at flying with precision, these incidents would be far less common. They certainly need to run from any instructor who tells them that it’s not important to learn how to recover from stalls and spins, because that will only lead to panic and wrong actions when a stall or spin occurs.
Many European countries require pilots to first get their glider rating before going for their airplane rating. And it’s for all of the reasons I’ve cited - the sailplane experience makes them much better pilots overall. When every landing is a “forced” landing and there are no go-arounds, you develop much better judgment than when you can just rely on an engine to drag you around the sky. I strongly recommend that any airplane pilot get their glider rating as soon as possible, preferably before beginning their powered training (and developing bad habits).
Sully was a highly experienced sailplane pilot. Just some food for thought.
Speaking of engine failure on takeoff, I remember having to do a series of simulated ‘cable breaks’ prior to going solo in a glider. This was winch launching. The critical altitude was 300ft. Below that, you can land ahead (full airbreaks, sideslip, loose height as fast as you can). Above that, a tiny circuit-to-land. Of course the instructor pulled one on me at exactly 300ft.
(Before that I had a couple accidental cable breaks when aerotowing. That was fun too!)
Yep, basic aeronautical knowledge and common-sense says if a wing drops that wing is badly stalled and applying aileron to try and pick up the already stalled wing will stall it even further and have the opposite effect to intended.
Always pickup a dropped wing with rudder not aileron.