Interesting thought, and I don’t mean to be mean, but, I giggled a little when I read “because they may cause pilots confusion?”
Sure, lots of pilots got confused in training, but that never stopped the FAA.
And really, what’s more satisfying than hitting the ils on an approach, and hearing those markers go off right on time? Ah, for days gone by.
I was flying by Manchester (KMHT) and the marker went off, and my girlfriend asked what it was… “Oh, the old way we used to navigate”
I used to teach kids about flying with FS2004 and FSX… and that was one of the coolest ways I could teach them about navigation. Take off from KASH rwy 14, turn left on the radial for MHT VOR, turn final for and do a touch and go on 35 at KMHT, pick up and fly to CHERN NDB, then turn final for KASH rwy 14 and land. Flight takes about 10 minutes and it covers all the bases. Sadly CHERN is no more.
Sure, I can have them follow a GPS track now, but that’s no fun. Way more fun to see the needles move and get them to line up. Very satisfying.
Not taken as mean at all. I wasn’t really going for either comedy or judgment. But I do wonder if pilots learn about and/use older technology these days.
I am not a pilot IRL, but in-sim, I pride myself on having learned to fly via NDBs and VORs and wish there were more in the sim. The US is mostly devoid of NDBs, except parts of Alaska, but there are opportunities in other parts of the world.
Not just Alaska, they still exist in remote parts of the US that don’t yet have GPS approaches at a lot of airports, so you’ll find them in Maine and northern NH and Vermont, places like that.
DME and moreso GPS/RNAV have rendered them obsolete. And I imagine that it saves quite a bit of money as the ground transmitters don’t need to be maintained.
Lots of VORs are being removed in the US, I believe the plan is 34% by 2030. At this point it’s mostly east of the Missouri River, but there have been a handful in the west as well. They will keep enough so that you’re always within 100 of a conventional radio-nav approach. Look up the Minimum Operational Network (MON).
As far as NDBs, there are still quite a few left in the CONUS. You know, I think I’ll shoot a few approaches on Friday’s stream now that I’ve wrapped up the VFR flight planning sim lessons.
Ok they wasn’t any marker on the approach . Another question. Using the WT GNS430/530 combination an the AP does not engage. Tried Heading, NAV. It doesn’t even react like there is no connection. Could this be a issue in combination with the GNS from WT?
Back in the day flying clubs would even hold NAV challenge days with some minor prize where every one flew a VFR course using map and beacons and had to answer some random questions about what they saw along the way to prove they had been on course. Quite fun at the time.
I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, but, yes, if you have the gps issues, it would be an issue if you have both the PMS50 530 and the Marketplace WT530 installed on your system.
The FSW developer wasn’t clear if they are using the default (WT)530, or they still point to the old deprecated but still in the code (Asobo) AS530, and therefore the Marketplace WT530 needs to be installed to access the (new) default (WT)530, which they said the C414 was now designed to use. The PMS50 530 replaces the AS530, as does the Marketplace WT530 addon, so, if both are installed, issues will ensue.
I wish developers were more clear about which GNS530 they use. All the developer said above was, paraphrasing “We think the WT530 works with our plane the best”. That’s not a lot of help, really.
It’s important to understand because a new Nav Database structure was created at the same time as / for the new navigational systems, so, pointing to the AS530, which uses the old less functional nav database system, and expecting the user to have the marketplace 530 installed to link to the new one can result in issues for the Autopilot and other things if people don’t have the Marketplace 530 link to the new default 530 installed. The problem planes that use the G3X will now have issues because it’s based on the old system and can’t communicate with the new systems if the plane also has a 430 or 530 installed, or one of the 750’s for that matter.
I don’t know if I understand everything correctly. So the WT GNS is stock now for the Warrior? What exactly do I have to do? There is a little download on the marketplace at about 25kb regarding the WT GNS. Do I have to download that? The overlay seems already to be the WT one. I deleted the PMS from the community folder
As long as you’ve deleted the PMS530, then, yes, I’d install the “little” Marketplace WT530 (the one with the picture). It’s basically a link that redirects GPS’s that still use the AS530, and redirect them to use the WT530. Then you’re all set no matter which version of the unit the plane uses.
That’s a good thing to look for. I’m not home right now and won’t be for a couple of days, but, you can look in the panel.cfg and panel.xml (if you’re on PC). If you see a reference to AS530 or AS430, then it likely needs the MPWT530. I don’t know what the name of the new default 530 unit is in the code.
I have issues when taking off or landing with crosswinds. The aircraft fells really slippery even with low speed winds, something similar happened with the fenix A320 some months ago.
Also, it is impossible to stall the aircraft, the maximum I get is a constant descent at 60kt.
I flew it last night, after resetting the htail area to 0 instead of 35.9, and it felt like I had better control on pitch in the flare, but I never tried a stall. Did you try both a power off, and power on stall?
It’s going to be an interesting day, when a space debris cascade takes out all GPS satellites one day and all the VOR / NDB stations are gone as well. VFR for everybody!
Further up in this thread I think. The idea was that it has a 35.9ft² stabilator, so no real non-moving horizontal stabiliser area. On some PA-28’s the htail_area was set to 0.1. In the Warrior it is set to 35.9. So instead of 0.1 I just set it to 0.
I assume so, as I don’t think there is a similar setting for the elevator. I’d have to check.
I just had a quick look. So there are these two for “htail”:
htail_pos_lon
htail_pos_vert
But I cannot see similar settings for elevator.
For “htail_area” it states:
This single surface will have the area of htail_area and elevator_area combined.
So with “htail_area” set to 0, and “elevator_area” set to 35.9", we get still get 35.9 for the whole thing, not 35.9 * 2, which we get with the current unmodified Warrior.
. Another question. Using the WT GNS430/530 combination an the AP does not engage. Tried Heading, NAV. It doesn’t even react like there is no connection. Could this be a issue in combination with the GNS from WT?
