More Physics, More Real Winds

That one is an interesting read, I don’t remember exactly what the cause was, maybe some Airbus pilot can fill in the blanks. Apart from all the human factors and the lack of proper threat and error management, the FBW reduced (even halved?) the aileron authority when moving from flight to ground mode and this wasn’t described in any manual and no pilot had any way of knowing this.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/A320,_Hamburg_Germany,_2008

Another problem with x-plane is the constant 1 step forward 2 steps back in its development.

As a flight model designer it’s a nightmare trying to cope with these constant changes.

In the beginning you couldn’t even loop an aircraft in x-plane due to it’s calculation limitations.

I’ve designed aircraft and flight models for both sims in the last few decades and both ways have their advantages and disadvantages.

IMO MSFS combines the best of both worlds and within the next few month/years it will be far ahead of the others sime concerning aerodynamics.
Concerning immersion it already outclasses all of them IMO.

4 Likes

That was one of the many special cases nobody knew about.
In fact when you can’t get any roll response, despite using full sidestick input, instead of waiting for a response, you can try to ‘reset’ the roll command by neutralizing the stick input and start over.
One of the reasons is that the A320 gives the pilot only 15deg/sec roll authority but it’s actual roll authority is higher than 40deg/sec.

2 Likes

Oh, I am sorry, Can you please quote which way of communication was inadequate to your perception.

Joke on me, So we are having fun on me, so you can enjoy yourself. Which really doesn’t contribute anything to your intelligence, accept the fact that whoever is joking is not being professional.

But it doesn’t bother me. I respect the jokes or your entertainment of whatever you feel like enjoying.

When you will produce landings like those I have shown in the videos then you might be enjoying the jokes even more.

Thank you for your awareness.

Hi,

Very interesting points.
And as a mere simulation enthusiast it’s nice to hear ‘how it is’ from the rather more informed
perspective of a professional.

Cheers.

1 Like

Thank you for your interest, I have made a new video for you.

You can also read the following after you watch the below video.

Please, this is not an official source and to be used by pilots. It is dumbed down for people with no knowledge about aviation to the point that is becomes misleading.

You as a real world 737 pilot must understand that the wing-low technique explained in this video can only be used up to a certain degree in high X-wind as not to bury the wingtip, outboard flap or engine nacelle into the ground. Also the Boeing 737 for example can land WITHOUT de-crabbing up to landing crosswind guideline (40 kts depending on 737 model on a dry runway), without exceeding sideload limits on the gear. Please refer to your FCTM, it explains it very well. Boeing describes three crosswind techniques to be used:

  • Touchdown in crab
  • De-crabbing during flare (while keeping wings level)
  • Side-slip (wing low)

The last one comes with a lot of asterixis and additional guidance as it is not the preferred method in high crosswind for the reasons mentioned before, it is foremost a “Cessna technique”, which works well on high wing turboprops and can be used on jets but only to a certain extend (cautious with bank angle).

2 Likes

Thank you for your feedback, but it the source doesn’t state it is for pilots, and in addition, I have included the source, so people should understand the basic physics, and why FS2020 should be improved, if you please, you can try to simulate crab landing in FS2020, so that all those that are sure about my videos, they can see your perfect landings, And I would learn too. Thank you once again.

In my landing you will not find the bank angle greater then the one described in the POH.

LOL, I doubt that any real 737 pilot would touchdown on the downwind wheels in a crosswind :wink:

3 Likes

It is not about me showing you how it is done, the discussion is not about your flying skills or mine, it is about whether MSFS and X-plane are accurately simulating X-wind. X-plane certainly isn’t doing a great job based on your videos and real world experience. Regarding MSFS, I don’t know, I don’t have a proper aircraft to try it out, the Airbus A320 is not a conventional aircraft, the Boeing 747 flight model is awful and I don’t have the 787 in my package.

For your information, the 737 does not have a POH :wink:

2 Likes

Then POM.

Yes, But flying the Fs2020, should be at least accurate as real flying, if you try landing like those X-Plane, you might be very disappointed, the physics doesn’t even come close.

Wrong again.

4 Likes

Almost, try FCOM :+1:.

Edit: sorry, it seems I just ruined the quiz :sweat_smile:.

4 Likes

While it is the same in the containing material.

I’d be interested how AdherentToast91 did his 737 type rating with POHs and/or POMs.

Found it, he used this one:

Only 86 pages, mine has 946 :sweat_smile:

3 Likes

Must be a strange airline which distributes this one to its pilots…

@Nijntje91 and +350 pages for the FCTM.

1 Like

Actually I too witnessed an approach of that nature however even though he took the plane around, or elsewhere. That was in Atlanta, and I wondered why he even ever attempted that in the first place. In another instance, I was inside the store the day before at a place in New Hope Georgia buying things before work before Flight 242 crashed in the road attempting to land an airplane that had no engines. I think maybe the conditions in all three situations should have called for a delayed flight, with a stop over somewhere before attempting to go to the destination. BUT The storm flight 242 flew through was a small cell that contained Hail that had no warning about it. I can see a need for training in that weather because it is not always a predictable situation. However to actually attempt to land a real airplane in a residential area at a major airport in those conditions from that far out is like a police chase through downtown. You know where the criminal and the passengers are going. There is no real reason to fly or drive like hell. Still I would like to see an airplane that fly’s good in no weather. One that doesn’t suddenly decide to fly south one minute given the same autopilot commands as it was given two hours before and landed right. I simply don’t understand how my settings never stay the same either once I have set them. Why is there no way to set up a profile other than the main one? Yes you can say that airplanes get tossed around in hurricane, but now I wonder what were the conditions set too in the original post and were those conditions as bad as the airplane was reacting? Because I have seen that kind of nose down instability in planes that would in reality gone to the ground after the first dip and the lift factor was lost. Where is Newton anyway? Ok this is not Apple I get it. Still in the 1980’s when I recorded slow S’ed flights on my VCR from my Commodore64 that was running Microsoft Flight sim and scenery made for that computer. Then played that back, if I landed, or crashed it was obvious at what point I was not doing something right. Even then the variables for flying were not calculated by the wings of the wind, or the direction of the updraft. Yes, Now it’s just me being silly. However I do not think I have insulted or talked down to anyone here. I just simply do not understand how an airplane can actually fly like a balloon as often as I have experienced that. in my short time of flying this new sim. Correct and accurate as you, or anyone else wants me to believe it is. It simply makes me want to give up one of the dreams I once had. I am ready to disassmble my Leo Bodnar board and 32 button box along with my Arduino Leonardo panel and go back to flying Elite Dangerous. The one thing that makes me scratch my head is this! How in the heck did they get that dang drone to fly better than a space craft while leaving the plane in the dirt?

I have 454 pages in my FCTM, probably because they put everything from the -300 to the -900ER together at some point. I did my type-rating for the Boeing 737-400 long time ago, never flew it though…

For anyone interested, Embraer explains the proper crosswind techniques quite clearly:

2 Likes

I did it on a 737-900… Not 454 Pages, but 1500+ pages
And you can find the POH on the web.