[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Addons

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:52:50 -0000

Find the normal cruising speed of the CRJ900 and set it up at this at FL350
or thereabouts. Once it has settled down go outside and view it from the
side. If there is any appreciable pitch attitude (it should be level) then
the dynamics are wrong. If the pitch is fine but the inside viewpoint is
still upwards then the eyepoint is wrong.

MS got this wrong on an earlier version of the sim by referencing eyepoint
to the wing instead of fuselage - forgetting that the wing has a nominal 4
degree angle of incidence. Some designers got round this by zeroing the
incidence - which then made the aircraft fly even more nose high - instead
of giving the eyepoint a negative value.

There is no aircraft in the world in which the pilot cannot see the runway
when set up correctly on the approach. For an FS aircraft to do this means
something is amiss.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 26 November 2006 11:35
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Addons

Returning to FS9, later, I tried the PAD version. I'd been put off using
that before by the overcomplexity of its panel options. Using my EMB170
panel, instead, I did a couple of hours in it and the AOA feature isn't
present with this aircraft. Again it's a touch overpowered, unless its
power is geared to shorter runway takeoffs and it will, indeed, cruise
at M 0.81 with less than 70% thrust. Must read the published flight data.

Gerry Winskill

Bones wrote:

>As lift varies with the square of the speed AoA shouldn't alter
>significantly over a relatively small speed range such as when on final
>approach. The CRJ900 is small winged so it probably has a high AoA
>anyway - but this shouldn't develop to silly levels.
>Flaps make far more difference and should bring the nose down a lot. If
>the AoA remains excessive with full flap down then something isn't
>quite right. Either the flap's lift factor isn't high enough or the
>wing lift is too low in the first place.
>There are lots of shots of landing CRJ900's on airliners.net - I can't
>say the AoA looked really bad on any of them. I'll have another look
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>Sent: 25 November 2006 19:28
>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Addons
>Putting prejudice on one side, the CRJ900 is worth trying. A bit
>overpowered but that's easy to change. The only down side is the high
>angle of attack, at speed on the ILS. Big pitch changes as speed is
>varied. I guess it comes with the rearward wing config but has anyone
>travelled in the real thing and been aware of this?
>Off to try to find one for FS9.
>Gerry Winskill
>Gerry Winskill wrote:
>>It seems to be low on the learning curve that some FSX addons
>>designers find themselves. Just tried a Posky A333. Don't ask me why,
>>I never learn and can't remember the last of their offerings that
>>looked and worked OK. Off the ground and it soon became apparent that,
>>though using the Default A321 panel, the autopilok wasn't behaving.
>>Selecting Heading Hold produced just a wing leveller effect. All
>>heading changes had to be flown manually. Just thirty DME from
>>Wallasey and FSX did a phone home exit. I'm convinced some aircraft
>>designers just look at the exterior appearance and don't fly the
>>Off to try their CRJ900. This man's a fool! But it's this or listen to
>>exclamations about Come Dancing.
>>Gerry Winskill

Other related posts: