LA

Good looking panel & rivet detail. I'll have to get this someday (soon). Have to get the DC-3 first.

Take a few more months. I don't have my new simming computer yet. Maybe by the end of the year. Your schedule is fine...

In reality...... You'll seldom find any vintage warbirds or airliners such as the DC-3, who don't use a handheld GPS in the cockpit, to navigate across the country (USA) attending airshows, etc. Too much advantage, versus the old methods. Other than that, since flight simulation is entertainment, then by all means, navigate with just VORs, maps, and pencils. I'm just pointing this out, because the original question is quite legit.

That's the reality of it. It's a major undertaking just itself, let alone simulating some of these aircraft. I became a real life GPS "junkie" in 1993. For several years, portable GPSs had more features than panel mounts, due to the fact of the certification process. I've had had a real interest in CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents since the late 70's when a airliner (DC-8 cargo) smashed into the mountain, close to where I lived. It didn't take long to realize, that moving map GPS with terrain, was a major improvement over the radio nav systems. Sim GPSs were never able to catch up with those I used for real life mountain flight. My "later" aviation Garmin portables (296,496,696) were ahead of the Garmin 430/530 panel mounts for computing power, and resolution. The portable had a much better terrain display. This didn't change, until the Garmin 1000 panel mount became available. Now, some sim users are still dealing with the KLN90......which I consider as vastly inferior. It's just older than some of those hills out there. I wouldn't even care to simulate a 430, but that's me. I know that there are some "semi" editions of the Garmin 1000 for simming, but not full featured. Besides, even the 1000 is getting older, by todays standards.

The realities of the GPS situation. In the last 10, probably 15 years.......I haven't seen a real life classic, including warbirds, Connies, etc, that at least doesn't have a portable GPS on board. But that's for real life. Simming has other requirements to keep ones interest, because watching the scenery go by, isn't quite as exciting as real life scenery might be. I seldom use GPS for flight simming. For real life aviation, I'm a GPS advocate......big time! Since I did start using moving map GPS in 1993, I wouldn't ever bother with something as antique as a KLN90. I even consider the Garmin 430s and 530s as old, considering a Garmin portable I had years ago, had much better computing power and resolution. Being realistic, in todays real life aviation.....GPS does replace the navigator. And with more precision, than was ever possible with the VOR system. Let alone the systems that predated that system. You don't need that 3rd flight member to keep track. You're now within 3'of your actual location with the GPS screen. Altitude with WAAS and comparible systems is even more accurate than barometric altitude, if you need to miss the nearest mountain. Weather, winds, terrain mapping, and altimeter settings are available for hundreds of miles in all directions. And that's with just a quick glance at the screen. Especially useful for all of the restricted areas, that are in my part of the world. Mostly military. And for what it's worth, a friend of mine, who flies a Boeing 737 -800 in which GPS is the main navigation source, keeps track of GPS "failure" for me. We are looking at 14 years now. There is an occasional NOTAM for testing, but it's been no big deal. So.......use a portable for realistic flying in todays enviroment, or use the other methods simulate the way it was done.....then.

Agree.......I would really like to be there.

A few things. X-Plane won't be starting with "auto-rudder", if that setting is on in FSX. A single engine plane, or twins will drift to the left, if the props are turning clockwise from the cockpit view. Requires right rudder. But then there is a problem, in which some are calling the "torque bug". X-Plane is not compensating enough for forces that over ride the torque the sim is simulating. Where most "torque roll" is overcome by forces of lift and spiral propwash by the time the plane is ready to leave the ground......you're still getting a roll on climb, as well as possibly in cruise. For the time being, this has been compensated with some built in aileron trim, changes within the wing airfoil settings, as well as just limiting the simulated torque. It's a problem thats being worked on, for the next beta release, hopefully. Aileron trim settings, are not a real answer, as the 172 doesn't have aileron trim to start with. Numerous add-ons do have one form or another, to compensate for this roll, until the initial problem is solved.

As I've heard, it does have that X-Plane thing............about overdoing torque, which in fact requires lots of aileron trim, which in fact.............isn't all that real. Left pull on runway? Great! Use rudder to compensate. A want to left roll after takeoff, which requires throwing in the aileron trim, not so great. Since it's now a verified fact, that X-Plane hasn't been able to compensate for some of the forces that counteract roll from torque...........it's now being worked on. From the review: " have flown the Dash 8 Q400 several times now and it handles really well. It realistically depicts the engine torque which will pull you over to the left as you run down the runway and as you climb out, forcing you to make corrections or adjust your aileron trim settings to compensate." Earlier this year, torque or no torque became a passion of mine. I wasn't experiencing it in real life, after the takeoff roll, in which my left wheel was sometimes pushed towards the runway surface ( I called my little RV6A with a constant speed prop, a torque monster on touch and goes, where it was very evident.). So I spent weeks reading pilot reports, and talking to many pilots. One even flew the single engine Skyraider in Vietnam, which had the most horsepower ever for a single engine piston airplane. Around 2600 HP as I remember. Since he's been a flight instructor in the years since then, and owns a plane like I had...........I put out the question. I asked about aileron. "Wrong control" he says! "It's rudder, lots of right rudder!" I also ran this notion by another forum, our experimental builders forum. One response from one who flies an Air Tractor (crop duster) with a P&W turbine said that yes, the torque does exist. Then because I mentioned it, he really thought about it, his next time up. He replied back, that "torque" as it turns out, was just inconsequental. We do know that torque exists, it's just that the other forces counteract it. We shouldn't have to be throwing in a bunch of aileron trim. It causes drag. And when you pull back power, it will want to start rolling the opposite direction.

As a business owner............I'm affended, when anyone writes a statement like this.............in the name of customer service. And then I must wonder........are you really serious? Back, thirty five years ago, I worked in a machine shop. A person brought in a hinge from a kitchen cabinet, and asked if one could be made to duplicate it. It just was no longer available on store shelves. Sure, it could be duplicated..........but at a price of thirty five years ago, the quote was $1400.00. A casting would have been made, and then the machining, metal treating, etc. It would be a one off item. Of course, had it been still available at the hardware store, it would probably have gone for a couple of dollars. And that's where we are here. A product is wanted, without real expectations of the cost to produce it, when only a few can be sold at best. As I remember, this person walking into the machine shop, didn't tell us where we could shove the "quote". Thats a difference between then, and the internet world now............where we don't meet face to face.

Charcoal flavored mashed potatoes.... This new cloud addon, is great, isn't it? Nice to see X-Plane screenshots, in which the clouds add to the scene, instead of detract.

Tom K. ...........A good, sensible reply.

At this point, I'm just rather tired of all this "different" camp crap. As someone said at Avsim............we all share a common interest, don't we? As far as I'm concerned, a desktop simulation will just be an extenstion of flight, that I enjoyed in the past. It will be to re-create flights, some nostalgia of piston machines before my time, and an interest in modern commercial airliners (visted Boeing last evening). I don't care to be limited by one specific simulation. After using desktop sims since there beginning, I'm well aware of quality additions versus the lesser variety. Each sim has both, and everything in between. Most of all, I could care less about comparing stock to addon's. It doesn't mean a damn thing, if you're trying to achieve the best out a simulation. It's pointless to even use it as an argument, yet so many seem to do so. I don't believe it will benefit too many, to use LM's marketing as an excuse to head the simming population in one specific direction. Although I don't regularly participate in the LM discussions, it's become a dead issue at the other forum. If developers are counting on P3D to fall through, anytime soon, then you might want to get a second job, if you haven't already.

Good for the Skymaxx, and a waste of time reading statements from those who hope Lockheed Martin pulls the plug.

I guess I don't understand exactly what you're trying to do. Are you creating settings, that make it so you have to hold pressure on the yoke, to remain level? If so, then why? Afterall, people actually pay good money to have aircraft re-rigged, in order to get rid of as much drag as possible, and the annoyance of holding constant pressures against the flight surfaces. Or maybe I'm just getting the wrong impression, of what your trying to accomplish.

I'm glad I just noticed this thread. Didn't know about the progress of this Archer. Will be looking forward to it.

X-Plane does have a problem with stability. It tends to roll left, when it shouldn't. You shouldn't constantly have to make fine adjustments of pitch, roll, and yaw. When an airplane, especially one such as a 172 is trimmed............. it should be quite easy to remain somewhat on course and altitude, without trying too hard. We're not hovering helicopters here. I say somewhat on course & altitude, because in real life, you'll will slowly drift drift away, without some minor corrections. But.....it's not "constant" corrections. Non-pilots have flown my airplane (which is much more sensitive that a 172) for hours at a time. You can feel the airflow across the flight surfaces, which keeps you somewhat stable in the middle. It should NOT be trying to always roll off the side. For the real Cessna 172, use right rudder for the takeoff roll and initial climb. Once off the ground, the roll forces, when controlled by rudder, should dissapate. It's a known problem, that X-Plane has troubles with "torque". Torque is present, but is overridden by the more powerful forces of lift, and slipstream....for real life. In the meantime, this "torque" problem is up for some attention.

It's not a wrong action to use ailerons. Airplanes are not comparable to helicopters, as far as torque is concerned. Helicopters don't have wings, and the helicopter blade is much larger than an airplane's. What's wrong about X-Plane, is the assumption that there is a strong enough force, to roll the airplane left after takeoff. It's as if this force needs to be corrected with constant aileron pressure or trim.........just as elevator and perhaps rudder might be (if there is rudder trim). By the time the airplane has gained enough speed for a normal takeoff, the effects of torque, will be greatly diminished by other forces that over power it. An airplane wing has the helical prop wash hitting the bottom of the left wing, as well as pushing down the top of the right wing. Any time that there is dihedral or anhedral, you have rudder forces that will counter roll. The engine "offset" (cant) is doing the same. And it's forces vary with power. More torque due to power, and more offsetting forces at the same time At slow airspeed, high power applications such as a go-around, it could feel very normal to see and feel the left landing gear push towards the runway. This would naturally be offset with right aileron. Depending on rotation speed, from this quick go-around might even cause a quick wing dip...........to once again be countered with right aileron. My response, here, is due to the edit, of the last comment......before the thread went dead. As usual, it's just a case of ----- well that must be it, then. It's wrong, it's the wrong assumption. It's why I'm always willing to ask, for other pilot opinions, in addition to my own pilot opinions. It's why I keep reviewing all of my WWII fighter instruction videos, as well as my flight manuals for these high powered piston airplanes. For example, the P-47 has aileron trim at neutral. It very much mentions rudder for the takeoff sequence to counter torque, but not one word about aileron. It's the same for a P-51 takeoff video, that recently watched. It's a WWII training film, and discusses rudder, but not a word about a heavy roll or need to combat a roll motion on takeoff. Just rudder, as well as a trimmed right rudder for takeoff. The F4U Corsair calls for 6 degrees of right aileron trim before takeoff. That's not a lot of trim, but could certainly ease the push on that left wheel. All of the pilot reports, in all of these planes, never mention the need to watch for, and counter roll motions on takeoff. A lot of them certainly discuss the need to watch go-around power, to prevent a loss of control, and roll, because the flight surfaces don't yet have enough authority to counteract the torque. It's an accepted fact, just to use aileron to counter any roll motion, in either direction. To ask these questions, I'll tell the pilot, that I'm interested in some information for "home use" flight simulation purposes. In reality, most everyone I've asked, just hasn't used a desktop flight simulator. I have a tendency to ask high time pilots, or at least ones who have flown planes such as the Skyraider or B-17. I'm an old guy, a past airport "bum", and have been around the flying scene for a long time. It's not as if I'm a kid, asking strangers for a few unknown answers. I specifically ask about the effects of "torque" roll, and the need to counter it. The answers are always the same. It's right rudder! They feel the same way as I do! It's the same reason that many small airplanes don't even have aileron trim. They have that right engine offset. Even radio controlled planes do. Changing the incidence of the wings, or adding fixed trim surfaces to counter-act roll, have gone out of style. It just means "drag". And it also means oppsite aileron anytime your desending at a decent airpseed with power pulled back. The normal response for this is "left rudder" on descent, not aileron. My P-51 training video discusses the same. Let's go to the MU2 for a minute. There is some very interesting pilot reports for that airplane. For owners who maintain a well rigged airplane, it's a dream to fly. For those cargo carriers who may be flying a high hour, somewhat beat, and probably out of rig airplanes, it seems to always be a handful. There is some good discussions about flaps being slightly out of adjustment, which causes roll and trim headaches. And at the same time, the pilot/owner with a well rigged plane, mentions fuel flow adjustment to keep the engines at the same rpm, and little or no need to even use those electric "aileron tabs" mounted on the flaps for trim. There is certainly a love/hate relationship for MU2 pilots. Those who own and maintain them with pride, seem to love them, as is in evidence with the FAA reports, that came about, due to an investigation because of frequent accidents. The MU2 was aquitted. In the meantime, I as an airplane builder, would get the "roll" removed, if there is a heavy wing. Austin Meyer, and one of his test pilots for his turbine Lancair experimental kitplane, did the same. Austin talks about removing a heavy wing during test flights. In other words, "roll" due to torque, just shouldn't be there. It's over ridden by greater powers....so to speak. If it wasn't, planes would have been designed much differently for all of these years. Wing dipping on takeoff, isn't the best flight characteristic, to have to deal with. It would seem that something is "wrong"......and needs to be fixed. Note: it's left rudder, if the props turn the other way. And I'd still like some anwers about the anheadral on the MU2, since it's used as a "anti stabilizing" effect, as with many high wing airplanes. What are the exact effects of rudder and anheadral on this airplane, as to the direction of roll? Going to the net.................it's a bunch of pilots disagreeing about these "force" effects. Or a engineer and a pilot disagreeing on the same subjects. Take your pick, as you usually won't get the perfect answer to the question you've wondered about. Until next time.....

I just have to bring it up again. Will never let it go, I guess...... Was talking to another pilot friend the other day. He's owned a Beech Debonair for many years. Okay, it's just 225 HP versus 300 for the A-36. Both planes have a near identical wing span. Naturally, I had to ask about torque, and the need to use aileron and perhaps trim to counter it. His response, was that it's right rudder thats required on the takeoff run, and just use any aileron pressure to keep the wings level.....if required. As to a sensation of roll, and perhaps some trim to counter it? The answer is no. Geoff Applegate at Avsim, also owned a Debonair. He said the same thing. He seldom touched the aileron trim. Granted, there is a 75 HP difference here. But when another friend, said it was all rudder, when flying the 2700 HP single engine Skyraider in Vietmam...............and not aileron, I can only speculate. The Skyraider pilot specifically told me............aileron is the wrong control. It's rudder! BTW, this same pilot has also been a flight instructor for many years. P.S. --- I just happened to end up on this thread again, in my continual search of "torque and airplanes". The never ending quest..

A lot of my good friends, are these airline pilots who fly a variety of aircraft on their off time. Being involved with experimental kitbuilt/homebuilt aircraft for the last 20 years is the reason. Another advantage of "experimental", is being able to know different people from different companies, who bring us all of this high tech computerized aviation gear. It's this high tech gear, that will save your hind end, more than not. If you think I'm kidding, then just research all of those airliner accidents of the past, when this equipment was not available. High tech is truely my fascination. I wouldn't even think of leaving it behind, for the lure of those past days. Just saying my two cents here. Whatever is developed for flight simming is fine by me. I do have a very nostalgic mind, when it comes to those 40 & 50's prop liners. I just like those big fire popping radials. At the same time, just keep those computers in the airliners. There was a time, in which hand-held GPSs had more info, than most airliners had available. It wasn't that long ago. It's still somewhat the case, since a Cessna 172, and many experimentals have a better array of life saving essentials, than some semi modern airliners.

A few topics. KLN90Bs suck. They're terribly outdated. The Garmin 430/530s are become outdated too. The VOR system in the US is becoming outdated also. It's being slowly phased out, but will retain enough stations for the near future. GPS with WAAS is far more accurate than the 65+ year old VOR system could ever be. GPS for simming may be boring, but few of us really get excited about VORs in real life. About the only ones who do, are "old method" flight instructors, and simmers. As a simmer, I seldom use GPS. As a pilot, I'd just as soon forget how to use VORs. I more or less have, as I didn't equip my aircraft with them. Just had a standby handheld reciever, with an OBS dial. About 35 years ago, I really started thinking about CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) and it's prevention. Throughout the 1930s & 40's many aircraft met there doom, because of the older radio signal navigation system. The development of the VOR system, made for a much safer situation. However, it's not nearly as efficient, or accurate as moving map GPS is. It still depends on line of sight operation. I've had a side hobby of flying to actual CFIT sites, to compare and document moving map GPS, versus what the pilots and passengers usually didn't see. Just call it a deep interest of mine, for several valid reasons. So.......as a simmer, there is nothing wrong with using some type of GPS, even if it mimics a portable, to help in flying older aircraft that were not equipped. In real life, at least in the US, you'll seldom find an older airplane (warbirds, Connies, etc) traveling cross country, without least a handheld.....in the "on" position.

You use the name "Pryoski"....correct? If so, earlier your profile said you were online, and now it's offline. But no "banned" under the avatar. Besides being banned, for a week or two,,, I think I've seen those messages also. Had something to do with my computer internet access settings. Been too long to actually remember the cure.

I take it, that it works, No ban.

My thoughts, due to real world. I wouldn't use a KLN90B ever, ever, ever...... Old style is the word, and that's what you get out of it, practically nothing. I also consider the Garmin 430's as old. The computing power and resolution is far below today's products. My Garmin 296 portable could out perform the 430 in speed & screen display, and that was four generations of GPSs ago, for me. I just simply would have no interest in learning the operation of these old tools, just for the sake of using them in an older aircraft. Either assume someone has spent a lot of money, and updated the panel, or carry an easily accessible portable in the flight bag.............and use the plane's nav systems for actual approaches.

An excellent idea. Whenever I see a vintage WWII airplane, or a 50's commercial airliner at a airshow or flyin somehwere..........there will always be a portable GPS sitting in the cockpit. And why not? The aviation world has changed. There are a lot more restricted airspaces to worry about, and you don't have to carry a third person as a navigator along. The GPS does everything with much more precision, that a navigator could ever of hoped for, in the 50's and 60's. The 70's through the mid 90's as well. It's true, that navigating the VOR/NDB method................is something more to do, when flight simming. It's a purpose. However, where I fly, it's more like Alaska, with clouds often covering the mountain tops. Since VOR is line of sight, it's GPS that brought the Alaskan accident rate, down by almost half. It was the same way for me. I didn't particularly like having to fly low altitude VOR flight plans in real life......because it wasn't exactly where I wanted to go. I often couldn't triangulate a fix, because it meant flying higher to capture the signal. GPS with moving map, changed all of that. I picked up my first Garmin in 1993, and have went through a bunch of moving map models with terrain data bases, since that time. I call myself a GPS advocate. I believe in them. At the same time, I just tend to use simple ones for flight simulation. Just more as a position check.