LA

Looks like PMDG keeps it's value.......

The torque itself, could be quite correct. Have you ever seen the video of the turbine powered Lancair, that had it's first engine run without the wings installed? As the pilot added in more power, the airframe twisted to the left, collapsed the landing gear, and shredded it's very expensive mass of engine and airframe all over the ramp. That's the torque effect, that X-Plane reproduces. It's there! But add the wings, and especially some airspeed, and lift will now counter that torque that wants to twist the fuselage. As physics says, lift squares with airspeed. And "this" is what X-Plane isn't doing the best job of. The torque fix is a compromise. You're actually reducing the simulated torque, rather than X-Plane being able to simulate the lift that counters it. Problem is, X-Plane is creating some false aircraft physics. The question comes up all the time ( just as it has today at the org.) and the one who inquires, is told to use aileron trim, or now the "torque fix". It's then implied, in some cases, that the torque fix, is for those who don't want to be bothered to fly an airplane properly. So, yes, I do have a problem, in the way that X-Plane produces the final result. We shouldn't have to be constantly trimming for roll. There are companies that specialize in re-rigging airplanes, to get rid of any roll or pitch, that adds to drag. When you use aileron trim, or fixed tabs to compensate for roll, you are adding drag, at a cost of airspeed & fuel. You should be able to handle any initial tendency to roll, with just aileron use. The sensation shouldn't be a heavy one. There will always be a need to use aileron trim for heavy wings, due to passenger, load, or fuel imbalance. Either wing could be heavy. And that's if.......you do have aileron trim. Many planes don't. A few months ago, I mentioned this on our experimental aircraft builders forum. A RV6 & 10 owner, who flys a crop dusting ag plane with a Pratt & Whitney turbine, initially replied, that yes, torque is there and you have to compensate with aileron. A week later, he comes back, after a recent flight and says, you have to use whatever control is nessesary to control the airplanes attitude, but when it got right down to it, the torque effect was just inconsequental. He just hadn't really gave it that much thought before. IMO, that's much closer to the answer that Tom got, from MU2, pilot #2. LA

I'll have to also get into this later. Must leave to work now. I know that Tom has some right seat time. I've read several years of Tom's MU2 development from the org. I've also read every MU2 pilot report I could find on the internet, and watched many videos. I did this for the MU2, and many other twin turbo's. This almost became an obsession, and I was banned from Avsim for a few weeks, due to my continued observations on the subject. I'm NOT going along with the strong roll tendency. If nothing else, it was good for several months of night reading. In the meantime, having to adjust for roll, means drag. Dropping a wing on rotation is not good. If the lift from the wings (and possible engine offset) can't override a want to roll, airplanes would have been designed with counter rotating props for twins, and contra-rotating props for singles a long time ago. It was learned early on, that applying different incidences for wings, to compensate for torque, wasn't the best of ideas, as it creates an opposite roll, when power is pulled back. Having to use trim as a standard measure, would be doing the same. I got into this, because of my real life observations as a pilot of higher performance singles........which could have lot's of torque on the takeoff roll. LA

I won't boycott. IMO, Carenado is responsible for some of the best light plane graphics available. Graphics mean a lot to me. And that's even if a flight model has to have a few adjustments. I've never had any problem with them.....period. I have one Carenado X-Plane, and quite a few for FSX.

Me too. Over the years I went through three Garmin aviation portables (296,496,696,) that had far superior graphics over the 430. I just consider the 430s as being kind of old these days.

It's an overdone torque problem (at least for prop aircraft), present in X-Plane itself. This is when the plane wants to roll after takeoff & requires adjustments (aileron trim) with throttle changes. To yaw during the takeoff roll & initial climb is fine. The new beta has removed some of the problem with changed settings. Some developers have worked it out beforehand. edit: This is why prop engines are actually angled on the engine mounts to the right, when prop rotates clockwise from the cockpit view.

You can bow it. It's just a response to your statement "The lack of roll in FSX is unrealistic". You need to realise that I've flown many planes where torque is very evident on the ground roll. Especially if airspeed is on the lower side, and the throttle is quickly applied (such as a touch & go). The effect is strong enough to compress the left landing gear (with a clockwise rotating prop/from the pilot's view). However, once airborne...........you're not continually trying to offset a left roll, or are you trimming for it. There may be a small amount of trim, used for imbalance, airframe issues, but the roll is pretty much eliminated by design, such as a built in engine offset. As said, this is an X-Plane issue, not directly related to this plane. It applies to many others too. The short term solution is to trim with aileron, until the problem is resolved. It's not a big deal, but it isn't accurate either. And that's what I wanted to point out.................in regards to your statement above.

Since we're back here..................of course it is one of FSX's fortes. Flight modeling, put in good hands, regardless if it's X-Plane or FSX can be done very well, within the limitations of desktop simulation. And at the same time, flight models from both sims can plain suck. That's why I can't stand generalized flight model statements. It get's right down to the nitty-gritty of what specific model, and who programmed it.

I've already read what Cooley said, and just re-read it again. For starters, he doesn't have the Jetstream model. And when he's referring to trim............it appears to be pitch & yaw, which is a normal occurance. The X-Plane "roll" from torque is over done. There has been much discussion on this X-Plane "torque" problem, lately, at various forums. Planes are designed...such as single engines with an offset mount, to mostly eliminate the torque effect. Other effects, eliminate some of it too.

Boeing 727 737 720B 767 747 Beech 1900 DC9 Ford Trimotor P-51D Mustang Twin Otter Twin Otter with floats Fairchild F-27 Breezy Grumman Yankee Hot air balloon Beech A-36 Cirrus SR-22 Waco biplane ( built in 1936 -- as I remember) Piloted myself Cessna 152 Cessna 172 Cessna 182 Cessna 206 Piper Warrior Piper Archer Piper Arrow Piper Seminole Piper Seneca Maule Super Stearman Pitts S2B Van's RV6A ( built and owned one) Van's RV7 Van's RV9A Marchetti SF260 Quicksilver ultralight A few different gliders Diamond DA-40 (note: didn't complete multi)

Greg, First off, thanks for your comments ...... in regards to "tourists" at the org. yesterday. I can't respond there. I'd have never bothered with the expense of aircraft ownership, if it wasn't for looking at all of that ground scenery from the air. Lots of national parks, the Grand Canyon, Rocky mtns., etc. were just a short time away by air. Scenery has always been my number one reason for "real" flight. I have thousands of "air to ground", photos to proove it! Other than that, I moved, and don't have a sim CPU hooked up at the moment. I heard, but don't know for sure, that a rather large lake (nothing like the Great Lakes) is missing in Utah. It's called Utah Lake, and is 30 miles south of the Great Salt Lake. An airport, KPVU is located on it's eastern shore.

Ever flown a real P-51D Mustang? It has plenty of torque on the ground roll. Too much throttle on a go-around, and it will roll over on it's back, quicker than you can think about it. The aileron trim setting for takeoff is "0". You set right rudder with trim, and have your right foot into the rudder pedal on that takeoff & climb. Trim it in flight, and you can let go of the stick. A friend of mine owned one. Happily, I could go up in it. My RV6 was the same way. Lot's of torque on the ground roll. It could even push the left landing gear down, especially on a touch & go, if you powered up too quickly. However, no aileron trim, and no correcting for roll in flight. I had aileron trim to balance an un-even load. That's it. There is a conception, that airplanes produce a roll in flight, due to torque. And that it's always being corrected by the pilot. It's the wrong conception. I shared a hangar with a super sized Pitt's M-12 with a Russian radial engine, and large diameter three blade prop. It can do great vertical torque rolls, as the airspeed slows down, and you roll with the direction of the engine torque. Yet, it doesn't want to roll after takeoff. Just like my RV, there is always a possibility of a bit of aileron correction just as the wheels leave the ground, but that's it. You do not feel a rolling tendency in flight, nor do you have to correct against it. This is a X-Plane problem, that's getting more attention lately. It shows up in many planes programmed for X-Plane. It's usually countered with opposite aileron trim (sometimes, even built in, in plane maker). But that also requires trim changes with throttle changes. In this case, FSX has it right.

What ever you do, to be challenged is fine. However, don't make any incorrect assumptions that a lack of "roll" in FSX...........as being unrealistic. The roll, and required aileron trim with throttle adjustments in cruise, is an X-Plane problem that numerous models encounter. It's being looked into.... I hear.

I picked up a book at Barnes & Nobel, for the B-29. It was rather cheap & has many interior pics. You might want to check it out.

I'm always thrilled to see a B-29 project. Has been my favorite multi-piston aircraft. It helped knowing a gentleman who was a B-29 flight engineer, and later maintained one for a museum. It gave me a bit more access to the inside. I also met both pilots who helped the USA end WWII, with the B-29. I'm an old guy (born after WWII), but swear I flew one of these in my former life. A friend say's I was just a tailgunner......

For sure, if it has a tendency to keep rolling in flight, then it's an unrealistic "feature". Seems I heard that the new X-Plane beta release has sorted some of this out. I don't really know. I've moved and have no simming CPU at the moment.

We have three Telex ANR's & one David Clark with no ANR. I'm a Telex fan (Stratus 50 Digital). The grey colored Telex's match my grey leather seats.. LA

Would I buy the aircraft in question? No. I'm into good graphics as well as flight dynamics. And X-Plane is capable of both. I have bought Captain sim for looks. One was just the exterior shell. It's kind of like owning a fine painting. IMO, the graphics of this particular plane fall far short of what's available these days. Simple interiors won't cut it anymore, if X-plane wants to go for a larger share of the market...........which of course it does. LA

PMDG as well as many others for MSFS started out the same way. Small and for free. It's just 10 years earlier. PMDG actually started with FLY, as did RealAir. LA

No offense, but there were a lot of us real world pilots............who beta tested MSFS. Yep, it's well known that I beta tested for Microsoft. They asked, because we were who we were. No payroll though. Have tested for numerous 3rd party's also. Bunch of other real world pilots have too! However, there are still plenty of real world pilots who haven't jumped to X-Plane, yet. They may with version 10, who knows. In reality, the majority of real world pilots don't use desktop sims. I know, because I take surveys. LA

So sorry you're offended, but tough.... I'm moderated at the org, because I disagreed with the owner regarding the virtues of the RealAir Spit versus the X-Plane P-51. The org is pretty much a stage for those who want to claim X-Plane flight dynamic superiority over those of Microsoft. If X-Plane developers really want to sell more products to Microsoft simmer/pliots...........then get off your high horse and realize that X-Plane is really not superior. Just because Austin proclaims it is, it isn't so. I've remained somewhat neutral on this subject for the last two years. But thanks to a new barrage of superior X-Plane flight dynamics versus that crappy MSFS stuff, I've changed my mind. So what's the topic here? It's FSX versus X-Plane. Is this forum going to be just like the org, in which I'm moderated, and will never say anything against the majority? At least I've mellowed. Years ago, I thought X-Plane was crap. It's come along way. I own a number of X-Plane products. Bought and paid for. LA

Mostly products from RealAir Simulations. A favorite that I like, is the RealAir Marchetti SF260. It's a bit different than my Van's RV6A, but fly's much like it. I have time in a "full size" Marchetti. The default Van's airplanes in X-Plane 9 are somewhat of a disaster. Thank heavens for Tom's Falco to make up for them! ;D Now.............if I could just find the Gizmo password to re-activate it... LA

Since this is........FSX versus the best of X-Plane, and I didn't start the subject..... My overall "best" flight experience for GA and smaller military still goes to FSX. I rarely sim fly the heavier commercial aircraft. It's just that running some of my favorite 3rd party FSX aircraft, just feel right, act right, as well as comfortable,...... after flying my full size RV. I sure do like some of the new 3D panels for X-Plane. LA

Using my Van's RV6A as an example, since it's the size range of the Falco... I do have an aileron trim. It's an electric servo operated tab on the aileron. Another option thats used.........are bias springs connected to a manual or servo operated lever. This method just makes adjustments in stick pressure to the ailerons, which would be close to the X-Plane hack, I suppose. My rudder just has a hand adjusted trim tab. Some have servo operated rudder tabs. Elevators are servo or cable operated trim tabs. My plane has a four way hat switch on the stick for pitch & roll...............same as I use in the sim. LA

I'll throw a bit more discussion in. Regarding fixed pitch & climb props..............you'll never find a fixed pitch prop for a "certified" plane, that will be set to the finer pitch that's obtainable with a constant speed. For instance, on the takeoff roll, the constant speed is allowing the engine to rev to it's full 2700 rpms. A fixed pitch will be several hundred rpms less. If it wasn't..........it would easily over rev in cruise, and you'd have to pull power back. The plane would just have to fly much slower than it's capable of. Fixed pitch props are a compromise. Depending where you fly, they can range from a better climb prop to a better cruise prop, depending on pitch. Another item. Unlike a vehicle on a freeway, where you'd put it in fourth of fifth gear for faster highway speeds.................the constant speed prop is fastest when the knob is pushed full forward or nearly so. Once again, the governor is changing pitch, and it's not as if it's going to full fine. I pull mine back between 2600 & 2700 rpms for the best airspeed. But this means more fuel & more noise. I usually cruise at 2350..........as I have prop limitations between 2000-2250 rpms. LA