Inaccurate flight dynamics

VC10ace · Post by **VC10ace** » 11 Dec 2006, 13:14

Is it just me or are the FS9 flight dynamics DRASTICALLY WRONG? I recently flew in an MD80 in the states and it performed like a fighter jet! However the one I downloaded is useless and unrealistic. I know the real thing can get off the ground fully laiden on a 6000 foot runway - so I tried this at one of my own designed airports - CRASH! So I tried a couple of other MD80's AND the MD 90 with HUGE engines - all no good. :shock:

I'm still hurtling along through the shrubs and undergrowth even after 12000 odd feet. So I tried the default aircraft - all useless. The 747 is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get off the ground unless you offload the PAX and most of the fuel! Has anyone else encountered invalid dynamics at all?

Whats happening please? :think:

hinch · Post by **hinch** » 11 Dec 2006, 13:19

a lot of planes have innacurate flight dynamics as most of the developers make virtual because they haven't flown them in real life.

fortunately here it seems there is a good few pilots!

as your problem, flaps and 3 degrees trim? ifyou don't trim you'll go no where fast.

Post by **DaveB** » 11 Dec 2006, 13:20

Hello matey..

I might be stating the obvious here and please forgive me it this is the case but.. have you tried trimming the aircraft for takeoff??? Many aircraft will do their level best to remain fixed to mother-earth without a few dabs of trim

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **Garry Russell** » 11 Dec 2006, 13:26

Sounds like a tail trim problem........but there are good bad and awful dynamics out there

Many seem to do good visuals and paints by know little and care less about dynamics :huf:

The ones produced by members of this area are tested for hundreds of hours over a time scale that is as ling as it needs to get it right.

While the paints and being done and the visual model is tweaked the dynamics are being ruthlessly go through.

The are thing FS does not let you do :curse: and other that are not as they should be and need to be worked around.

Payware is no guarantee of good dynamics

The end result is the product of the care and effort put into it.

A reflection of everything in life really :think:

Garry

Post by **Garry Russell** » 11 Dec 2006, 13:27

Ah Dave slipped in while I was typing with the same as my opening theory.

Tail trim in this case

Garry

Post by **DaveB** » 11 Dec 2006, 14:19

... and Hinch slipped in while I was typing mine

Let's hope that between us, we get him off the ground!

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **Garry Russell** » 11 Dec 2006, 14:41

I didn't notive Hich.must have been off the top of the screen when the page came back

Yep lets hope that sorts him :think: , failing that we will have to get Toby to knock up an airport with a 50 mile runway.... :roll:

Garry

Jetset · Post by **Jetset** » 11 Dec 2006, 14:43

Garry Russell wrote:I didn't notive Hich.must have been off the top of the screen when the page came back

Yep lets hope that sorts him :think: , failing that we will have to get Toby to knock up an airport with a 50 mile runway.... :roll:

Garry

Or just point him in the direction of some good dynamics!

Post by **Garry Russell** » 11 Dec 2006, 15:08

The dynamics can make aircraft fly unstable, fast, slow or whatever

But they don't usually stop you taking off in the way described...the common problem there is failure to trim the elevator, of perhaps gust locks left in.

So I don't think better dynamics will help with the take off.

If they were that bad we would know about it as the forums would be hot with the complaints.

I think it is two different things here

Probably :think:

Garry

cstorey · Post by **cstorey** » 11 Dec 2006, 22:46

VC10Ace - you do not tell us what altitude your designed fields are at, nor do you mention temperature. These have a very significant impact on density altitude, which affects take off performance radically. The reason for this (forgive me if I'm teaching grandmothers etc) is that the less the density of the air at take off, the higher the True air speed required to take off, and therefore the higher the groundspeed and distance covered to the lift off point. This is why many aircraft of the early jet era - which had much lower power/weight ratios than today - were temperature/weight/distance limited on takeoff i.e. you would have to offload PAX/cargo/fuel to be able to get off at certain altitudes and temperatures,whereas at sea level and 15 degrees celsius there was no problem