• A few more bugs - The throttle indicator on the info bar seems to include the airbrake in the percentage - it only shows 0% with full airbrake applied.
    - How come the A320 can only go down to a 10 degree angle of attack?
    - taking off on Sacramento Mather (the more southerly runway of the 2) the plane sank through the runway. I tried restarting the app and using a different plane but there was no difference. I will post some pics.

  • It wouldn't be soft tarmac/asphalt on a hot day?
    An Airbus is more of an information technology computer application than a proper aeroplane.
    Tristan, you use the string in the wind instrument? Gliders need rudder input because of the long wings so as I'm sure you know the direction the base of the string points is the rudder pedal to push.

  • In the real world the a320 can not go higher than about 3-5° angle of attack (AOA) with full flaps and without the slats (if they fail for example)... With slats extended it can still only do maybe about 10° angle of attack with full flaps. In clean config it can do about up to 15° but the lift coefficient is much lower than with full flaps.
    I don't know of any barrier on the lower end, if you really talk about the angle of attack? I know that it only allows to pitch down in a rate that produces 0.5g ergo the pessengers feel half has heavy in their seats.

    It can however pitch up to 30° and down to -15°... (don't confuse the AOA with the pitch angle)
    The pitch angle is what you see on the primary flight display (PFD) on the artificial horizon.


  • Hi jan, sorry I don't really know which one is which but I mean the number 10 on the lower section of the artificial horizon. If you pitch down to that line, you cant go any further down. I'm not sure if there is a limit to how far up you can pitch.
    Overloaded thanks for that advice on the string instrument - I'd completely forgotten about that so that should help with the glider. I still think the rudder does have too much expo on it though as I have this problem on bigger aeroplanes too.
    I just checked again for the sinking plane thing and it still happens. I think what is happening is that the plane is sinking through the model of the runway and onto the map image of the runway below. See the picture.

  • Hi Trisnpod,

    the nr 10 on the artificial horizon is the pitch attitude. Pitch is the angle between the horizon and the nose of the aircraft.
    This has only very little to do with the angle of attack which is the angle between the air and the wings chord line.

    Yes the real a320 has a protection at -15° pitch. Maybe the simulated aircraft has a limitation at -10°? Would be a little mistake in the aircraft definition or it is intended.
    What bank angle is the maximum you can fly in the mobile version? Do you get 67° of bank angle when you roll to one side?


  • Ok, you have about 50 degrees of bank angle in this picture. As mentioned before the real one has a protection at 67°...

    So I guess its indended that the airbus on the mobile version is not as "aerobatic" as the real one. You would rarely see a bank angle higher than 30° and a pitch up higher than 20° and pitch down lower than -5° anyways. So when flying realistically you would never hit any of the protections of the real one nor for the simulated one...


  • If you would approach an airport at such a steep angle in real life the passengers would have problems with their ears. The fast pressure difference is simply to violent. Plus you would "waste" a lot of your energy because you need the spoilers to help slow such a steep descent. Otherwise you would go to fast. Remember for most parts of the world the speed restriction below 10,000 ft is 250 kt airspeed...

    So in the real world they just start their descent much sooner and they make it much shallower. Most times they are instructed by ATC (air traffic control) to descent down in steps. Sometimes they fly quite a long time at 3- or 4000 ft before their final approach.

    A typical instrument approach (ILS) has a slope of 3°. Few airports like the London city airport have a steeper descent down to the runway (5.5° I think). To fly a descent path of 3° the nose is usually still pointed above the horizon to create enough lift.

    For reference: the 3° descent is achieved by doing simple maths:
    Divide the airspeed in kt by 2 and add a 0 at the end and you get the sinkrate you need to fly in feet per minute :
    80kt -> 80 / 2 = 40 -> 400 ft/min (typical descent speed for a Cessna)
    100kt -> 100 / 2 = 50 -> 500 ft/min
    120kt -> 120 / 2 = 60 -> 600 ft/min
    140kt -> 140 / 2 = 70 -> 700 ft/min (typical Airbus 320 and Boeing 737 approach speed)
    150kt -> 150 / 2 = 75 -> 750 ft/min
    160kt -> 160 / 2 = 80 -> 800 ft/min


  • That is not even the tip of the ice-berg... :D

    BTW if you have the ILS enabled for an airport the 3° descent will be indicated by the magenta diamond on the right of the artificial horizon.
    If the diamond is above the middle you shall climb or maintain the altitude, if its below you should descent faster. Each dot to one side is a .5° deviation (I think it was... don't remember it anymore :D)

  • So at those sink rates I am not able to go above 10kft like airliners do....if we extend the region we might be able to do so

    The one you don't see is the the one who will shoot you down !

  • I tend to cruise at 12-15000 ft in the airliners and start my descent 30nm out with an initial descent of around 1500fpm. Remember that you can fly to New York if you like but the scenery is poor. There is no limit to the map and so you could easily, takeoff from one end of the map, climb to FL300, fly to any US city, turn around and fly to another airfield at the other end of the map. Start your descent 40nm out with a descent around 2000fpm and you should be fine. With this amount of sink, decreasing speed will be difficult.