XPMorten said:
In X-Plane, we design airfoils - like you do in real.
The flight model uses this as a base for it's calculations.
That's not strictly true. You enter the 2D aerodynamic data (lift, drag, pitching moment) for an aerofoil. X-Plane can't take the aerofoil shape and calculate it's properties from that. Essentially you have a set of data curves for each aerofoil element. Somewhere in X-Plane there will be a lookup table to calculate each coefficient versus AOA for that aerofoil element.
So ultimately X-Plane is lookup table based for aerofoils at least.
AirRabbit said:
I fully recognize that the Austin Meyer link provided a biased point of view – but that hardly makes what he says less truthful.
I'm sure he believes it is true. It is really only his opinion, however. He uses too much rhetoric for me, like a politician.
As for the confusion over what incident you were talking about, I hope you can understand why I thought you meant AA587. If you can point me at the NTSB report for the incident you refer to I'd be interested to read it.
The POI does not evaluate the simulator, but has the power to withdraw approval, in this case based on a serious defect not being corrected. Also after an FAA evaluation, the POI still has to authorise the simulator's use for training, so can affect the outcome. The recurrent FAA inspection visits should also pick up on such a defect if it was written up, as it should have been, or if they encounter it themselves. In my experience, the FAA can, and often do, use their power to force operators to update or correct their simulators. However if no one reported it then you can't blame the simulator for not fixing itself.
It's possible an error in the data curves caused the sim to enter a false trim state at this pitch and roll condition which needed some sideslip to exit. However this kind of thing is fixable easily enough.