Zorin_75:
Dani and GY were discussing the fidelity of simulators. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Correct - my point really was that jumping in the next available A320 or A330 simulator and wringing the cr*p out of it into an upset condition (outside of flight data) puts you entirely at the mercy and competency of the individual simulator engineer responsible for that aspect of the simulator performance - so in the case of flight modeling you might happen upon a model built with sensible extrapolations and cleanly interpolated behavior, while other models may simply 'straight-line' the performance once the flight test data runs out. It is unlikely such a flight regime was tested beyond a joy ride or unintended upset from the less capable engineers testing the sim - the last thing on a persons mind at that point is the accuracy of the simulation. The same would be true of any other aspect of the modeling, be it hydraulic systems, electrical or whatever.
So, taking the trim behavior in a simulator, once into an upset condition, with possible invalid airspeed, etc, probably shouldn't be regarded as definitive. I'm one of those engineers and I wouldn't trust it. As noted before, the sound models I produce would NOT include a vertical speed component as a contribution to the aerodynamic noise 'hiss' model. I have not data to model it and would be guessing. I could probably make a pretty good guess and have something representative, but:
(a) I've never been asked for it
and
(b) I'll bet if I ask 3 pilots for a subjective assessment, I'll get at least 4 opinions....
I suspect the Airbus "simulator" referred to in the interim report was an engineering simulator based on flight modeling the aircraft behavior versus control inputs, not what we all know as a full flight sim - perhaps the final report will define this more specifically.
- GY