Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
As human pilots we "feel" the delta g during turns and during any maneuver which changes the vertical speed (take off rotation, landing flare, TCAS maneuvers etc.) The delta g feed back loop is how we judge the aircraft is responding to our pitch inputs and prevents us from exceeding +2.5g (in unprotected aircraft) or uncomfortable reduced / -ve g during a rapid level off from a climb. I don't know of any simulator capable of reproducing those motion cues.
So mathematically, the sim and aircraft performance may be identical, but a human pilot will still tell you it doesn't feel the same, and he is correct.
I was attempting to point out the lengths to which at least some regulators go in order to provide the best possible match between aircraft and simulated aircraft “feel.” Of course, when you describe a 60-degree bank level turn at a constant airspeed and constant altitude in a typical airliner, you’re describing a “2-g” turn – and I certainly agree that such a turn in even the best flight simulator meeting today’s qualification criteria will not give the occupants a 2-g feel (and I’ll qualify that by saying that while I don’t fly the Airbus inventory, since its a matter of physics, not manufacturers, we wouldn't see any substantial deviation with that manufacturers products). Additionally, as I was referring to the post by
Tee Emm in which he said:
Originally Posted by TeeEmm
When I first flew a real 737-200 in 1977 the Boeing instructor pilot told me that it could be flown with just two fingers holding the control wheel. In retrospect, he probably wasn't far wrong. But I don't recall ever having later problems using one hand to fly the 737 Classic series.
… if an airplane is capable of being “flown” with “2-fingers,” I would presume the reference would
not include a 2-g, 60-degree bank level turn while maintaining the entry airspeed, even if other, more typical control was capable of being maintained with only “2 fingers.” My suspicion is that the “2 finger” reference was with respect to maintaining normal cruise flight, with normal maneuvering - and, perhaps, even in a nominal visual traffic pattern. Believe me, I certainly understand the limitations that airplane flight simulators confront every day – and, for the most part, it is my opinion that simulators quite satisfactorily represent what is likely to be experienced in the airplane – at least the “on-set” motion cue, which is then supplemented with visual and instrument (and sound when/where appropriate) indications throughout the completion of the maneuver … and, at least in the airplane operations with which I am familiar, I don’t see, and haven’t seen, even sporadically, a pilot achieve a 2.5-g circumstance, even at lift-off or go around, and certainly not a negative version of that during a level off.