Reinhard
Unfortunately, (based upon what you've written so far) it's obvious you are out of touch and misinformed about simulation and its capabilities, I'm shocked. Especially if you sit in a modern full flight simulator on any regular basis. You might also consider speaking with an actual Boeing or Airbus Flight Test Pilot regarding stalls beyond the g break before you post additional erroneous comments.
Aircraft manufacturers make available recorded flight data packages for a number of simulator manufacturers regarding their products. Companies like CAE pay huge sums of money for those data packages and install them in simulators, including specific approach-to-stall characteristics up to the g break, for the type being simulated. Simulator manufacturers don't make it up. You are correct in saying that the behavior beyond the stall angle is at best, nothing more than computer guess work for something that isn't programmed into the simulation computer program. Any maneuver beyond the stall is invalid rubbish. But that could change in the near future.
I was a member of the SPAW ARC that looked into this Stall, Upset Recovery which included discussions regarding the simulated stall capabilities of simulators and to that point in time there was no requirement for simulator manufacturers to provide modelling beyond the g break. The NSP reps recommended that simulators should be capable of providing data "just beyond the break" (or stall) to be able to provide the required stall recovery training to account for pilots who may react slowly to shaker and actually enter the stalled regime momentarily.
Airline pilots training to recover from fully developed stalls is a waste of time and money. Not to mention it is the result of idiotic regulators requiring it without sufficient industry input. T-tail aircraft in fully developed stalls are unrecoverable. Negative training! Yes?
The manufacturer I work for has collected data beyond the g break, including stall recovery data and this data can be easily included in an updated data package for any of our aircraft types, if simulator manufacturers request it. There was never a requirement for this data till now.
As for the particular stall characteristics of a specific type, it is based on the data the manufacturers provide for simulation of their products. That data is collected during certification of the aircraft, so it isn't BS. It's fact. Outside of required tuning, such as a landing flare and touchdown, simulated turbulence, etc., the simulation is as close as it gets to the real thing so, maybe you should do some research into simulation if you wish to contribute to the conversation?
Feel free to ask me a question. I'd be glad to clarify some of your misconceptions.
For a clearer idea of what is required for airliners, have a read through FAR 25 and Part 61.
For example, no simulator or simulation is expected or required to be a 100% replica of the aircraft simulated. Surprised?
Where you got the idea that this is the greatest BS of the century only illustrates how misinformed you are.
A Squared
Sounds like the simulator you are using needs
tuning.
The landing flare and touchdown can be tuned to more accurately reflect your aircraft if the people responsible for that sims' certification are willing to do so.
Simple solution to a fixable issue.
Just curious...
How did you determine the aircraft stall recovery characteristics were quite different to the simulator? Stall buffet doesn't necessarily count. I'd suggest you need to go beyond the g break to make a subjective comparison. Most simulators don't go beyond that so the data is simply a computer guessing based on data it doesn't have. GIGO, as they say. Otherwise, WYSIWYG.
Simulator buffet characteristics are collected data provided by the manufacturer from the actual aircraft. This data is then compared using a qualification test guide (QTG), if the X, Y plots match when compared to the actual test data, then you could say the opinion of the pilot in training should be disregarded, or at least compared to the actual data recorded on the day when it was actually flown by the test pilot. Therefore, my question...
Did you actually stall the aircraft then compare it to the simulated behavior?
***
The lack of g force in a modern FFS is stating nothing but the obvious. There is no need for it despite calls for it. Like Upset Prevention and Recovery Training, we don't need to provide this in a simulator but, if we do, what we have today is adequate. UPRT should be a licence or certificate requirement, not a Part 121 AC or regulation. CALSPAN and APS provide excellent UPRT. This is NOT the same as aerobatic training. They are clever enough at what they do to know the difference between the two and what UPRT looks like. Because it is partially provided in an Epic aerobatic aeroplane doesn't mean it's irrelevant or a waste of time. It should be quite valuable training for airline pilots but, as I've already pointed out, perhaps at the CPL level.
Always offering free opinions.
Willie
