How does FS9 simulate supersonic flight, if at all?

[Frank N. O.]

Actually I think mostly only Chris or maybe Justin will reply to this but that's fine by me. I thought about posting this in the SSTSim forum but I haven't investigated the forum well enough yet to dare posting there.

To my knowledge then MS FS (that to my knowledge originally wasn't a MS product in the first versions) is what some call a simulation of a simulation meaning it doesn't really simulate aerodynamics and is not really simulating supersonic or probably not even transonic flights. Many jetfighter add-ons you can download for instance don't have the afterburner function programmed in, but just starts afterburner effect when you give full normal throttle, and then others don't have this effect at all which makes it hard to know if it has correc thrust. Other planes like Kirk Olsson's fantastic looking F16 Viper/Fighting Falcon has a "handling" that in the end made my plane fly out of control at mach-3 slightly curving downward when the turned off damage made it jump up again and continue, same speed and zero control-input reactions. Somehow I just don't think any plane would fly like that.

I've tried the demo for X-Plane and especially the last few versions have really started to catch up graphically to MSFS as well when it already allegedly has real aerodynamic simulation and is FAA approved for instrument training under special circumstances (motion simulator and such I think it was), however I remember reading that people defending MSFS by saying it too had the same approvel, but I doubt that.

So, any comment/answers?

Frank

[chris]

I wouldn't take too much notice of FAA certification.

The only proper machine for training on instrument flying is a big commercial simulator. Like your A320, 747, 767 simulators, etc. A desktop computer doesn't cut it in terms of operating the controls. You want everything as real as possible, every switch has to be exactly where it is on the real plane, must work in exactly the same way.

I can only suggest that supersonic flight is no problem in FS. The Concorde I have simulates it with little drama and it performs very close to the real plane, according to the performance charts (for the real plane).

When you use the reheat, the fuel increases, the noise escalates to a thunderous roar and the plane increases speed much faster. And then when you turn off the reheat, the fuel usage goes back to normal, acceleration is more normal, climb rates are more normal.

When going Mach 0.95 at 28,000ft and engaging reheat, engaging Max Climb, the SSTSim Concorde will sometimes go up above 6000ft/min climb rate for a little while. And when going through Mach 1, you can see the aerodynamic effects on the instruments.

I don't know how other planes from other developers are, but it all hinges upon how much info they have on the real plane, and what level of involvement pilots, manufacturers, engineers of the real plane have in the project.

Your problem with the F16 at Mach 3.0 sounds like a big overspeed, and the pitch-trim inverting. How did you manage to achieve such a speed? The F16 should only go about 1020kts IIRC..

[Frank N. O.]

The FAA rating was more to try and figure out if the simulation of the reactions of planes was accurate. The controls and positions is exactly my big problem for any simulator due to my nature although I'm sure we can agree that a car is easier to make a sim-cockpit for, control-wise, than even a Cessna 152 :D

Anyway, the F-16 was simply put on full burner, as at least I call it, and I just proceeded to do some sharp turns and such to just test it out, after all this wasn't real life. And after flying higher than Airwolf (FL820) then I eventually lost complete control of it, including any kind of manouvrering. I'll re-intall it and see if I can recreate it.

Another thing about aerodynamics is how the engines function. When it doesn't simulate aerodynamics then how would the Blackbird engines work? (if there was a high quality Blackbird for FS9 out there that is) and what about compression-lift used on my favourite white superjet, the Valkyrie?

Btw, how do you activate the afterburners (or is it called reheat?) on the Concorde? Got a picturelink to the control-levers, also for the reverse-thrust levers?

Greetings
Frank

[chris]

Reheat is the little buttons behind the throttle levers. I can't answer the other questions because I'm not a FS9 FDE developer.

[Frank N. O.]

Thanks for the answers :) I was wondering, do you think searching the SST forum could reveal an answer?

I was just reading the FS2000Pro (printed!) manual and for the Concorde I didn't find anything saying afterburner, but there was "thruttle keys" and that was probably it. I also read a little while my mom was using the computer about how it flew and dude did I learn a lot I never before, like the transonic barrier that is the real reason it needs afterburners, but only until mach 1.5 and then it doesn't need it anymore due to low pressure due to speed and altitude, I never heard that before although I never did understand how it could fly with burners on the whole time, now it was explained. This however also makes the F-14 Tomcat even more impressive with it's Mach-1+ capability at sea level (I got videos to proove it and dude does it look awesome!). Chris, sorry if you're disapointed in my knowledge of aerodynamics but no Discovery program I've ever seen has mentioned that difference in drag and the barrier between mach 0.9-1.5. But the Concorde now seems even more interesting than ever, also in terms of FS use :cool: The one you use is the one called Altitude right? That's in stock at the danish Betafon store.

Frank

[chris]

Yeah, the one I use is called Altitude Concorde. :)

Indeed Concorde needs reheat to deal with the effects of going through the sound barrier, primarily Mach 0.95 to Mach 1.30 where drag is worst. Above that, you could switch them off. But that isn't done, and they are kept on until Mach 1.7 in the interests of speed.

More than anything, Concorde is about speed, it's about getting shortest possible flight times.

Improvements in operational procedures increased the range to within what had been conservatively specified for the non-reheated 3 turbine stage Concorde B model (never made production).

Concorde requires considerable care with the throttle at low altitudes. It is a very powerful plane and it will overspeed so easily. :eek: Even just putting the throttle levers slowly forward to the stops (not take-off power, and no afterburners) will have it blasting forward at quite a pace.

To give an idea of how potent it was, I worked it out to be developing the equivalent of something like 485,000hp - to move around 175 tonnes of aircraft when loaded. That's one mean power/weight ratio.

[Frank N. O.]

Thank you for the info. If I ever buy a commercial airliner there's no doubt it's going to be the Concorde, and from your oppinion, which I trust, then the Altitude one is clearly the best/most authentic :cool: (hmm, we need a flying-smiley, maybe a Concorde profile like your signature :D)

In any case I might as well uninstall FS2000Pro again since that plane does not fly very fast under any circumstances. At full burner it is very slow indeed off the runway, I used the big Sydney Airport and at the end I could barely get it 5 meters off the ground and no climb, and right on the edge of stall, with full power+reheat and 200+ kts.

Frank