Different flight characteristics A321 IAE/CFM professional

[keenrw]

Hi

 

Can confirm this problem ,a kind of a work around for me at least is to add about 5-10 knots on the V speed to get a more realistic 2-3 deg pitch

[ozgulkagan]

For me too. Before last update I was flying A321IAE only, and always added at least 5 knots. 

[terks43]

Ok, I'm going to say this if you honestly think a transport category aircraft on proper speed would have a deck angle of 7-9 degrees during approach (not flare) then maybe you don't need to be publishing paywear. This is painfully and obviously wrong, period. I'll do your job for you here guys, from the previous posts this appears to be an issue unique to the IAE variant of the 321. Not a climb issue, not a user input issue. But a badly wrong FDE. So maybe you should take a look at exactly what is different between the 321 CFM and IAE FDE's. To be perfectly clear I have absolutely no idea how these things are put together, but if you're even looking to solve this puzzle that is a good place to start. It's wrong, and it is completely unacceptable for a product in 2018 to be so basically wrong. Hate to be so harsh in this but in my honest opinion your company is in very bad need of a stiff kick up the backside. This is a reoccurring theme with all of your recent releases. Half baked and slow to improve, and I'm sure everyone in the FS community would love to see significant improvement at Aerosoft.

[Vindeballe]

14 hours ago, terks43 said:

Ok, I'm going to say this if you honestly think a transport category aircraft on proper speed would have a deck angle of 7-9 degrees during approach (not flare) then maybe you don't need to be publishing paywear. This is painfully and obviously wrong, period. I'll do your job for you here guys, from the previous posts this appears to be an issue unique to the IAE variant of the 321. Not a climb issue, not a user input issue. But a badly wrong FDE. So maybe you should take a look at exactly what is different between the 321 CFM and IAE FDE's. To be perfectly clear I have absolutely no idea how these things are put together, but if you're even looking to solve this puzzle that is a good place to start. It's wrong, and it is completely unacceptable for a product in 2018 to be so basically wrong. Hate to be so harsh in this but in my honest opinion your company is in very bad need of a stiff kick up the backside. This is a reoccurring theme with all of your recent releases. Half baked and slow to improve, and I'm sure everyone in the FS community would love to see significant improvement at Aerosoft.

 

Not everyone, do not count me in, but that is only -1.   

[keenrw]

As far as i can see the team at Aerosoft are doing all they can to work on the Airbus , they have another Airbus they are working on plus scenery plus patches etc , im more then happy with the Aircraft at the moment ...yes there are a few bugs but nothing to stop me from flying it and i trust Aerosoft to put the bugs right in their time .

[Mathijs Kok]

Nobody in the dev team for this project is involved with scenery use that as an excuse. 

[Meyerflyer]

Hello,

 

I took my time to record a video of the high pitch angle on landing.

 

Basic specs:

Landing with 70t (that was because I tried shooting another video and returned to landing after takeoff immediately. It's the same with 66t landing weight, etc.).

Wind 060/7

Computer recommended a landing speed of 145kt, which I took without adding something.

 

Landing was an autoland, so I could concentrate on taking the right angle with the camera.

 

As you can see, the pitch angle was much too steep as reported by some customers. When I compare that to hundreds of A321 landings I've seen in my life, that is not how it is in real life. It even feels strange during approach, because the aircraft always hangs on the stick and does not feel like the A319 or the A320.

 

What do you say watching this? Is this looking like it should (serious question)?

 

https://youtu.be/qcdhnnTONME

 

[Meyerflyer]

Let's take this video for a basic comparison. You can see, the landing of the real one is more flat with much less pitch angle.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4AlbPjDlzI

 

[mopperle]

TBH Julian, we simply do not like such comparisons as nobody knows the conditions  (wind, speed, weight etc.) in such pictures/videos. The only thing we trust is what the real busdrivers tells us and meanwhile we have a lot of them in our testing team.

But as we still fine tune the different variants regarding the performance characteristics, this might be effected too.

[Mathijs Kok]

From the same video:

Here you see the angle a lot steeper, your image was from the moment the flare was already ending.

 

This angle, however, is something we will look at soon. We are getting some direct information from our advisory pilots on this. No need for images as we'll have the exact angle, bit in AoA as in angle to a horizontal plane.

 

[Meyerflyer]

Okay, but that is nevertheless a completely different angle. I would say, the angle on the Aerosoft A321 was about 10° and the real one had about 5°. That's simply not realtistic to me. But I am glad to hear, that this will be looked at soon.

For me, this kills all the fun landing the A321 as it is furthermore harder to land the A321 smooth as the cockpit is way higher above the runway surface than it should be. Thanks.

[Mathijs Kok]

I am sorry this spoils your flights (can I suggest landing manually?) but as said it is an issue that is being looked at.

As we said many times, unless we know the EXACT conditions, an image of a video does not tell us a lot. Certainly not when a certain point in the video showing not the maximum angle and MUCH lower to the ground is chosen.. 

 

As I think everybody said all that can be done and the fact we promise to look at it can I suggest we drop this issue?

[keenrw]

12 hours ago, Meyerflyer said:

Okay, but that is nevertheless a completely different angle. I would say, the angle on the Aerosoft A321 was about 10° and the real one had about 5°. That's simply not realtistic to me. But I am glad to hear, that this will be looked at soon.

For me, this kills all the fun landing the A321 as it is furthermore harder to land the A321 smooth as the cockpit is way higher above the runway surface than it should be. Thanks.

For now just add 5 to 10 knots manually to the calculated Vspeeds that should get you nearer the 5 deg angle

[terks43]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 12:07 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

I am sorry this spoils your flights (can I suggest landing manually?) but as said it is an issue that is being looked at.

As we said many times, unless we know the EXACT conditions, an image of a video does not tell us a lot. Certainly not when a certain point in the video showing not the maximum angle and MUCH lower to the ground is chosen.. 

 

As I think everybody said all that can be done and the fact we promise to look at it can I suggest we drop this issue?

This is not an auto land issue. The plane flies this way in manual flight, all of my landings are done manually.

[Meyerflyer]

vor 19 Stunden , terks43 sagte:

This is not an auto land issue. The plane flies this way in manual flight, all of my landings are done manually.

 

Absolutely. No autoland issue but a general one. Therefote I don't understand Mathijs' post, too.

[av8r172]

Hopefully these will shed some light. Note the pitch attitude in the first two vs. the 3rd:

 

*Yes, there is a tailwind on approach. I have tested the same parameters with direct headwind, and direct crosswind. Highly similar results*

 

I'm on a stable ILS autopilot ON thrust managed. Here's the loadsheet that's active:

 

Here's the APPR data as calculated by the FMGS:

 

Now I manually add 10 knots to Vapp by pulling the speed knob. Notice the difference in pitch attitude (closer to any other jet. In fact, I would think the pitch would be even lower. The 737-900 approaches at an artificially higher speed to increase tail clearance in the flare):

[keenrw]

yep thats how i handle the 321 atm until the pitch angle gets fixed , adding 5-10 knots to the VAPP

 

[av8r172]

Still does this as of 1.2.2.0

[Artox67]

Well to jump in here. I've a tool (FSIPanel) to simulate the exactly same conditions for a approach.

 

I've done this with a 321 IAE (first pic) and a 321 CFM (2nd pic). Both aircraft are the same wight and the weather at the same conditions. Landing at EDDF 25L.

 

As you can see the IAE has too much AoA. So you can't pull the nose up for a smooth landing. In this case here with the IAE 349ft/min and with CFM 172ft/min. 

 

 

[av8r172]

I noticed something was seriously wrong when I tried to shoot the river visual 19 into DCA. In the final turn I was 10 degrees nose up and TOGA LK activated in the final turn just to maintain -700 fpm and Vapp!

[Artox67]

Any news regarding this topic guys?

[Meyerflyer]

I would be happy, too, if the AS guys would take this issue a bit more serious now. For me and as you can see in the meantime for many others, this flight behaviour is quite annoying to fly. I think, that is no "cosmetic" issue, but one that gives you a wrong feeling while flying. And the flight characteristics is the thing you mainly want to have accurate in a sim aircraft.

 

Especially because the A321 CFM doesn't have this issue, IMO this bug should be fixed soon.

[Mathijs Kok]

It's an issue that is being worked at. 

[jmrtlara]

Hello,

 

Apologies if an update to this was released already, but I am using the latest version on V4.4, and noticed that this issue still persists on the A321. Pitch angle is always +10 deg on appr on managed speed.

[masterhawk]

We are currently working on it. Should be in next update