Flight Sim X: Landing With A Rudder Failure In Boeing 737-800 Part I

I decided I needed a challenge so I took off on the Boeing 737-800 in Flight Simulator X and levelled off at a few thousand feet. Then I made the rudder fail - FSX simulated the rudder being jammed while deflected in the full right position. Pretty soon I started to lose directional control of the plane.


All of a sudden I realised that the plane’s nose was pointed at roughly a 45 degree offset to the direction of travel! I suppose I could have tried to use the trim to control the plane but too bad I didn't know the shortcut key for that, and I had another idea anyway.

Yep you're right - I began to use the throttles to control the direction of the plane by manipulating each one independently. I was in the virtual cockpit view, and I had one hand on the joystick, and another hand on the mouse trying to change the power settings by dragging on the "throttle handles".


After doing this for a while, I did actually manage to land it without crashing, albeit not on a runway. The angle I landed at was so ridiculous it would probably not have been possible in real life.

In Part II of this post I’m going to post up a video of another attempt at landing without the rudder.

FSX: Boeing 737-800 Vs Airbus A321 Showdown!

This is a light-hearted comparison of the two FSX aircraft. Boeing or Airbus? Whose plane reigns supreme? Yeah I so stole that line from Iron Chef.

Please note that this is a comparison of the virtual aircraft as they are modeled in Flight Simulator X, and not the real aircraft themselves.

	FSX Boeing 737-800	FSX Airbus A321
Cruise speed	Mach 0.785	Mach 0.81
Power plant	Two GE CFM56-7 Wikipedia: Rated with takeoff thrust from 18,500 to 27,300 lbf	Two CFM56-5B3 high-bypass turbofans Wikipedia: The thrust range is between 22,000 to 33,000 lbf
Handling	8/10 Handling is pretty nice, can’t say it’s perfect. It's not difficult to land the plane in significant crosswind scenarios. You have full control of the rudder (as opposed to the the A321), so you have a good deal of flexibility in terms of what technique(s) you'd like to employ for the crosswind landing. Some x-wind techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Crosswind_landing	6/10 Extremely slow to respond to input, unless SEC** is switched off in which case the controls feel way too sensitive. On landing, the transition to below 100 feet will automatically deactivate the SEC so you get more control. Control of the rudder is not possible with the SEC switched on (I believe it's automatic). Surprisingly it’s very easy to land the plane in significant crosswinds even without control over the rudder - perhaps even easier than the 737 or roughly the same. But remember you do get total control below 100 feet so you straighten out.
Interior Styling	Drab. Needs some fake mahogany.	Drab. Needs some fake mahogany.
Air condition	Yes, as standard	Yes, as standard
Autopilot	9/10  Easy to understand and use.	7/10 Easy to understand and use. However I don’t like the dial/push combo buttons (the ones you can turn and also depress). In addition, having those combo style buttons and rectangle push buttons mixed together garners a feeling of inconsistency.
Control type	Yoke.	Sidestick. There's nothing wrong with it but I’m more for the style of the traditional yoke.
Panel & Instrumentation	8/10 A nice feature I like is that the airspeed indicatordynamically displays the never exceed airspeed range, and also the stall range. By dynamic I mean the ranges are automatically altered at different altitudes.  One thing I don’t like is how in one of the primary LCD display modes, the green arrow graphically depicting the direction of the wind is not shown, but only numbers are.  I like the panel, it looks and works nicely.	6/10 The primary LCD-displays seem smaller than the 737.  I’d prefer a numerical readout of the vertical speed which the 737 has – it’s easier to read.  Also the radar altimeter displays numbers in a bright green colour making it difficult to read. And what’s with all the unfilled space on the panel? All that space could be for larger standby instruments or something else.  Overall good, but I think the layout of the 737 is nicer.
Safety features	8/10 GPWS, seatbelts . No alpha floor protection on this baby, as the A321 has.	8/10 Angle of attack protection*, Spoiler/Elevator Controls (SEC)**, GPWS, seatbelts
Computer technology	6/10 All the standard fly-by-wire stuff. Oh yeah and GPS comes as standard. A weather radar would be nice eh?	8/10 This baby’s packed with tech! The flight computer system even prevents the pilot from stalling the plane. It also prevents you from doing crazy things like intentionally or unintentionally turning the plane upside down or placing it into a steep dive. Pity it can’t make coffee or do the tax!
Alloy wheels	No	No
Exterior Styling	9/10 Nice nose and eyebrows. The big winglets are sexy, and the flattened undersides of the engine nacelles are uniquely beautiful. Centre landing gears are exposed even when retracted, looks a bit dirty from below.	8/10 Nice nose, but I prefer the sharper look of the 737. Landing gears are all covered up nicely when retracted.
Fuel consumption	A lot more than your truck	A lot more than your truck
Tank size	6,875 U.S. gallons (3,060 nm)	6,260 U.S. gallons (2,454 nm)
Price	Too much	Too much

*Available when SEC is on
** SEC is part of the A321’s Flight Control System (FCS)

Conclusion

I’m going to give the trophy to the Flight Simulator X’s Boeing 737-800. The panel and instrumentation and the handling were the main reasons for it coming out on top, but the Airbus A321 is pretty cool too and it’s growing on me!