OK, so without getting too technical, let me justify my points about the fde with some commentary:
1: The aircraft is referred to as both `Microlight` and `VLA`. The MCR01 is available as both, but they are
not the same aircraft.
The microlight is the one that touches 120Kts, the VLA cruises at 155...
They do NOT share flying characteristics and to quote the Pilot magazine forum: "The VLA has flaperons which cause considerable adverse yaw when deployed and the power is changed, it also has a viscous stall and is an aircraft which a student pilot with a few hours in a Cessna would find very difficult to fly, especially in the landing configuration.
The ULC Micro has conventional flaps and ailerons and has entirely conventional handling together with a 125kn cruise. This aircraft has a very easy stall and can be landed slower than a Cessna. It is used for microlight training and could be handled by a low hour student pilot. "
Clearly, our developer cannot tell the difference between Microlight and VLA, and has mixed up the two most confusingly in the flight modelling.
Next, the weights in the aircraft.cfg make absolutely no sense - empty weight 550lb, max gross weight 1,100lbs. But the microlight limit is 450kg - 990lbs in UK money. So thats wrong for the microlight, yet the
speed is wrong for the VLA...? So which is it supposed to be?
And that's not all as far as bog basic errors in the arcraft.cfg are concerned - but to go on would be boring.
The point is that the developer wants money for this software and therefore has accepted an obligation to provide accurate data or an accurate aircraft, tothe best of his ability. As he is misinformed about basic information on the airplane, it is hopeless to expect an accurate representation of a flight model. And we don't get it.
...And unlike Steve, I have actually flown a Ban-Bi Microlight, in France. Only two and a half months ago. Which is why this aircraft interested me. And why it disappoints me.
