FSX Grumman X-29

In response to Stuart, the quick pitch response was one of the primary benefits of the real X-29. One of the test pilots, Kurt Schroeder, did an interview on YouTube via the PeninsulaSrsVideos where he gave a particularly juicy bit of detailed data: all dynamically unstable planes, like the F-16, Saab Grippen, and X-29 have their instability measured by something known as "time to amplitude", which is a measure of how quickly they depart controlled flight due to a disturbance in AoA.

Basically it works like this: if you're flying along and your AoA deviates from nominal by 5°, the time it takes to double in amplitude, 10°, then 20°, 40°, 80°, etc. is "time to amplitude". In the X-29, this was only 0.2 seconds!! So a 5° deviation becomes 160° deviation within ONE second without corrective input. That's total structural failure in under a second, even at modest speeds, and much quicker at faster speeds.

He mentioned that, if the F-16 had "relaxed" static stability, the X-29 was "unconscious". lol It also demonstrates why computer control was absolutely mandatory on the X-29.

Although the relatively slow actuators on the canards in the test aircraft failed to take advantage of the full nimbleness capacity of the X-29 airframe, any simulation should at least match the pitch speed of the F-16 and, as Mr. Schroeder says, be capable of "out-turning any US military aircraft" released before 1990 when he flew it, including the F-16, F-18, F-15, F-14, etc. ... but perhaps not the F-22 or F-35, etc.

It should also fly conspicuously level, relative to most similar aircraft, even at very low speeds.

His interview is nearly an hour long and easy to find. I'd check it out!

The roll response is lightning fast - is the pitch response supposed to be glacially slow?

Agree with the above poster. I was very disapointed. The plane worked fine for me, however, there was no cockpit, or instrament panel, which for me makes the plane unflyable. Please fix this machine. It need more detail.