Cessna 172 Performance

[Digital Flight Deck]

Did a quick look through the topics and did not see this one, so here we go.

I was flying the 172 (G1000), on autopilot, climbing to 10,000 at about 200-300 feet per minute. For some reason once I got over about 5,300 feet, she would not climb. Actually went into a stall at 5,600 feet.

I have lots of real world experience in 172s, and would routinely fly between 5,000 and 10,000.

Is the C172 under powered? The POH has the service ceiling as 14,200 feet, so pretty strange it would not make 6,000 without stalling in a gently climb.

I was a couple of hundred pounds short of MGW as well.

[SomeBloke]

Did you use mixture?

[Sandhill]

My home airport is right at 5000', and the 172 climbs on takeoff just fine...I've never explored the ceiling, but the model seems to behave reasonably in climb...

[Spikenard]

I took a 152 up to a bit over 9000' earlier flying in the las vegas desert. If you don't adjust the mixture it'll bog way down. I had to pull the mixture knob almost halway out to maintain a decent rpm

[Majickthyse]

Same thing happened for me with C172 and Beechcraft Bonanza. Mixture definitely helps, but if the weather is turbulent you can find the aircraft stalling and flying upside down etc :)

[nko][Bobobski]

The devs explained in a developer vlog that they used industry data obtained for the aircraft they licensed, but they then also used the experience of other pilots in real world situations, taking into account real world performance verses specs, age of the plane, etc, to dial in a more representative performance. Whether this has been fully realised in the release (due to bugs, etc) is uncertain, but aiming for a more representative performance rather than just matching what the spec sheets say, seems to be what they’re aiming at.

[MightyCaco]

I can confirm. I first noticed this problem a few days ago, but took it up again from my home training airport (4000' elevation) and with mixture full rich, it can barely get above 5500 feet or so.

This is inaccurate, and yes, I am aware that >3000' as per the POH (in my memory), one is supposed to lean the mixture.

I've flown various models of C172 a few years back (M, N, S, and RG models), both as a student and a flight instructor from my home airport. As a school SOP, we used to always go mixture full rich on takeoff and we would keep it there until cruise (generally around 6500-7500'). If memory serves, the C172 generally has little problems with full rich climbing until around above 7500' or so (perhaps even higher depending on atmospheric conditions).

Whats interesting and what makes this problem less noticeable is that when you start on the runway in FS2020, the mixture comes pre-leaned. This, however, doesn't make the model any more accurate. It is still an underperforming flight model based on my experience.

I hope they patch this. I don't recall the C172 in either FSX or X-Plane having this issue either.

Originally posted by nkoBobobski:

... more representative performance rather than just matching what the spec sheets say, seems to be what they’re aiming at.

If that is true, this makes me sad, because it is a huge deviation from past sims.

[Rever]

You guys aren't doing it right. You need to learn how to adjust the mixture. I have been able to get the 172 up to 14,000 feet. I haven't tried to go higher than that - no need. Hint you need to make it more lean - less air - less fuel.

[Biggles]

Strange how these 'Real World Pilots' can't agree on anything. Some say the 172 is accurate, others say it isn't. Maybe their opinion of themselves as pilots is inaccurate too.

[Maki Nishikino]

There are issues with the 172 for sure. In P3D using Active Sky I took off out of Fallbrook in the A2A Cessna 172R and setting up climb is a piece of cake. In MSFS using live weather I took off out of Fallbrook in the stock 172S and I was struggling to keep a climb going.

[Rever]

Originally posted by Earl Grey:

Strange how these 'Real World Pilots' can't agree on anything. Some say the 172 is accurate, others say it isn't. Maybe their opinion of themselves as pilots is inaccurate too.

I don't believe anyone on these forums who claims to be a real world pilot. And who really cares exactly how accurate it is? I guess you do if you are training to be a pilot and need an accurate simulator. But really you expect a $60 game to give you that? And then you claim to be a pilot?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Maki Nishikino:

There are issues with the 172 for sure. In P3D using Active Sky I took off out of Fallbrook in the A2A Cessna 172R and setting up climb is a piece of cake. In MSFS using live weather I took off out of Fallbrook in the stock 172S and I was struggling to keep a climb going.

Had you leaned mixture for max rpm ?.... I have no problem climbing in the 172 at any altitude (with correctly leaned mixture).

[Maki Nishikino]

Originally posted by Earl Grey:

Originally posted by Maki Nishikino:

There are issues with the 172 for sure. In P3D using Active Sky I took off out of Fallbrook in the A2A Cessna 172R and setting up climb is a piece of cake. In MSFS using live weather I took off out of Fallbrook in the stock 172S and I was struggling to keep a climb going.

Had you leaned mixture for max rpm ?.... I have no problem climbing in the 172 at any altitude (with correctly leaned mixture).

Yes, I know how it all works. Also, you shouldn't struggle to climb on a full rich mixture till you get up pretty high. You will just have a low EGT. I'm going to redo this test in a bit.

[Rever]

Originally posted by Maki Nishikino:

Originally posted by Earl Grey:

Had you leaned mixture for max rpm ?.... I have no problem climbing in the 172 at any altitude (with correctly leaned mixture).

Yes, I know how it all works. Also, you shouldn't struggle to climb on a full rich mixture till you get up pretty high. I'm going to redo this test in a bit.

5-6000 feet is plenty high for a cessna, certainly high enough to start adjusting the mixture. Depending on your weight and balance, it really doesn't start to struggle until you get to 7-8000.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Maki Nishikino:

Also, you shouldn't struggle to climb on a full rich mixture till you get up pretty high. You will just have a low EGT. I'm going to redo this test in a bit.

Unless of course you are already at high altitude (runway elevation), then full rich is the wrong option.

[Maki Nishikino]

Originally posted by Rever:

Originally posted by Maki Nishikino:

Yes, I know how it all works. Also, you shouldn't struggle to climb on a full rich mixture till you get up pretty high. I'm going to redo this test in a bit.

5-6000 feet is plenty high for a cessna, certainly high enough to start adjusting the mixture. Depending on your weight and balance, it really doesn't start to struggle until you get to 7-8000.

In this sim? It struggles a heck of lot earlier than it does in reality, most of my time is in the the N model (not in the sim) but I'm sure the newer models are the same. The 172 in this sim does feel like it's definitely short on power regardless of what the tach says, it's as if the density altitude is super high.