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.

[...]

#learntosim :)

[Sandhill]

Out of curiosity I departed my local KFNL which is at 5000' and began climbing. Easy peasy until 10000', at which point I had to pay a bit of attention, eventually settled into a steady 200 fpm climb to 14000' although 150 fpm was common toward the end. I leaned out a bit at 8000', and really didn't find the need to get real lean even as I went higher, I think 35% was as lean as I went, but that was no big improvement over 45 or 50%.

[Digital Flight Deck]

Thanks for all the input. I will play around a bit more, and pay particular attention to leaning it out a bit more aggressively. Perhaps I did not do it enough? We will see.

[TomcatMVD]

The requirements for leaning the mixture have always been a bit on the drastic side with MFS IMHO. Just a couple thousand feet and leaning the mixture feels like you just downloaded a couple dozen more points of horsepower...

[ŦHË ǤÄMËⱤ ǤŮƔ]

Watch your fuel flow. Like someone else said, the mixture simulation is really weird and full mix provides a moderate dip in fuel flow. Mix for max fuel flow and that will be the "true" full rich mixture setting, in the sims eyes.

[Blaynus]

Yeah I'm in the same boat as you man, I just posted a discussion a few days ago talking about how I set the autopilot to climb at a rate of only 500fpm and it stalls itself at mediocre altitudes (around 5,000ft. MSL). I'm a CFI-A and CFI-I, have over 300 hours strictly in Cessna 172s steam-gauge and G1000s and performance like this is unreal IRL. I guess the devs just have to fix the performance calculations or what have you

[Digital Flight Deck]

Early days.... I am sure it will all get sorted out.

[TomcatMVD]

Автор сообщения: Digital Flight Deck

Early days.... I am sure it will all get sorted out.

I mean, this was pretty much the same in FSX AFAIK, not sure they see it as a bug

[Twelvefield]

Автор сообщения: Earl Grey

In the sim, the default 100% mixture is set too rich (by asobo), lean to 75% and you'll get max power (at sea level)

I get the best results at 85%, at sea level. 100% does seem to cause a dip in performance.

[Surveyor]

Автор сообщения: Rever

Well I am sorry that your real life expectations are damaging your experience. For me it has been great. Even if you are right, all you are doing is ruining it for yourself.

You know, I've been starting to adopt a similar mindset for a while now.
Either due to limited computing power or inherent inaccuracy of the mathematical methods involved, there are all kinds of renditions of the same aircraft across different sims or addon makers, that don't behave anywhere the same (and probably not one of them is close enough to the real world aircraft), yet they are all called after that RL aircraft for marketing purposes (while only sharing the looks and most likely the sounds with it). The authors of these virtual aircraft insist on their particular piece to be thoroughly "tested by Real Pilots" and therefore being the ultimate simulation of this aircraft. All the sim developers themselves also claim that theirs is The Ultimate Sim. Yet no flight safety agency ever bothered conducting FM and systems testing to find out whether those claims have any ground to support them (and what if the said agencies tried to cross-check it and their opinions would clash?).

I was wondering why I'm so hung up on simulators. I'm not really a fan of anything, I practically don't play games (used to do that in the past, but I'd lose interest quickly). Yet I keep coming to sims relatively often (not to mention stupid amounts of money wasted on modules/addons that would have been better used on the hardware instead). And you know what's the conclusion that I came to? It's just so happens that I enjoy handling such systems like planes and cars, and reality, apparently, knows best when it comes to their behavior. It's not oversimplified, it's not overcomplicated (because humans do their best so that piloting these machines would be accessible to preferably broader audience), it's about right.
But then again, real machines are great not because they are Ferraris or Extras. They are great because they were engineered to be so, taking into account the physics of this reality.

So, now is the main question: why seek resemblance to real world machines while the physics is still not where, when you could engineer an enjoyable handling experience of your own based on what you have to deal with in a sim?
There is a catch, of course, that whenever complete amateurs try to do that, the results are rather ugly in many senses. But why wouldn't aspiring aerospace engineers, "just" engineers and concept artists/designers try their hand at this?

If the majority of sim users would adopt the same mindset, I think that would make it easier for everyone. There would still be questions about how realistic a machine is, but at least there is no need to pretend that the machine is made after a real one (even if it partially is).

Thinking more like this I can enjoy MFS quite a lot (when it behaves itself). However. When things are made to resemble something visually and are also named after that, it's normal to expect that it also behaves that way. And then the vicious cycle starts... Not to mention that the word "simulator" should indicate that the behavior of the simulated systems within was verified by an appropriate agency.

[kalnaren]

I was doing a flight in a DV20 yesterday and was surprised when I was running at 92% throttle at 24” at 6,000’. I’ve flown a real one (with a less powerful engine) to 7,500’ without issue. The one in the game would hardly climb anymore.

[n141az]

Ok, I went thru the messages, and I think we all missed the fundamental question: at what speed were you climbing? ( yes I know, the question is what AoA)

I am sure there are some real pilots here, and many just claim to, but a "real" pilot knows that climbing any airplane is more complicated than the mixture and would have asked about the speed (or AoA).

The poster said he "stalled." I think that tells the story. Under a correct climb, most airplanes do not stall when they reach the ceiling. That can be debated, but a C172 will not stall while climbing under 8,000ft. If you stalled, you went behind the power curve, which is why you cannot climb. That is pilot error.

Most nontrained people think an airplane's drag envelope is like a car's. Therefore, to maximize a climb, you need to get to the minimum speed (minimum drag) and maximum nose up.

That is not how things work. Like many things in engineering, the reality is more complex than the intuition, which is why formal training is required.

If you pull the nose of the C172 (or ANY airplane) up and behind the power curve you will reduce the climb. Then you need to pull the NOSE DOWN to CLIMB FASTER.

You need to stay ahead of the power curve. Some instructors call it "region of reversed command." to make it clear that it is no mistake.

If you are a pilot, and you forgot, you are an accident waiting to happen, go train. If you are an entusiast, google the above. If you are a serious entusiast get a basic flight training book (or online course or what ever, yes I am old :) ).

[Sandhill]

Wasn't this thread resolved two years ago? No news...

[Twelvefield]

Beyond that, there have been numerous improvements to the C772 flight model. Most of the bugs have been squashed.

[Rogen]

Love'n the numerous improvements and squashed bugs... If only I could keep it in the air ;-)

heh

Opps...wrong forum - the C172 in the pic is the one included in FSX.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2874277668