We can relate Martin. Have fun :(

This whole discussion is almost funny. Any porpoising of the Mustang when using the autopilot fuctions is a result of pilot error...the pilot using the autopilot functions in an incorrect manner. It doesn't matter how the darn thing is designed or labled...until the pilot-in-command learns how to use the functions correctly...irregardless of how an autpilot functions in any OTHER aircraft...the problem is with the PILOT...not the aircraft or aircraft's autopilot.Do you want to make the Mustang porpoise like all get out? Get straight and level with your airspeed at say 240 kts at FL250. Then hit the VS button in preparation for a descent, and dial in a 2000 foot per minute descent rate. IMMEDIATELY the Mustang will begin it's descent. The airspeed will begin increasing on you.THEN press the FLC button, like most "pilots" here are used to doing with OTHER aircraft they fly in Flight Simulator, and watch what happens. PORPOISE LIKE MAD, as you just told the Mustang to GO BACK to trying to maintain the last SPEED you had, and it pulls the nose back UP.If you are used to using any other autopilot's FLC "button" to INITIATE the climb or descent AFTER you have used an IAS or VS "knob" to tell it at what speed or rate to "hold" (like on an MCP panel in a Boeing), you HAVE to get out of that mind set. Once you choose VS, as SOON as you begin using the "UP or DOWN" wheel to enter a rate of climb or descent, the Mustang will respond. There is NO NEED to press the FLC button. It will ONLY cause a conflicting command to be issued.There's a reason the type rating for the Mustang requires a pilot have at least 500 hours previous experience in Multi-Engine aircraft before the FAA will let them add the Mustang type-rating to their license. There's a reason the price of the Mustang includes an over 1-week course run by Flight Safety International in order for a new Mustang pilot to get the type-rating added to their license.It's so the pilot will LEARN how to use the functions of the Mustang's autopilot (among other things) to fly the darn thing correctly. Even if the pilot is already type-rated in a Boeing 747.FalconAF

I respectfully disagree FalconAF.

I respectfully disagree FalconAF.

So do I. By the way the same exact autopilot is in many other lesser aircraft and none of them require "type rating" or 500 hrs. multi-engine. And by the way Garmin sells you PC-based simulators for their G1000-GFC700 set up for various aircraft (they start at lowly $25) and this is an excellent source of learning to find out about how it works in reality, not from this or some other forum. The whole discussion takes on an aura of ridiculousness. Only very few FS add-on products have their own fully customized autopilot - the rest simply use a wrapper for the MSFS default autopilot's control logic and this is usually the source of all sort of limitations and inaccuracies and pitch control is usually the first casualty. Even such renowned simulation as Aeroworx's King Air admitted they simply did not have know-how and manpower to code A/P from scratch, at least they were being honest.

Big time thanks for performing this test. Did variations you mentioned at any time include a loss of altitude? So per your test, I'm hearing that FLC is still not that stable at speeds over 170. Just so long as it doesn't command a descent to recover airspeed.

The variations I saw were on the order of plus or minus 200-300 fpm. There were no wild gyrations of the type you describe in your posts, and no excursions into the "negative climb" range. As I and others have said, the wild ride you've described can be attributed to misapplication of FLC. The technique I described for going into FLC (establishing the climb at the desired airspeed first) will net you a stable climb.

Well no time savings getting to altitude, but on a short flight you'd cover more ground. The idea is that you would trade fuel efficiency for speed (over the ground) and better visibility.

Look at my numbers again. You actually DON'T cover more ground...you cover the same ground in the same amount of time, but more fuel efficiently by using the best rate-of-climb airspeed.

I use VS mode more than FLC anyway, I feel its more precise, and I can easily set my throttles to whatever I want

by the way Garmin sells you PC-based simulators for their G1000-GFC700 set up for various aircraft (they start at lowly $25) and this is an excellent source of learning to find out about how it works in reality

Do you actually have one of these?I have the Garmin Mustang G1000 trainer and I can climb at 10,000 ft/min at all day long with it.Is that the reality you speak of.

Only very few FS add-on products have their own fully customized autopilot

And I see people at their forums complaining of these same problems.I don't have a type rating in the Mustang but I have put about 50 hours on the hobbs and I have never seen the problem mentioned by the few here.Or is it only one that is having the problem?A couple are in the discussion talking trash about the autopilot yet probably don't even have the aircraft.Michael

To those who respectfully disagree with me, so be it.But even if you bought a G1000 and had it installed in your Cessna 150, you still need to learn how to USE it correctly with the aircraft it is installed in. This isn't rocket science, guys. If the G1000 in your "purchased Mustang for Flight Simulator" is causing the aircraft to do wierd things like the ones mentioned in this post, it is NOT the fault of the Mustang or the G1000. It is "pilot error".The Mustang and it's included G1000 are modeled correctly (as far as the functions that are included), and WORK correctly, when USED correctly.Rick

So, you are type-rated for the Mustang in RL?

wow this thread dovetailed hehe

Well maybe it is too late here but I have a perspective..One of the reasons I stay away from some so called "complex" fs add ins-is it takes many, many hours of study to use them correctly-and of course the perhaps obvious fact is if you have never flown one in real life-you really have no idea of if the model in fs is remotely correct and if those hours of study are worth it.... how many on our boards can really verify this?!I'd rather verify an add in with real life experience that an fs add on is accurate-otherwise to me it becomes the difference between simming/gaming as there is no idea whether there is any truth to the add in.You can trust others opinions, and perhaps an endorsement from a real pilot-but really-do you really know?I have been flying my Baron for 320 hours the last couple years and I feel like I am finally just "learning" the aircraft-what it can do and its' systems. Before that amount of time I am not sure I could have given a great opinion-it takes a while to truly "learn" an aircraft.I can tell you the fs default Baron does some things very well-and a few others not so well. But I am only beginning to feel I can comment on if the sim is really authentic or not now.So I am naturally skeptical about claims about how authentic an aircraft is or isn't. I do tend to trust pilot's opinions with experience in the aircraft-and it seems Mustang pilots and Cessna itself have said the F1 Mustang is as good as it gets. It also seems that many who have only sim experience are complaining. Who to trust? I do know-if you fly an aircraft in fs past its expected parameters-it won't work well. Why? Because most programmers are interested in portraying the aircraft in its expected normal operating modes-not the unexpected. Makes sense to me-going to the unexpected usually has unpleasant results.For instance-someone might ask how does a Baron spin? The answer is you don't want to spin a Baron-period. Beech did very few tests in this area-and they did not turn out very pretty. If you fly the fs default version with expected figures it does pretty good .-spin it and I am not sure even Beech could give an answer-except perhaps expect a flat spin you can not get out of-and wear a parachute. If fs does not model this-is that a flaw when Beech's testing is spotty at best?Now -out of all the complex add ins I have bought-the only one I have interest in going deeper than trying a short while is the F1 Mustang.Why? I have all of 40 minutes with a g1000-but the Mustangs struck me as real. As a light jet-it isn't that far from a Baron in numbers-and flying my Baron numbers worked pretty good. I have read comments from both Mustang pilots and Cessna and they seem very positive. Does that mean the fs version is 100%?-I have to think fs places limits on anyone...but for the price of a dinner it seems to be fairly representative.Quite honestly the debate about the autopilot modes above just eludes me-as I don't have an autopilot that does those modes-and even though my autopilot is pretty good-I don't like to use it except when absolutely needed-to me logging time when an autopilot is flying is close to dishonest.However , from reading the posts it also appears if the plane is flown in the flight parameters that are expected, that is performs as expected. It appears if the autopilot is used as the manual describes-it performs as expected.The two planes I have owned had two different autopilots. They performed differently, and familiarity with how they work was/is extremely important.Using them with the parameters that are expected per the manual produce very good results-using them with out complete understanding produced/produced undesirable effects.The alt hold on my present Century Iv autopilot works different from my past stec 50-as does the approach modes, heading modes etc.So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that one should delve into the Mustang's autopilots manual, understand its' workings and quirks, and then fly it by the book.If I for instance click alt hold on my autopilot-then jam the throttles full in-the altitude will vary by several hundred feet-a problem with the autopilot-or the user?It looks to me from this thread-flying the Mustang outside its' parameters (including autopilot) may produce undesirable results.That seems pretty universal on any aircraft.

Dial in your altitude on the autopilot, no other preselected modesSet the flight director to 10 degreesTakeoff!Maintain 10 degrees.Engage autopilot [You are in pitch hold]Wind the flight director down to 8 degrees with the autopilot wheel.Aircraft accelerates.Raise flap.Minor adjustments to autopilot wheel if required.At 170 knots hit FLC.Very minor oscillations till above 8000 feet. [Not any kind of an issue]]Above 8000 feet rock solid!What

Not forgetting the climb detent and gear of course. :( Just an example that there isn't an issue.

Dial in your altitude on the autopilot, no other preselected modesSet the flight director to 10 degreesTakeoff!Maintain 10 degrees.Engage autopilot [You are in pitch hold]Wind the flight director down to 8 degrees with the autopilot wheel.Aircraft accelerates.Raise flap.Minor adjustments to autopilot wheel if required.At 170 knots hit FLC.Very minor oscillations till above 8000 feet. [Not any kind of an issue]]Above 8000 feet rock solid!What

Well maybe it is too late here but I have a perspective..One of the reasons I stay away from some so called "complex" fs add ins-is it takes many, many hours of study to use them correctly-and of course the perhaps obvious fact is if you have never flown one in real life-you really have no idea of if the model in fs is remotely correct and if those hours of study are worth it.... how many on our boards can really verify this?!However , from reading the posts it also appears if the plane is flown in the flight parameters that are expected, that is performs as expected. It appears if the autopilot is used as the manual describes-it performs as expected......

Geofa,This is one of the best replies I have seen with respect to the Mustang. Like you, I am a commercially rated pilot and have, and do fly some pretty impressive twins and complex aircraft.I contend that it takes a person a minimum of 100 hours in type (if they are paying attention) before they can begin to fully understand and "strap" the aircraft on.There are a couple of people on this thread that argued that point profusely with me (I will let you guess who they are) and refused to operate the aircraft as it is intended but chose to focus and operate it outside what would be considered as "expected". As you have stated, outside the expected in real or simulated may produce "unexpected" results. Now, add "perceived" to the equation and the real confusion begins to occur. No product in FSX is 100% perfect. It simply isn't possible. But the Mustang is pretty darn close and that was possible because of a brilliant and dedicated team and our partnership with Cessna Aircraft Company which allowed us a deeper level of knowledge, interaction and information than a typical Cessna "licensed" product. And it is also possible if users adhere to the advice and information we provide them either by documentation or the support forum. If a user chooses perceived or unexpected, well then... that just might very well happen.You can expect some other impressive simulations in the future as we move forward with Cessna.Regards,Jim RhoadsFlight1