Also-service ceiling applies to a brand new airplane with a new engine-older aircraft will have less than book value. Also need to take density altitude into account.Not only that-but flying that high you also would have to screw around with all the oxygen regulations-and oxygen cuts payload down and is expensive.My Debonair is certified to 18,000-the highest I have had it is 13,500 and it was very lethargic there. I always try for 6000-8000 which is where you get the most performance, higher for terrain or screwy winds.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Jeff, Thanks for that post! Confirms my experience. I thought I was crazy. Your climb experience and forward speed match my experience.Frank

>After reading some of the posts, I had a go yesterday. Got>rid of all the pax, dropped the weight of the pilot to 140 lb>and cut the fuel to 40%. I climbed directly to 19700,>although by that time was only getting 100fpm and was right on>the edge of the stall. After a while at that altitude, I got>about 5 more knots of airspeed and got to 20000. For the life>of me, I can't understand why you'd do it, my tas was only>about 120 kts, with an ias right on the stall. If I tweaked>the mixture control another millimetre I lost the engines.>Might be ok if you had a 100kt tail wind, lots of O2 and a>good heater!!Jeff.The clue to your problem lies in your post - you are over-leaning the engines. When climbing, lean for peak FUEL FLOW. When cruising, lean for PEAK EGT (or whatever setting is recommended). That tip alone should get you a couple of hundred more fpm lower down and be the difference between teetering on the stall and climbing in the meat of the drag curve.Allcott

Mate,I leaned by the book the whole way up. What I meant was that at FL200 the window between a rich cut and idle-cut off is extremely narrow, and so when attempting to hit peak egt, it's very easy to kill both engines, similarly when trying to go to (say) 50 deg rich of peak, the same result can occur.Jeff

Hi Allcott, Not sure who you were replying to. Both Jeff and I posted nearly identical results. Has nothing to do with leaning. I know exactly what to do there, and have about 2,800 hrs real-world flight time before losing out to medical. I have no time in type (real world) for a Baron. I assumed from the Service Ceiling of 20,000 that I could take her up to 14 or 15 with no problems. Found quite the contrary. As soon as I cleared the San Bernardino Mountains and tried to go past 11,000, I ran out of steam, no matter what I did. Had a difficult time keeping a reasonable climb rate, and even when leveling during a stair-step climb, I could not get reasonable forward speed. Jeff was correct in what he said. Past 12,000 or so, there is very little margin in the mixture. Much movement at all will cut. Past 15,000 it is difficult to get any needle movement at all. I have over 400 hrs in type in an A36 Bonanza and could get more performance there than I found in the FS9 Baron 58. That shocked me. I am going to ask around locally (KSNA John Wayne/Orange County) and see what is realistic for a Baron 58.Sincerely,Frank P

Well that's odd then, as I have plenty of scope left to make small mixture adjustments without lean cut. Even at 17,000, which is where I stopped last night, I could quite easily find either setting with keyboard or controller (using a CH Products Yoke). Maybe it's not the flight model, it's a keyboard setting or operator thing? How do you make those asjustments? With a single keypress held, or with a series of taps? FS9 has a much more responsive key curve, by which I mean the longer you hold a button pressed the faster it will move, or over a greater range. I treat it like vernier adjustment and use press-and-hold for sweeping changes and a series of taps for minute adjustment. Have you checked the assignments menu to see where the slider is?Anyway, it's a simple setting change to fix this, if you feel the need to operate so close to the service ceiling as you can either change the setting for rated horsepower in the aircraft.cfg file, or you can spend the virtual money and do what so many Baron owners have done, and fit a virtual turbocharger, again by adjusting the aircraft.cfgAllcott

I rarely go to 20,000 feet with the Baron, but 12500 or 13500 feet (don't forget oxygen) is a good altitude for longer flights. You get very high groundspeed and great fuel economy. Don't know why your GPS showed such a low speed. Maybe you were experiencing a headwind, windspeeds can be high at high altitudes. If you really want to go fast in a piston aircraft, try a turbocharged one, such as the default Mooney. I think there was a TC version of the Baron for FS2002, not sure if it's updated for FS2004.

Groundspeed would be dependent on the winds-I think you mean True Airspeed?Anyway-I am becoming a partner in a B-55 Baron next week and have been going through the manual. Here are some numbers from the manual that may give some idea:AT 12,000-14000 ft. at Max cruise power on a standard day (manifold 18.7-17.2,rpm 2450) you will get a True Airspeed of 181-178 knts, but a CAS of 151-141 kts. The fuel will be 11.1-10.4 gallons/hr. per engine.Add +20C to the standard day and it goes to TAS 182-178 but lower 146-139 CAS and 10.8-10.1 gallons per engine.For the most True airspeed 6000-8000 ft. is the best altitude giving 188-189 kts..14 gal/hr. fuel burn each engine.Go to a lower power setting-say 22" and 2200 rpm-now you will see a CAS of 140-127 and 9/gals per engine depending on standard/non standard day.The performance charts don't go past 16,000-even though the ceiling is higher....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

One tip is to enable automixture in the Aircraft Realism settings and let the sim automatically sets it to the optimal setting while testing the flight model. Variations in hardware may, in fact, make it difficult or impossible to lean by hand.

Hi Geof,What year B55 is it? Mine is a 1965.Just a few words of wisdom to consider if it's an older Baron.1. Be sure that the wing spare has the spar kit installed or that the 5 year/500hr AD has been complied with recently. It's a messy,messy job to complete. I know as I had to have it done last annual. :-(2. If it has hartzell props, they also have an AD that is due every 5yrs/500hrs. Both mine were due last annual also and it cost me over $8000 to have them done because the last prop shop did such a poor job for the preveous owner. :-(3. Also if it has 6 seats and you think your getting a 6 passenger airplane, take a look at the single engine performance.My airplane with 6 passengers @ 175lbs can only carry 76gal of fuel to put the gross takeoff weight at 5000lbs (max for older Barons unless a service bulleten on gear has been done) At a 2000ft density altitude the charts say a 280ft/min clinb at best on single engine, if everything is done correctly. The Baron is a good four place, medium range airplane that is nice to fly, but an older one can sure drain the bank account "but quick".Good luck,Ed Weber a.k.a tallpilot

Hi Ed!It is a 1974 B55-6 seat. The spar thing is ok-not sure about the props-I will look into it. The good thing is the other 2 partners I will be with are highly experienced (not as much as you though!) and have owned it a while, and I also have known personally for a while-that will help on the learning curve.I am basically looking for a 4 seat and luggage so it should work out ok. Any other advice appreciated!Best,Geofhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Geof,If you send me your e-mail address I'll give you some tips on single engine techniques for the [email protected]

Allcott, Thanks for being helpful. I am using a CH USB Pro yoke. The higher I go, the less adjustment I have. That's a natural phenom. I guess I don't understand your comment "I have plenty of scope left to make small mixture adjustments", but honestly, I don't need more information on this now. I am not desperate to fly higher than where the Baron gives reasonable performance. I started this thread ONLY to inquire about realism, and followed with my surprise that a Baron doesn't have any more performance than that for a twin. The FS9 Baron (NA) appears to be very close. Taildragger provided some valuable real-life benchmarks in another message in the thread. Am even more surprised to find that with altitude and speed performance not that much above a Bonanza, that the load capacity is not that much greater either. I may have read more into his insight than I should have, because he refers in his message to realistic load capacity relative to one-engine performance (one out).Frank