I saw that, but I haven't gotten around to installing that one again. I just happened to get back into looking at XP9 as I do every now and then. I tried a few tests and was pleasantly surprised.

 

I like the behaviour and stability of it

Don't like the climb she just shoots up. Tried keeping her at 700 fpm but no. Else the bird is flying well.

I used to think that too, and then I started running tests at different temps and pressures and noting my weight. The performance with half fuel and one passenger can easily exceed 1000 fpm. I found it will settle closer to 1100fpm at Vy on a standard day.

 

At max gross climb rate will be far lower at Vy and closer to 700fpm at sea level on standard day.

I used to think that too, and then I started running tests at different temps and pressures and noting my weight. The performance with half fuel and one passenger can easily exceed 1000 fpm. I found it will settle closer to 1100fpm at Vy on a standard day.

 

At max gross climb rate will be far lower at Vy and closer to 700fpm at sea level on standard day.

 

hmm then why does google state as 721 fpm. That would be the best angle of climb which would be around 75-80 kts.

At max gross weight. I actually maintained a climb at 1000fpm briefly do as to not overheat the engine on a day with near standard conditions at 3000 feet MSL weighing about 2100lbs with full flaps deployed on a 172N with a 180hp STC.

 

Quite a bit higher than the published figure at max gross weight.

 

During my training I got the impression that was the best rate because the plane was always full fuel and with 2 passengers. The performance drops off quickly.

 

Try loading her up to max and see how it feels then.

At max gross weight. I actually maintained a climb at 1000fpm briefly do as to not overheat the engine on a day with near standard conditions at 3000 feet MSL weighing about 2100lbs with full flaps deployed on a 172N with a 180hp STC.

 

Quite a bit higher than the published figure at max gross weight.

 

During my training I got the impression that was the best rate because the plane was always full fuel and with 2 passengers. The performance drops off quickly.

 

Try loading her up to max and see how it feels then.

 

I have just started learning her, at least I started the engines .

 

Yeah I shall try to load her up. Hmm but in XPX i don't know how but I will check.

Not in front of my PC right now, but it is in the menu called Aircraft I believe.

 

If it looks like XP9, you just need to move the sliders to adjust weight.

 

Good luck in your training!

Not in front of my PC right now, but it is in the menu called Aircraft I believe.

 

If it looks like XP9, you just need to move the sliders to adjust weight.

 

Good luck in your training!

 

Thnx. I will check it today once i am home from work.

I used to think that too, and then I started running tests at different temps and pressures and noting my weight. The performance with half fuel and one passenger can easily exceed 1000 fpm. I found it will settle closer to 1100fpm at Vy on a standard day.

 

At max gross climb rate will be far lower at Vy and closer to 700fpm at sea level on standard day.

 

@80 kts with the spinner just over the horizon had a FPM of 1100, and what that was my first climb over FL20 to FL40 clap clap. I have never gone above 2500 AGL in XPX.

FL20 is 20,000 feet, you mean to say 020, as the leading zero is significant here. Generally speaking it is a little odd to refer to Flight Levels when speaking about a 172

FL20 is 20,000 feet, you mean to say 020, as the leading zero is significant here. Generally speaking it is a little odd to refer to Flight Levels when speaking about a 172

 

Haha ya I meant 020.

 

Odd why ? just because she has a ceiling height of a couple of miles ?

Hmm something that i don't like in X plane. even the small aircrafts look bigger than a house.

FL020 is seldom used. In the USA you start talking FL only past FL180, and in Europe most transition altitudes start not bellow 3000', so, bellow that the "FL" prefix is not used because you will be flying with your altimeter set to the local QNH, and FL uses a standard / fixed set = QNE = 1013,2 Mb

FL020 is seldom used. In the USA you start talking FL only past FL180, and in Europe most transition altitudes start not bellow 3000', so, bellow that the "FL" prefix is not used because you will be flying with your altimeter set to the local QNH, and FL uses a standard / fixed set = QNE = 1013,2 Mb

 

Why are you typing in Latin ?

 

BTW Amsterdam / Rotterdam areas do not allow VFR flights above 1500, TMA for Schiphol is 1000 till Victor departure. I fly there a lot.

Ah, so there FL020 makes sense!

 

Sorry :-/

 

Latin?