Quite clearly a 24kts underread below Vs0*1.3 is totally bonkers. What were they thinking?

Hello FSAviator and everyone.Thank you, again, for taking the time to respond, and as usual good, and encouraging, information.For the original poster, I apologize for, basically, hijacking the tread, but hopefully some of the Numbers we are discussing may be useful information for you also.Note: All the mods in this post are intended to accomplish / satisfy one single requirement, Slow flight. Other undesirable changes to other portions of the flight model are ignored.Stall horn sound aside, we agree that other than using an external .wav file we cannot fix it, by including the line in the 172SP

Hi Manny,Thanks for the data. Is it too much to ask you to write down the data for the other aircrafts (like: Attitude MP Gear RPM KTS VSI)??BRLarsPS: What is this "On Top IFR Proicieny sim" program of yours. Something to recommend?

>Hi Manny,>>Thanks for the data. Is it too much to ask you to write down>the data for the other aircrafts (like: Attitude MP Gear RPM>KTS VSI)??>>BR>Lars>>PS: What is this "On Top IFR Proicieny sim" program of yours.>Something to recommend?"On Top" is ASA's IFR Proficiency sim for people to maintain their profeciancy once they get their IFR Rating. I don't use it much... But I do use their IP Trainer program (this is a IFR Tutorial using the Cessna 172). I love it. The IP Trainer is around $100 or so and if you get them both, you can get them for around $250 or less.Its a shame that ASA (the company) uses properatry hardware for their avionics even thoug CH Yoke/Pedal works. I can't afford to buy a radio stack just for ASA that will not work for MSFS. And to really use their software, I feel you need a Radio stack. using mouse doesn't cut it for their IP Trainer. It's very difficult to pass their tests. By the time, I search for the mouse and place the cursor in the right spot to click to change a freq, it has dinged me for being slow.I will try to get those number posted here some time. It would be great if we have some Graphic artist (or someone who can cut paste the Attitude Indicator JPGs) who could work with us to do some of the Graphics (for the Attitude and VSI) so we could prepare a nice PDF document for simmers and we can get these numbers for aircrafts (other than the ones we already have) and prepare our own cheat sheet and put it here in the Download section.IT would be useful for all version of Fsim...FSX and beyond.for the aircrafts that we don't have,,,, we can ask the many folks here who fly different aircrafts for real to get us these numbers.BTW.. IMO, These figures are pretty standard for a specific type and do not change from planes to planes. The only thing that changes is the attitude indicator position if the Wt changes. Even that is a non issue...cause... When you start and are on cruise... at level flight.. you just adjust that little airplane on the AI to be level and you are all set after that.... FLY BY THE NUMBERSMannyPS: LArs, which aircraft do you want first from that list?

Hi Manny,Beech BE58 Baron would be great. The one from Dreamfleet is me favorite aircraft right now. Thanks a lot for your help.BRLars

>Hi Manny,>>Beech BE58 Baron would be great. The one from Dreamfleet is me>favorite aircraft right now. Thanks a lot for your help.>>BR>LarsThe GAITS of flight for the Beech Baron 58 Attitude MP Gear RPM KTS VSICruise Level 23" UP 2400 170 0Cruise desc -1 deg 17" UP 2400 160 -500 Cruise climb +2 deg 23" UP 2400 150 +500 Approach Level +2 deg 15" UP 2400 130 0Presc Desc Level 17" DOWN 2400 120 -500Non Prec Desc -2 deg 15" Down 2400 120 -1000We need to change the degree to bar width for attitude. That is so much better.Hope this helps.MannyPS: I adjusted the columns in my post (in edit), but it moves the spaces around.... Can't help it.

Thanks a lot Manny. I really do appreciate your help!!-Lars

Hi Lars and everyone.I see that this thread is heading in a direction where there could be confusion, and definitely demonstrates some problems in the Flight modeling. When I recommended to Lars to get the numbers in the aircraft that he is actually using, in the sim, was because there are many differences, specially in the Slow flight regime, where Real numbers do not work. To be able to just keep flying, the C172SP at the bottom of the White arc, you can try to make these changes to your

I will try to bring this thread to a successful full stop landing. There were a few things missing, but on the other hand it could go on forever on a case by case, FS variable by FS variable, and aircraft by aircraft basis and I will try to explain again why that would be pointless.Some readers may find it extraordinary that real aircraft have very inaccurate instruments that may misread by a large percentage. In the real world real pilots fly real aeroplanes with large ASI errors all the time. That is one of the reasons that real aeroplanes have to be flown 'by the numbers'.The numbers in question are the numbers in the real operations manual. Some are not 'correct' in any sense at all. They are the incorrect numbers that the real pilot must use because the gauges misread.Those numbers are 'indicated'. They relate only to what the misreading gauge indicates and nothing that is correct let alone true. The real pilot has to remember that 'the numbers' are incorrect and use them anyway.One of the reasons that aviation is moving to cockpit environments with digital glass cockpits is so that a computer can correct the analogue data before displaying the corrected data in digital form so that the indicated data is also the corrected data.Single engine Cessnas do not have computers driving digital air speed indicators. They have very inaccurate analogue air speed indicators just like most aircraft ever built.The Boys Big Book of Wonder Planes is not published for the benefit of pilots. It is published for the benefit of aircraft enthusiasts. Book publishers know that their prospective readers want to compare the real performance envelopes of aircraft A and aircraft B. They know that their prospective readers are not in the least interested in what gauge errors those aircraft have. They obtain or calculate the corrected data and ignore the indicated data that the real pilot must use in the real aircraft. Then they tell their readers absolutely truthfully that a particular series of fully loaded C172 will stall at 40 knots (at 1G) even though it won't stall until the inaccurate analogue ASI reads very much less in the real aircraft. It really stalls at 40 knots and the impact damage or the braking to a stop distance are commensurate, but the ASI misreads very badly and the real pilot must fly the real aircraft 'by the numbers' *indicted* on the very inaccurate real gauge. Most software developers take their data from The Boys Big Book of Wonder Planes and consequently produce air files that contain only corrected data. If they do not have access to the real operations manual they have no choice.Consequently FS9 users who purchase real operations manuals for use with such flight dynamics are wasting their money and time. Nobody linked the data in the real manual used by real pilots to the flight dynamics that consumers will be using in FS9.It is not just a question of altering the two variables I have discussed with Avcomaware in this thread. They serve only as an example. They solve just one problem as I shall explain at the bottom of this post.Real pilots reading this thread must try to grasp that most consumers of FS9, in common with all the consumers of the Boys Big Book of Wonder Planes have no interest whatsoever in the replication of real gauge errors. If the numbers they see on the gauges in FS9 do not match the numbers in the Boys Big Book of Wonder Planes they complain that the FD author was clueless. If on the other hand they do match the corrected numbers in the Boys Big Book of Wonder Planes real pilots complain that the FD author was clueless.Every product has a target consumer even if the developer decides to give it away as freeware. The cost of making the product is the same regardless of the retail price.Avcomaware has highlighted the importance of low speed flying training and I have highlighted the difference between corrected airspeeds and indicated air speeds.Most of the default aircraft in FS9, and most of the aircraft available for purchase and download, are aimed at the consumer demographic who expect what they see on the screen to match corrected data in books aimed at 'aviation enthusiasts' not the data that real pilots see and use when 'flying by the numbers'. The target consumer for FS9 (and add ons) is given what they demand which is corrected data, not indicated data. Even though a handful of developers do obtain the operations manual they will still make case by case decisions whether the released product will display corrected or indicated data within FS9.The real pilots who post here need to come to terms with how hard 98% of FS9 consumers find it to grasp even the fact that velocity is not the same thing as air speed and that neither is the same thing as ground speed. Introducing real world ASI errors as well is just too much for them. Nor do they want to grapple with issues such as indicated torque versus real torque or any other such issues.This thread has helped to demonstrate how little FS9 consumers understand the issues. The above should explain why every rule of thumb proposed by a consumer to resolve any of these issues is bound to fail.Take for instance; Vy = Vs0 * 1.6The obvious question is which Vs0. For a C172 is that the corrected value 40 seen in books or the indicated value (40 minus 18 according to Avcomaware) seen in the real aeroplane?The gauge error is different in every aircraft and anywhere between minus many % and plus several %. It should be obvious that no formula can apply to more than one particular ASI in one particular aircraft. That is why I explained the real situation. The only way to 'fly by the V numbers' for a given aircraft is to extract the IAS v CAS error origin and slope on a case by case basis from the real operating manual and encode it within each aircraft.cfg case by case as Avcomaware has now done for 'his' particular C172 variant. There is no formula anyone can supply to predict a gauge misreading error in a real aircraft, whether it is positive or negative, where its origin is, or what its slope is. That is precisely why aircraft have manuals and why pilots have to fly different aircraft by the false and unpredictable numbers in those different manuals.It is time for another reality check. Sure, real (modern only) aircraft have coloured arcs on the ASI that indicate some V speeds, but everyone who uses FS9 needs to understand that the ASI in most panels they can obtain was just misappropriated and renamed from a very different aircraft. It has arcs, but not for the aircraft you are simulating, unless you are very lucky.To many FS9 developers an ASI bitmap is an ornament. If the developer never had access to the real aircraft or its documentation the gauge author cannot recreate the arcs on the real ASI. My original post applies. There are only a few dozen ASIs available that are realistic for the panel in question and for the same reason.The gap between V speeds is a function of aspect ratio which is why all aircraft do not have the same aspect ratio. Many V speeds vary with weight during flight and others vary with altitude. Vmax, Vmin, Vx and Vy may be very different at sea level, but at some higher altitude they are always equal.Consequently any formula that does not make reference to weight and altitude can neither calculate the gaps nor the values.Consumers with no aircrew experience should seek out handling notes that don't even mention V speeds but instead explain the next target and the lever to be moved to achieve it, in sequence, from throttle up to fast turn off, and step by step. Target by target. Lever by lever. 95% of FS9 consumers struggle to follow and implement handling notes even when they provide that much help.V speeds may tell consumers when the flaps will rip off. They don't tell consumers when they should extend them or retract them. V speeds are not the point and the original poster understood that. V speeds won't tell anyone how to mix and match MAP and rpm to maximise range, or velocity, or endurance, or profit, or economy, nor what altitude or power setting the consumer needs to achieve right now in the present headwind to reach destination and avoid fuel exhaustion. Each case requires very different 4D planning of speed, velocity, altitude, MAP and rpm and different skills of execution. Cruising speed is not an aircraft constant. It must vary greatly with mission, weight and weather. The handling notes are what tell a consumer how to vary cruise power and how to achieve the correct cruising speed for the current environmental circumstance and mission goal. In many aircraft the V speeds are irrelevant for 99% of every flight, but operation in accordance with the handling notes is not. Handling notes relate to role and strategy. There can be no rule of thumb. No short cut. The need is to study the underlying theory and develop the skills to implement the 4D strategy the consumer has devised using the handling notes step by step to achieve their goal for the flight as the ever changing weather seeks to defeat their master plan.To those without aircrew experience who hope to make best use of what FS9 has to offer by way of functional realism I offer the following advice.Those who are able to spend a thousand dollars or euros on real flying lessons in a real aeroplane and obtain one to one instruction from a real flying instructor for maybe ten to twelve hours will reach a level of understanding and proficiency that will take others at least 300 hours to achieve via self tuition in FS9. Even with the best free tutorials and handling notes available.Consumers can avoid spending that money, but they are going to need a lot of hand holding and help as they climb the learning curve, most of which will have to come from other consumers who are climbing the same curve and are a few months or years ahead. Those who attempt this need to find a corner of this community where they will get all the hand holding and help they will need over those more than three hundred hours of study and practice. They need to be learning in an aircraft others have used and whose specifics they can help you with.Consumers won't get the hand holding they will need from a payware developer. It is not their job of car dealers to teach anyone how to drive a car that they bought before they learned how to drive. The best payware producers will supply consumers with both realistic FD and matching handling notes but then they will be on their own.FS9 has an awful lot to offer but there are no rules of thumb and no short cuts. Every aircraft is different. That is in fact a huge part of the fun and the reward.Finally re Avcomaware's modifications.I repeat that there is nothing wrong with the low speed handling in FS9. Consumers have no way of testing which software modules contain the errors they perceive and have even less idea that entire modules such as the CAS to IAS correction module may be absent. If a consumer procures flight dynamics aimed at the median consumer that has nothing whatsoever to do with the flight models inside FS9 and the consumer learns nothing about the capability of FS9.The ASI correction variable which Avcomaware has now encoded varies the driver code for the ASI to deliver IAS instead of CAS at any AoA. However, as far as the relevant flight model inside FS9 is concerned, the stall speeds in the reference section of the aircraft.cfg are just REM statements in a text file. Altering them is the equivalent of making a manuscript amendment to the values in the POH and expecting the aircraft to stall at a different CAS.Stalling speeds are a function of Co-efficient of Lift = CL. FS9 is not a video game. To control either induced drag, to explore sink rates, at various power settings, prior to stall, or to control stalling speeds with variable flap extension you must encode the real lift slope.CL for the wing v AoA (the lift slope) is encoded in REC 404 of the air file with the mean incidence offset (evaluated in radians) described in my earlier post. CL augmentation due to max flap is encoded in REC 1101 and the real max value of CL augmentation must be encoded directly. The help files of air file editors will explain further but ignore any references to REC 320 or flap data needing to also be coded in radians. That has not been true since FS7.After studying REC 404 and many other records of an air file written by an author who *intended* to deliver realistic low speed flight you should be able to see that the low speed handling can be very complex and realistic if the author wishes.To really achieve what you hoped to achieve with your manuscript amendment you must provide more data points on the lift slope between Vx and Vs. Study the default C172 REC 404 and note that Microsoft used only the first 13 fields of the record because the accuracy that delivers is more than enough for their target consumer. This is all about target consumers and specifications handed down by project managers, and little to do with what is possible given a different target consumer. You are not by any means Microsoft

thanks for the heads up. william

Hi,I include myself in FSAviators comment below>>>>This thread has helped to demonstrate how little FS9 consumers understand the issues. The above should explain why every rule of thumb proposed by a consumer to resolve any of these issues is bound to fail.<<<

>>In the real world real pilots fly real aeroplanes with large ASI errors >>all the time.I don't think the situation is that bad. The largest difference between EAS/IAS in any of the GA clockwork guage types that I have flown is 5kts and not in the landing configuration. Where the confusion may be is that it is true that the MAUW stall speed of many aircraft is lower than the book value, but not by much and that has nothing to do with the ASI. Clearly, and imperfections in the system must compromise safety to a minimal extent. In addition, book speeds are generally quoted for max all up weights. Most of the time aircraft are flown seldom with the fullpayload utilised.For example, a reduction of 530 lbs in payload (basically 1 passenger and tanks to tabs in a typical light GA single engine type can reduce the stall by nearly 10kts! Therefore it is concievable that the stall speed can be say 10-12kts below the book number and error is not with the ASI. There is no chance whatsoever that a servicable aircraft has a 18/24kts error in the ASI.The reason why real aircraft are flown to numbers, is because it is easy. Take the Seneca. I know that 30" and 2200rpm = about 140kts (give or take a knot). If it is anything else, there is a problem somwhere. I know that 17", 2400rpm, 25deg flaps, cowl flaps open and gear down will nail 100kts. I know that 35", 2400rpm, gear up with about 8deg up pitch on the ASI will result in 120kt cruise climb. Nothing to do with errors in the system. Flying by numbers is not only the best way to teach somebody how to control and aeroplane, but is also a commercially oriented approach to flying. >>FS9 has an awful lot to offer but there are no rules of thumb and no >>short cuts. Every aircraft is different. That is in fact a huge part >>of the fun and the reward.Simming or real life? The latter of course there are no shortcuts. However, you'd be suprised how similar light GA singles and twins are. There are exceptions like the new compostie, high aspect ratio, wingleted types now appearing.Don't misunderstand me with regard to the Vs0*1.6 business, I don't think you should suggest it to your examiner! It is simply a way for a simmer to obtain a reasonable set of numbers for an aircraft that you may not otherwise have. The chances are they'll not match the real book numbers, but they won't be too far out in the majority of cases.

PVAviator - you probably have an interesting discussing here. But your theoretical interpretations of the in and outs of avionics/simulation errors are making me dizzy. ;-)My purpose with this thread was just to get som humble numbers for flying the FS9 add on aircrafts, whatever theoretical failures they might have or not have. So everybody are wellcome to continue my thread with humble numbers.Best Regards-Lars

Hello FSAviator and everyone.Thank you for another informative post. While you are right about some of the errors in the Analog gauges, the accuracy / tolerance in the real life, has to be within the prescribed the guidelines accepted. I will not try to post what they are here, it is sufficient to state that if you are not within the specified windows you will very likely have to do a repair. In many cases, under IFR control if you are not within the required guide lines, you are mandated to report it, or you will likely hear from the ATC.I think that what I, some other real pilots, are trying to point out are some of Large differences that exist. Take the case of Flaps / No flaps Stall, and the AI indications. I would never expect MSFS to try and replicate, exactly, complete flight characteristics of a real aircraft, but some of the glaring differences, as mentioned above, and a 20 degrees pitch observed / needed during Take off, should be closer to reality.While the