Flight Sim’s Obsession with POH Numbers

[ahsmatt7 1,213]

6 hours ago, leprechaunlive said:

Feel better now? 😄

I didn’t know I was supposed to feel anything at all...

[G550flyer 1,052]

32 minutes ago, Manny said:

"Part of the issue here is PC sim pilots get obsessed with instruments and numbers. "

LOL

If she is flying IFR she should look at the Instrument and would have to believe in the numbers

Performance = Attitude + Power 

If not, she could believe her aircraft could perform like a an Airbus A320. or a 747 or an F16 and be dead like many idjiat who relied on their gut feeling, their seat of the pants f;uing, their intuition. .. like 

Boston political family scion who plunged into a  lake with two other innocent women. His arrogance killed two innocent people who trusted him while he trusted his gut feelings?

Even in my arena you look over instruments often on a clear day. Even with autopilot and autothrottles on, you are always concerned that the aircraft will do what you are telling it to do and what you are expecting it to do. You never want to get off speed or off course in an IFR environment. I have watched peeps do paperwork and throw caution to the wind during the climb. That's when I make a stern comments about who is flying or am I expected to be flying. I have watched people climbing in vert speed get slow in the climb above mach change over and it take a while to catch up. I have seen them allow the jet to act erratic while in FLCH mode going through temperature inversions. All because they are distracted doing other things and not paying attention. I hack a clock and see how far it would go without me intervening. I save paperwork and all that jazz until level off. If it's that important, I hand over the jet. Even after passing the jet to the other person to go heads down, I still glance at instruments and FMS from time to time to make sure things jive.     

[leprechaunlive 1,861]

19 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I didn’t know I was supposed to feel anything at all...

My point exactly.. Thanks. 

[mtr75 653]

5 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I think POH are the least of our concerns with the current MSFS "flight physics" ... the lack of inertia simulation and wind resistance and the bizarre behavior at higher winds makes me feel like an A320 is an Ultralite ... exposes the "flight physics" for what they are ... not very computationally expensive so as to allow for better visuals.

I hope Asobo address this or at least give us a flight model above what they currently offer, I'll gladly give up "visuals" for a much more realistic flight physics ... but I suspect the "game" aspect will govern the day.

Cheers, Rob.

That’s called P3D. I believe it’s already out. 

[langly 129]

We can throw out the POH when you can admit this is nothing more than a video game.

[mtr75 653]

3 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

Because the simulator is representing all aircraft, not some specific aircraft, the POH is the publicly available record of the performance of that aircraft

But it’s not, which you don’t seem to understand. It’s a document describing the absolute perfect performance of that aircraft in a brand-new, flawless state, with a professional test pilot at the helm. You say you want the simulator to be accurate. An airplane that doesn’t hit book numbers is absolutely, 100% accurate. And I will say it again: ask any pilot, ask any CFI. The POH numbers are an ideal. You cannot and will not hit them. That’s the reality. 

[Los 416]

3 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

An airplane that doesn’t hit book numbers is absolutely, 100% accurate. And I will say it again: ask any pilot, ask any CFI. The POH numbers are an ideal. You cannot and will not hit them. That’s the reality. 

That, as I mentioned earlier, appears to be the consensus for light GA airplanes based on the response from most with real life experience in this thread thus far...

[mtr75 653]

4 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

There is no excuse for the aircraft in the sim that don't have the right cruise speed, or range, on a Clear Skies day. 

Unless the guy flying it isn’t capable of achieving max or expected performance. 

[mtr75 653]

51 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

And I have an ATP and I still love the sim

Settle an argument: do you get POH performance numbers in real life or not? 

[sd_flyer 6,119]

Frankly I don't know how real airbus suppose to fly. I read people complain about it a lot. I do believe there is room for improvement, but I can fly it just fine. I always fly approaches by hand. I run some number and power settings. This loic apply to sim and to real life. If anyone type rated in A320 I'd like to hear your opinion. I can't say I don't enjoy sim or flying bus. I'm like a borg can adapt to anything 🙂

[Los 416]

7 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Settle an argument: do you get POH performance numbers in real life or not? 

Case in point is all the aircraft specific checklists found throughout the web for flying club aircraft with very specific recommendations for speeds, settings, etc. on a particular airframe owned by the club, no?

Edited November 12, 2020 by Cmcollazo71

[sd_flyer 6,119]

Guys! Enough beating a dead horse. Yes POH numbers are real and yes you have to interpolate them with the reasonable margin of safety.

I'm going through complete engine overhaul IRL in my 172 right now. Cylinder compressions are low plus there is huge oil leak via screw in casing. You should understand it still flies per POH but there is some degraded engine performance that experienced pilot can tell right of way. It's time to overhaul because as longer I wait as more problem and damage engine will sustain.

Again POH is still in effect, as well as reasonable deviations given tear and wear ! The truth is in the middle. Just accept it as is.   

[ahsmatt7 1,213]

25 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Settle an argument: do you get POH performance numbers in real life or not? 

In my time flying I got close numbers but not perfect. Back in my GA days. If I didn’t put in a Fudge factor.....I found myself in trouble at times. It’s a ball park.

In sim land, I personally don’t expect perfect numbers. If there are planes that provide those than fantastic! However, I expect a margin of 10 to 15%. This is only for me though, I don’t use the sim anymore to mimic flying and pretending I was living a child hood dream before said dream was actualized. Now a days, I just want something that seems plausible. It’s actually a huge reason I haven’t touched the airliners in the new sim yet.

Edited November 12, 2020 by ahsmatt7

[2reds2whites 827]

The POH is the starting point, it's as simple as that. 

The fact that some aircraft over time vary from the written data doesn't mean that completely ignoring it (as it seems in this sim) is anything other than completely stupid. We're not talking about performance to the inch, but a reasonable representation based on the figures, which MSFS fails to do.

I keep seeing this comment that 'if the aircraft isn't 100% accurate it's more accurate." Well not if the aircraft isn't even vaguely similiar to the original aircraft. Performance doesn't just arbitrarily wander all over the place in varying directions. The wings don't shrink and your prop doesn't spin any slower at 2400rpm.

Have 'realistic' performance all you like, but at least START in the ballpark.

Edited November 12, 2020 by 2reds2whites

[Los 416]

13 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Again POH is still in effect, as well as reasonable deviations given tear and wear ! The truth is in the middle. Just accept it as is.  

Very well summarized! Again, as purely a simmer with 0 time irl, I ask to learn from those that know.

My conclusion is as you’ve noted and as per my initial premise - colloquially speaking “ballpark” or as you put it “reasonable  deviations” are   true to life and therefore more than reasonable in the sim.

So, we (I) need not obsess on absolute accuracy in either...