15 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

We're not talking about performance to the inch, but a reasonable representation based on the figures, which MSFS fails to do.

But is it as bad as all that?

The Bonanza, which I have flown the most both modded and default, doesn’t hit the speed as per the POH due to being underpowered and having too much drag, which when addressed by the mod are corrected almost to book.

So it’s not an “unreasonable representation” un-modded and in the ballpark, no?

Edited November 12, 20205 yr by Cmcollazo71

Of course the other issue is the difference between an AFM, a POH and various manufacturers handbooks .

An AFM is an aviation authority approved document, often specific to a specific airframe labelled with the serial number, which must stay in the aircraft at all times and is amended anytime the aircraft undergoes approved modification. This is the document organisations like the FAA use when investigating incidents for example. Not all aircraft are required to have an AFM but if they are, it must stay with the aircraft at all times.

The POH will sometimes also be the AFM, though often the combined POH/AFM has extra information in addition to what is required by law for an AFM.  If the POH counts as an AFM the same rules about keeping it with the aircraft apply. However sometimes the term POH refers to a much more general/generic document covering entire models or types and the information may not necessarily be correct for your specific airframe.

Manufacturers Handbooks are just that,  a handy reference-guide /marketing-blurb that you are free to take with you and refer to at anytime. They are not legally required to stay with the aircraft but nor is the data in them necessarily verified by anyone qualified.  Claiming that you were following the recommendations of the Manufacturers Handbook is unlikely to be looked upon favourably by a court investigating a serious incident as a qualified pilot should know better. (my limited experience of the court system is such a claim would likely mitigate any fine or penalties, but would not necessarily influence any judicial decisions about responsibility or culpability)

Edited November 12, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

11 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

People need to stop giving Asobo a pass on this stuff and making excuses for them.  All you have to offer is some throwaway line that covers for Asobo's poor testing, when everything I stated is factually correct.  We can control the sim boundary conditions better than real life, and therefore will be able to repeatably test aircraft in ISA standard conditions in ways that you can't in real life.

Getting the cruise speeds and fuel flows at a given altitude correct so as to produce the correct overall range for the aircraft doesn't require "Chuck Yeager".  It's actually a highly repeatable measurement to make in the sim.  If there is nothing else about an aircraft that is correct, this should be correct because it's 100% repeatable. 

It's not correct for many of the aircraft, and Asobo uses the aircraft vendor range data to generate the range circles in the world map....so you get repeated posts of people planning flights and then running out of fuel.

I'm so tired of this BS people saying we are "obsessed with the POH" when all we want is aircraft that perform reasonably like the real world counterpart in standard conditions. 

 

You obviously completely missed the point of the article linked in the first post and the youtube video linked further down the page. 

21 hours ago, SUNDR1V3R said:

I guess 90% of the new simmers don’t even know what a POH means..

I'm not a new simmer, but I still had to look it up, 'Pilot's Operating Handbook', right?

So many acronyms, it's no wonder some people get a bit confused or put off when they are confronted by a bunch of seemingly random letters.

14 minutes ago, 109Sqn said:

I'm not a new simmer, but I still had to look it up, 'Pilot's Operating Handbook', right?

So many acronyms, it's no wonder some people get a bit confused or put off when they are confronted by a bunch of seemingly random letters.

I think you are correct. Otherwise its the Pursuit of Happiness

Edited November 12, 20205 yr by icewater5

There's a lot of stuff I find weird in this thread. Wanting a more realistic representation of the aircraft in the sim is not the same as insisting that because the file c172_poh_1983_amdt16_stc3_final_final_thisone.pdf says the dirty stall speed is 44.213kts, the sim aircraft is wrong. That would be silly.

What people here want is for the simulated aircraft to be near enough to published data to be convincing. If the sim aircraft stalls at 45kts instead of 44.213, so what?

I think most simmers assume they're flying a representation of a brand new aircraft in stock factory fresh condition unless the addon says 'this is a specific aeroplane'. Hence why folk are a bit miffed that what's depicted in MSFS isn't convincingly close enough, in some cases, to the numbers.

5 hours ago, 109Sqn said:

I'm not a new simmer, but I still had to look it up, 'Pilot's Operating Handbook', right?

So many acronyms, it's no wonder some people get a bit confused or put off when they are confronted by a bunch of seemingly random letters.

Yes, definitely too many TLAs

On 11/11/2020 at 10:57 AM, SUNDR1V3R said:

I guess 90% of the new simmers don’t even know what a POH means.. They just want to fly the 787 thru Eiffel Tower or stuff like that..

I mean, that's what we all want to do, isn't it? Who wouldn't want to do that?

Edited November 12, 20205 yr by Concodroid

2 minutes ago, Concodroid said:

I mean, that's what we all want to do, isn't it? Who wouldn't want to do that?

nah ...

upside down through the Eiffel Tower ... now we are talking

We all gonna pretend that we didn't do all that juvenile Eiffel tower/bridge/skyscraper stuff when we first started?  I'm not.

18 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

 

The POH will sometimes also be the AFM, though often the combined POH/AFM has extra information in addition to what is required by law for an AFM.  If the POH counts as an AFM the same rules about keeping it with the aircraft apply. However sometimes the term POH refers to a much more general/generic document covering entire models or types and the information may not necessarily be correct for your specific airframe.

 

Both AFM and POH contains FAA approved. It's kind of mix bag of terminology.  Before march 1979 airplane less than 6000 lbs didn't require to have AFM. So manufacturer would put stuff they saw fit. AFM enforced for GA as more standardized way presenting info like limitation follow by emergency checklist and procedures first  and etc

Quoting directly from FAA:

"The POH is a document developed by the aircraft manufacturer and contains FAA-approved AFM information. If “POH” is used in the main title, a statement must be included on the title page indicating that sections of the document are FAA approved as the AFM." 

My 182F POH was a small thin book yet still has serial number and was approved by FAA 🙂

Older 172N POH example

https://www.cfinotebook.net/documents/publications/C-172NPOH.pdf

Here is 172S still called POH but title actually contains INFORMATIONAL FLIGHT MANUAL

http://aeroatlanta.com/docs/aero-atlanta-c172sp-poh.pdf

So PH/AFM basically potato-potato

18 minutes ago, ShawnG said:

We all gonna pretend that we didn't do all that juvenile Eiffel tower/bridge/skyscraper stuff when we first started?  I'm not.

Pretend?? when we first started? I've been at it off and on since at least 2004 and I still do that stuff. Flight rules, in a flight simulation game? pfft