Hi all,I'm not a newbie to FS, but I am a newbie to AVSIM.Is it just me, or are aircraft ranges *seriously* gimped in FSX?I tried flying a 650 nm run in the Baron, and ran out of gas??The Baron can go for near on 1,600 nm, both in real life and in FS9(2004)...but it can't go 700 nm in FSX?The Lear and the 738 also seem gimped, range-wise, insofar as my casual flying has shown.What the heck is up with this? Is there some setting I'm missing?I'm very happy with FSX, for the most part, but this range thing is *really* bugging me!Thanks all for any advice or help! :)

Not sure where a Baron can go 1,600nm on a tank?!I fly a B55 Baron-not the same as a B58 but maybe in the same ballpark.The B55 holds 136 usable gallons-and this is optional-the standard Baron has only 100 gallons usable. By the book at a typical cruise/altitude/day I should burn about 26-30 gallons (my old engines did 26-the new ones we just put on are closer to 30).30 gallons/hr. divided by 136 gives 4.53 hours before you run bone dry out (if they were filled exactly to the brim by the line boy-and you didn't spend too much ground/taxi time). At 185 knts. true gives at most 900 miles till you are empty.If you had the standard B55 you are only talking 3.33 hours and a range of 616 nm miles!I always plan my cross countries for 3 hours-or about 555nm. That way if head winds and then other unforecast things happen like going to an alternate airport there is a comfortable ifr reserve/fuel margin-and everyone usually wants a stop after 3 hours anyway. If you ran out of gas at 650nm. perhaps there could be a bug-or maybe you didn't start out full, or perhaps did not have proper power/pitch/leaning settings?Edit: I just checked and the Fs Baron shows 142 gallons of which probably 3-4 are not usable-say 139. The cruise of the B58 I think is about 200 but the fuel consumption is more as the engines are higher horsepower than the B55. I would expect it would be in the ballpark of above.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Just a minute, here, chief. The Baron specs at going 1,596 miles on the full tanks.Am I supposed to believe that now it's been reduced to one third of its former range?Check the FSX details and the Raytheon site...they both say range is around 1,600 miles.I will post some details from FS2K4 and FSX, and not just from the Baron.

Hi Slammr; Welcome to AVSIM. I wouldn't want to say that you're off to a bad start..........but.... since Geof actually OWNS and FLYS a REALBaron you might want to think about cutting him some slack...EH? On the other hand maybe he's just overly careful.

The Raytheon site is for a G58. Suggest you look for a B58 which is what Fs models.http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20perf...nce/Beech/8.htmDivide the 136 Gallons listed (FS says 142 but a few gallons are not usable) by 26-30 gallons an hour and then a cruise speed of 190-195-which is what you will really be doing for "range" at typical power settings. Specs by the manufacturer are usually very optomistic which is why math usually works better. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Good point, Geof. :) When I bought my F-150, the sticker was wildly optimistic in the EPA miles-per-gallon estimates. Said I'd get 20 mpg on the highway, and I've yet to break 17, even with some aftermarket mods.It just seems to me that some of the aircraft don't fly as far as they "used" to in 2K4 or 2002. Then again, I may just be a jackass. :)By the way, Geof, I'm jealous: Ownership of a Baron has been a long-standing dream of mine. Clear skies to ya, man. :)Denny, thanks for the welcome. I tend to type whatever stream-of-consciousness (or lack of consciousness) that happens in my brain. It's almost as if I'm not in control of my fingers! ;)

Make sure to run at around 55% power, fly at an optimum altitude (probably around 8000) and lean the engines properly for max range. The website I looked at has 1109 miles for range on a B58 which is probably 6 to 7 hours at low power settings.

>Make sure to run at around 55% power, fly at an optimum>altitude (probably around 8000) and lean the engines properly>for max range. The website I looked at has 1109 miles for>range on a B58 which is probably 6 to 7 hours at low power>settings. Yes, stated range may well be economy range. Further, leaning past max power can increase range by 20%; stated in PoH for AC such as the PA-28. Best Range depends mainly on IAS, not Altitude. However, for an economical IAS, TAS is higher at higher altitudes, so in practice one gets better range flying higher. 'Range' has to exclude the reserve. Typically 45 minutes for these AC. The FSX A321 and B737 have way too much drag, and don't get stated range. However, I think the B58 is closer. It was in FS9. Ron

I have gone though all of my *.cfg files and found that all of the aircraft had the wrong size tanks, were missing tanks, and outright just wrong.I went to Boeing and got the pdf's on everything from the 707 to the 777. Thrust ratings on engine were WAY OFF!!! 16000lbs on the 738???? Try 24000-26000 depending on what engine was hung on it. Let me show you an example:b747-400[TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain = 0.002 inlet_area = 60.0 engine nacelle inlet arearated_N2_rpm = 29920 compressor rated valuestatic_thrust = 51300 (this was changed to 63300) thrust at Sea Levelafterburner_available = 0 reverser_available = 1 ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.40MS didn't really finish this release, like Bethesda did with Star Trek Legacy. They are ALMOST great, but fell shot. In ST:L's case is was one of total abandonment. FSX Seems to be a hint of what is coming in the next version. My guess is that the next version will be 0% backwards compatible. But this release seems to have everything, it needs some serious streamlining, but over all seems fairly complete.

Slammr, as was touched on above, what were your power, pitch and mixture settings? These have everything to do with what range you'll get.I had the same problem a long time ago in FS2000 and although I wasn't new to simming - of the combat sim and "just have fun" type, I never seriously tried a series of very long range flights. After making a group of flight plans for a round-the-world flight in the Baron using the published range spec, I was in the same boat, flabbergasted that I could only get 600-700nm flights out of her. I'd already set up all my flight plans, which were dependant upon much better range per spec, with some reserve, so couldn't use them until figuring it out.Silly me - I was doing this at full rich mixture, fairly high power, and without touching the prop pitch. After experimenting a bit, running around a 55% power setting as mentioned above and also leaning the heck out of it and pulling the prop pitch WAY back to about 1900-2000 RPM once at cruising altitude, I was getting very low fuel burn and worked my way up to about 1700 miles in one leg....although at a slower airspeed (wallowing sometimes).Which kinda brings a good question for the experts - what would be considered the optimum power, mix, and prop settings, for what target airspeed and altitude, to obtain max range in the default Baron?I have my notes still buried somewhere but I remember getting around 145 knots groundspeed on the GPS and being around 10,000 ft on my flight legs. Too slow? Too high?

More content for patch 1 then, along with a much more comprehensive manual talking properly about leaning of mixture. They've got to add the information for the Airbus anyway, so getting an author to actually write something that bears a passing similarity to the product in the box shouldn't be beyond ACES.I am a technical author, and there are at least three QC steps missed out or completely disregarded in the literature as supplied. It's quite obvious it wasn't revised/re-checked after final RTM was agreed, it wasn't subjected to the Zero-Zero test, and it wasn't cross-checked by those with technical knowledge of the specific areas. Asa result it ends up bearing no more than a passing similarity to what is on the shiny disks.For those that aren't familiar with the 0-0 theory of TA, the Zero-Zero test postulates that an author writing a manual for a product should ensure that a purchaser with zero previous knowledge of the product should be able to acquire all the skills from the manual to take that product from `ground zero` - installation - to its most sophisticated levels. Not a complete understanding, but a through grounding. Can the FSX manuals do that? No, not when Boeing information is inserted into Airbus literature, not when posted values differ from those found in the actual models, and not when questions like this have to be asked in support forums. Also, look how many unknown technical tweaks have been mentioned by ACES. How many of those are included in the manual?The FSX literature fails at every level and as a scrabbled-together hotch-potch of FS9 materiel, placeholders left in situ and downright wrong information, it is the best example of just how rushed and unfinished this version is. Look how they rushed out the revised SDK's - so that was 90 megs worth of crucial information left out there, and that's for developers!It's quite rare for a TA to be able to re-write the manual after release. It would be in ACES best interests to take the opportunity.Allcott

It's for a B55 but it should be somewhat close-enjoy!:http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163361.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163362.jpg

>I have gone though all of my *.cfg files and found that all>of the aircraft had the wrong size tanks, were missing tanks,>and outright just wrong.>>I went to Boeing and got the pdf's on everything from the 707>to the 777. Thrust ratings on engine were WAY OFF!!! 16000lbs>on the 738???? Try 24000-26000 depending on what engine was>hung on it. I thought the FSX 737-800 was set for around 24000 lb/turbine. About right. However, looking at the AIR file, I see that setting applies to N1 = 100%. While I think a lower value is appropriate for TO. After years of work on such things, I set my AC as close as possible to real specs. That requires modifying AIR file tables. I can usually get +/-2% on PPH and N1 at typical cruise conditions, and within 5% at less typical conditions. One also needs a test gauge, such as AFSD (doesn't work with FSX, but FS9 FD files can work fine in FSX). So he can see what thrust, really is. Again, the setting in aircraft.cfg is for some specific N1, often 100%. So, I've changed the aircraft.cfg Thrust to get the correct TO thrust at correct TO N1. One can generally get half decent performance by modifying just aircraft.cfg lines. But, may well end up with having to set 'Inlet Area' and 'Thrust' quite a bit different from the actual values. Increasing Inlet Area reduces thrust at high altitudes. That's part of the way I get appropriate N1 at cruise FL's. In fact, it was the only way I knew of a few years ago. Note it's impossible to get correct EPR over a range of conditions with the AIR file EPR setting. EGT can be set closer, but still deviates from the real AC.>MS didn't really finish this release, like Bethesda did with>Star Trek Legacy. They are ALMOST great, but fell shot. In>ST:L's case is was one of total abandonment. FSX Seems to be a>hint of what is coming in the next version. My guess is that>the next version will be 0% backwards compatible. But this>release seems to have everything, it needs some serious>streamlining, but over all seems fairly complete. Aces doesn't have to create really accurate AC, but should at least approximate them. One can buy good commercial AC to get better models and more features. RAF

>More content for patch 1 then, along with a much more>comprehensive manual talking properly about leaning of>mixture.In reality, the proper way of "leaning mixture", is right up there with "what causes lift", and throttle for altitude or throttle for speed! :-hah Just a lot of arguing that never comes to a final conclusion.This subject has many posts/replies streatched across many pilot and homebuilt/experimental forums. Numerous "experts" are in disagreement with the manufacturers & so on. Most has to do with leaning rich of peak, or leaning past peak, and everything in between.L.Adamson

>This subject has many posts/replies streatched across many>pilot and homebuilt/experimental forums. Numerous "experts">are in disagreement with the manufacturers & so on. Most has>to do with leaning rich of peak, or leaning past peak, and>everything in between.>And don't pilots often have differing opinions about mixture? Don't some pilots lean past peak, others right at it, and so forth? And doesn't the weather conditions help to dictate how much richening/leaning should occur?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian