Cessna 172 climb performance

[Guest]

The FSX default Cessna 172 climb performance seems to be incorrect. Climbing at 500 feet per minute gave an increase of only 200 feet over a minutes time. Is this just me or are other people experiencing this?ThanksMark

[Guest allcott]

RW 172 pilot here: I find the 172 performance to be entirely realistic. How are you measuring this height change? If the barometric pressure changes during the climb the altimeter may be off, and if you use a radar ranger then the ground may have changed its height ASL, so changing your relative vertical position.Need more info. Altimeters can be prone to errors in real life too, particularly at the lower end of the scale. Allcott

[Mark_A 31]

Just a simple check, climbing at 500fpm based on the VSI, after one minute only climbed 200ft, I've got a few real world hours on the 172 too and it doesn't seem right.Thanks

[Mark_A 31]

Did the same test in FS9 using the 172, climbing 500fpm based on the VSI, after one minute it had climbed spot on 500ft.I'm also seeing the same problem with the Eaglesoft Columbia 400 with FSX. I'm not sure if it's the VSI, the climb dynamics in FSX, or my system but one of them is not right.Is anyone able to to a test to compare results?ThanksMark

[BlueDiamond 0]

I just tested the Eaglesoft 400 and the G1000 172 in FSX.Set both aircrafts' autopilot to +500 VS and in one minute both had climbed spot on 500 ft.Do your other FSX aircraft climb correctly?Michael

[Manny 1,293]

>The FSX default Cessna 172 climb performance seems to be>incorrect. Climbing at 500 feet per minute gave an increase of>only 200 feet over a minutes time. Is this just me or are>other people experiencing this?>>Thanks>MarkWere you flying it manually? or Auto pilot.I'll say set the baro to default 29.92 then fly auto pilot to 1000 feet then auto climb at 500 feet per minute for a min then pause and see the altititude.The issue I have is the performances of these aircrafts. Yesterday I was flying the default 172 and I could get it to fly past 95 kts even with full throttle and I was flying around DFW. IF you were hand flying it, it may not have been flying at steady 500fpm.Manny

[Geofa 108]

When you say 95 knots-are you talking indicated airspeed, True airspeed, or groundspeed? Were you flying with real weather and what was the density altitude?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

As an excuse to take the default Cessna 172 for a early morning cruise across the lower foothills of the "extremely scenic" Salt Lake City valley :D; it nailed the 500' mark rather well on auto-pilot. Even though I'm pushing the poor little Cessna to it's limits power wise. It could go a second or two either way, depending on some default FSX induced turbulence which I rather enjoy!And speaking of turbulence, it's great in the virtual cockpit which I prefer 90% of the time, and a bit annoying in 2D, in which I was watching the clock and dealing with the auto-pilot. 2D is just the " screen shakes", and the VC is a real sense of movement in a changing air mass thanks to peripheral vision!And a quick plug for FSX. Those crisp looking high contrast photo-like textures, as I look under and to the sides of my aircraft, while criss-crossing the foothills and cityscapes below are simply amazing in detail, and the look of three dimensional depth. This is why I prefer FSX over brand "9" for this type of flight, ten to one! :-hah L.Adamson --- KSLC

[Guest allcott]

It's your system, but I don't have a clue what you have done to hose it. Just climbed the default 172 to 600 feet from a 101ft elevation field in hand set ISA conditions in 1 minute, 2 seconds, engaging a/p just after wheels-off. That's accurate enough for the FAA, let alone the Gates universe!Allcott

[Mark_A 31]

Ran some more tests.FSX 172 with G1000 displays, no problem, 500fpm vsi, after one minute had climbed 500ft.FSX 172 with standard instruments, 500fpm vsi, covered around 140feet in one minute.Attached are two images, the first taken at time 08:45:40, the second at 08:46:40. As you can see the VSI shows 500fpm which was maintained for one minute but the resulting climb was only 140 feet.It seems to me a problem with the altimeter, but I have no idea why it's only affecting my system. All I can think of doing is a reinstall, it may be SP1, so I'll try with and without it.ThanksMarkhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172652.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172653.jpg

[Guest allcott]

Both G1000 and Steam 172 use exactly the same .air and aircraft.cfg file. You have something strange going on. Reinstall.Allcott

[tf51d 284]

FWIW I have to go along with Allcott, just tried it with my system, and it was right on the money! Looks like something wrong on your side!!

[Mark_A 31]

Did a reinstall without SP1 and same problem. The Baron with analogue instruments and Mooney both have the problem, the Baron with the G1000 instruments doesn't.Don't know where to go from here. It looks like I may be need a full rebuild of my system, but I can't understand how something external to FS could interfere with the altimeter.ThanksMark

[badderjet 181]

Hey there,just got an idea, but not sure if that's really the reason for I suspect it's a setting the least users would ever change. *:-*140 "foot" increase makes sense if you have your international settings set to metric. 500 "real" feet equal about 152.4 meters, which is quite close to your 140 "units" increase that you experience. :-eekGo ahead and check that setting, it would be the only thing that made sense to me.Keep us updated. :-hahCheers, :-beerchugEtienne :-wave

[Mark_A 31]

I suspected something wrong with the altimeter, it was showing metres :-) I always set the metric option, because of the amount of reinstalls I've done lately I forgot to change it to feet.Anyway, got you thinking, and me.ThanksMark