Jetstream96

See which light is illuminated on your overhead panel, and remember the text written on it. Then go to QRH, look up the text between page 1 to 10. Go to the corresponding section of the manual. Follow the steps and you should be good.

If that's the case it might just be my control sensitivity settings being too high in x-plane.

lol. You were hit by a tornado or an angry bear?

I also think some parameters can be tuned to produce a more plausible spin. I've seen people posting tweaks of the default Cessna regarding stalls/spins. It's for older version of x-plane though. I also noticed that too. In FSX fighter jets are quite a bit easier to fly because pulling the yoke hard rarely induces stalls.

Just tried it again. The best I can do is spin for about 270 degrees. The stalled wing has a strong tendency to drop and the plane always recovers from spin on itself. I guess the flight model for the default Cessna isn't the best. Anyways it's good enough for me and right now I am enjoying some cross-country flights in this little bird.

Oh my power was on idle. Perhaps that is the reason why I can't spin. I will definitely try your techniques tomorrow. Will come back and report the results. Thanks for the useful info. Indeed I could make this bird to spin momentarily in x-plane. I tried stability augmentation at 0 and 50% and didn't see any difference regarding spin. I heard Airfoilabs is pretty good. But I don't really want to spend $$ on addons yet.

Just bought x-plane 11 and tried the default Cessna 172. I enter a stall, and apply full left rudder and full back elevator. However the plane just will not spin. Instead it enters a spiral turn every time. I also tried to move the CG to the back but still no spin. Is this a known issue or I am missing something? Thanks

I would not entirely rely on the warning system. It's there to help you identifying dangerous situations, but not a substitute for your knowledge and experience. When you suddenly gain 40 knots of airspeed, you know it's possibly some serious windshear. I wouldn't wait to push that TOGA button when hundreds of lives depend on it.

I think that's normal. Navigraph/NavData Pro may not contain data for those small airports. You can still put a nearby airport as your destination and use an actual VFR chart to navigate. IMO it's not that strange. I remember even in 737's FCOM there is a section talking about the procedure to fly into an airport not in FMC database.

Yes it does provide forces to stop the plane. I think PMDG modeled that quite accurately. However, if you use autobrake 1, 2 or 3, the effect of reverse thrust on landing distance is minimal. This is because autobrake system maintains a specific deceleration depending on your setting (1/2/3). Therefore, even if you use full reverse thrust the plane will sense a strong deceleration and will brake less harder. In fact, I heard some real world pilots does not use autobrake 1 because the reverse thrust is strong enough that the brakes will toggle between on and off during the landing roll, which isn't ideal.

A few possible causes: (1) Did you encounter headwind during cruise? If there was strong headwinds (50+ kts) you will burn much more fuel than FMC predicted. (2) Were you flying at optimal cruising altitude? If not the fuel burn can be quite different. (3) Maybe the ZFW (zero fuel weight) entered into the CDU is incorrect. For example if ZFW is entered into the gross weight field the FMC will calculate predict incorrectly.

Thank you Simon. So basically it entirely depends the weather/traffic conditions, etc. I thought there were simpler rules, but it seems a lot more experience and judgements are at play here.

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I am curious about the typical practice regarding taking extra fuel in case of go-arounds. I am sure when bad weather is expected, the captain or the dispatcher would add some extra fuel. But what happens if the weather is clear and no delay is expected at destination? Suppose no extra fuel is added. In case of a go-around followed by a close of runway (due to an incident or whatever), they will probably burn some final reserve fuel on the way to the alternate. Wouldn't that be unsafe? If I understand correctly, those 45 min of final reserve fuel is never meant to be used under any circumstances. Otherwise it's an incident and needs to be investigated.

In various operational flight plans, including the real-world ones and those from PFPX/Simbrief, there are trip fuel, contingency, holding fuel and extra fuel, etc. I cannot seem to find any of them with "missed approach fuel". I cannot understand why. If we do not plan any missed approaches, doesn't it mean that we have to divert to alternate if we make the first go-around? Because surely we will be already using reserve fuel at that time. Or maybe it is included as extra fuel?

Maybe yes. It shows my 'cpu time' is about 0.045 sec and 'gpu time' 0.035 sec. That makes sense. Still, I kinda expected that turning down the settings would help with the frame rate. :(

Wow that's indeed broken. Guess I will need to try the demo when it officially comes out.

I just tried turning it off. Doesn't seem to make much difference. My CPU is quite old (Intel Core2 Duo E7500), but overclocked to 3.5GHz. I guess 4GB of RAM doesn't help either. But seeing how well it handles other games I play, it's surprising that X-plane is so much more demanding on the system.

Only if my PC can run X-plane 11 ... With 1050 Ti I can't even get 25 fps with all settings at minimum, in the default Cessna. I know it's not the best graphics card in the world. But come on, I have no problem getting 30 fps in a PMDG or Aerosoft Airbus. It's a bit ridiculous.

(1) SSD will make reading files a lot faster, so FSX will start faster and scenery will load faster. But basically there won't be any fps difference. (2)(3)(4) You can just remove the old hard drive and put it on the new computer. If you want to switch to SSD, use a disk cloning software to clone the entire hard drive. No file will be lost and there is no need to reinstall anything.

Just in case if you aren't aware, those tables assume max continuous thrust from the point where failure occurs to engine out cruising altitude. So you are calculating the average TAS of diversion, which can be slightly different than the TAS at final cruising altitude. The speed of sound is proportional to the square root of temperature, so it varies with altitude. The website Roman posted above is pretty accurate in my experience.

Technically, the force you feel in a turn is exactly the same as flying level. You cannot tell a difference without looking at the instrument or outside.

I think Kevin is right. ATC will tell you "circle to rwy XX". Although circling approach is a visual maneuver, it's totally different from a visual approach. For example, if the visual contact with runway is lost during the circling, you will fly the published missed approach.

That's interesting. Will try that when I get home.

Thanks. My current system struggles a bit in rainy weather. Hope it will get better with a new card.

Thank you. That's good to know. After some research I changed my mind and will probably upgrade to 1050Ti instead. I think that card will be able to handle future flight sims (x-plane 11 or Dovetail's flight sim) better.