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.

11 hours ago, skelsey said:

Interesting - I've not done a lot of chucking anything around in FSX, but back in the day I did a quite a lot of fighter jet flying in FS98/FS2000 and I can distinctly remember having to be quite gentle with the backpressure in high-rate turns to avoid an accelerated stall. Whether that was more to do with the flight model or the sim itself though I'm not sure.

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

4 hours ago, turner112 said:

Hey, mine spins great, just after starting a flight and sitting on the runway with no throttle or control inputs!

Those tires squeals as I careen off into the grass... music to my ears.

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

6 hours ago, Murmur said:

Since X-Plane uses correct equation of motions, allows customization of moments of inertia, and allows customization of aerodynamic coefficients for the airfoils in the 0-180 range, there shouldn't be anything that prevents the implementation of realistic spin dynamics. 

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.

5 hours ago, KenG said:

I have also discovered that accelerated stalls and wing unloading are non-existant in FSX/P3D. You can do both all day long in Xplane. 

I also noticed that too. In FSX fighter jets are quite a bit easier to fly because pulling the yoke hard rarely induces stalls.

16 hours ago, skelsey said:

Good luck! Remember also that you will need to hold the pro-spin inputs (i.e. full rudder and full back stick) otherwise the aeroplane will generally recover by itself very promptly.

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.

5 hours ago, skelsey said:

Without knowing the X-Plane 172 at all, the real 172 is quite spin-resistant and there are many who share your experience trying to demo spins in the real aeroplane!

Leaving a little bit of power (~1400-1600 rpm) on, and adding some pro-spin aileron are accepted techniques to help provoke it... but you may still just end up in a lazy spiral dive.

Good old Cessna...

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.

3 hours ago, KenG said:

I noticed the same in Xplane 11. The C172 is very resistant to spinning (like the real airplane.) The best I could get was incipient spin and the airplane flew right out.

Very happy with the more complete flight dynamics in Xplane 11.

Thanks for the useful info. Indeed I could make this bird to spin momentarily in x-plane. 

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Regarding spin, I don't know, but even making sure my "Stability Augmentation Sliders" are full right ( none ), it acts like a FBW F35, stopping instantly any roll rate as soon as the yoke is brought to neutral :-/

The Airfoilabs C172 behaves more credibly though...

Didn't test spins on either, but it appears to not be that difficult IRL, or in other sims... FSX / P3D, AEFS 1 & 2...

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

3 hours ago, Nick Dobda said:

This is what happened... Less any warnings whatsoever. I've been wondering for the longest time when conditions would come together and I'd get a wind shear alert on an approach while having live atc.. Wondering how I would handle it. Would be a shame if a fluke prevented the warnings from going off. If I had a few seconds of warning I would have mashed the throttles and went around instead of riding it to the ground. 

Im not missing a setting or anything, right? You don't have to activate anything to get the warnings on do I? 

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.

Not necessarily. It depends why you have gone around.

 

If you went around simply because you were a bit late getting configured and failed to meet the stable approach criteria, if you have another go there chances are you will land without incident. You are not likely to be best served by going off to your alternate, arriving there with absolute minimum fuel (because you will now have burnt your diversion fuel and simply be left with your final 30 minute reserve) and, who knows, maybe you'll have to fly a missed approach there for some reason. Then you really will be in trouble.

 

If, however, you went around because the runway is blocked, or the visibility was poor and you couldn't get the required visual references, then you have to ask yourself - firstly, why did I only take minimum fuel on this sector when fog was forecast(!), and then how much chance do I stand of getting in if I try again compared to going to XXXX.

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?

MA fuel would be considered in FAR Reserve (US). FAR basic reserve 45 mins. It gets more complicated with Alternate requirements and Flag rules.

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? 

To be fair, the 1050 Ti isn't the best card.  It actually lags behind older hardware like the GTX 760, which is what I use, and a 3.4GHz quad-core CPU.  With medium-ish settings, I consistently get between 25 and 40 FPS.  Still, I'd expect the 1050 Ti to do better.  Maybe your CPU is the bottleneck?

Maybe yes. It shows my 'cpu time' is about 0.045 sec and 'gpu time' 0.035 sec.

You can't really compare a flight simulator to other games since a flight simulator is inherently considerably more demanding than other entertainment software.  People might brag about how the latest and greatest first-person shooter really pushes their hardware, but that's nothing compared to what X-Plane 11 demands from your system.

That makes sense. Still, I kinda expected that turning down the settings would help with the frame rate. :(

It's beta. It's broken fps wise for most people, I have an i5 with a high clock 8gb of ram and a 1070 gtx and my fps caps at 19 with the current build, your fps will return give It a few builds

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

what are the rest of your specs? did you turn threaded optimization off in the control panel ?

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.

I have bothered to take a look at the FCOM that's provided by PMDG. There is an awful lot of conversion tables that repeat themselves to my understanding.

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.

30 degrees bank makes sure that the sugar in the coffe gets mixed very well! ;-)

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.

It's all about texture size as well. I still use 32 bit textures but find 1024x1024 size clouds more then big enough to look great. Even 512 at 32 bit is fine to me and performed much better.

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

I use a 650ti with FSX and it's more then enough. I use 4 x AA and 4 x SSGSAA and it handles it with ease even in heavy cloud.

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

I think going from a GT520 to a GTX750Ti would be a definite improvement.  I know I saw a good improvement in fps, smoothness, and was able to use more anti-aliasing when I upgraded from an 8800GT to a 560Ti.

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.