Litjan

Really??? 😂

There are a ton of factors affecting roll moment around the longitudinal axis: Engine torque Fuel imbalance Load imbalance Propeller slipstream hitting wings and stabilizer asymmetrical (corkscrew effect) Rigging All of these have various strength during various parts of the flight, depending on angle of attack, airspeed, engine torque and RPM. To have a propeller aircraft NOT roll with neutral ailerons is pure luck - most are rigged to give you near-neutral aileron at typical cruise speed and power settings - but will invariably be exhibiting a tendency to roll at other times. It would not surprise me to hear opposite testimony from two different real C172 drivers when asked about which way the aircraft rolls at a certain speed/powersetting. The trim tabs will allow you to tweak the plane to pretty much any predisposition you want, let alone a decade of rough handling and bouncy landings that will twist and bend the airframe and wings ever so slightly...

It´s a common misconception - even among pilots - that a "centered ball" automatically should mean that the aircraft can be flown "hands off" (no aileron or rudder input). But all a centered ball says, is that there is no force acting in a lateral way (i.e. it feels like you are getting pushed towards the left sidewall or right sidewall). So in a car going around a turn, you are getting pushed towards a sidewall - this would deflect the ball in an aircraft, meaning you are "skidding" in a turn or you are flying straight, or that there is a bank (so the resultant force is pushing you towards the sidewall). The ball says NOTHING about a torque or turning force around the longitudinal axis, though - imagine you are flying straight and level, but you have an elephant sitting on the copilots seat. The plane will fly straight, the ball is centered, but you will need to put in a TON of left aileron to keep the plane from banking towards the heavy elephant. This illustrates that discussing "aerodynamic properties and modeling" is almost completely useless and fruitless in non-professional online forums. People have a very vague understanding of the principles at play, and - besides telling someone to set up their hardware correctly - you are basically discussing things that are way over the heads of most people, although everyone feels that he understands the topic and is eager to add his "insights" 🙄. The manual trimming procedure in the 737 highlights this. It first makes you keep the wings level with the aileron, then observe for any yawing tendency - and trim out that yawing tendency with the rudder. Now you are flying straight and level with the ball centered...but you still have the aileron "displaced" to keep the plane level. Now as a last step, you use aileron trim to relieve the aileron forces from the yoke - but you are ending up with a "displaced yoke", because an aircraft is rarely perfectly balanced laterally, one side is always more "heavy" than the other side.

The default Cessna 172 in X-Plane 12 is fine. I believe you are doing something wrong or have not set up your hardware appropriately. If you detail your findings a bit better and also state why you feel that it does "not behave properly" we can discuss - so far your claims are unsubstantiated, unverifiable and only anecdotal.

First, we established that everything is accurate in X-Plane. So no one needs to "update". If I recall correctly, Philipp implemented a dynamic updating to keep magnetic declination accurate (whereas before X-Plane was accessing a static table). There may be local variations (ore deposits, etc.), but by and large the value should be accurate to the degree. Second, a non precision approach is mostly governed by an external navigation aid, like a VOR or nowadays RNAV or GPS. Those are not susceptible to the "1/60" rule, you are either ON the defined approach radial/track or you are not. Magnetic variation will not play a large role here, especially since wind drift is likely going to have you fly a different magnetic heading than published, anyway. The one exception would be an NDB approach, here the bearing you fly to/from the station is actually derived from the indication of magnetic heading that you read off in the aircraft. If I recall correctly, the accuracy required is +/- 5 degrees for those approaches, a one degree course error at typical distances (max 10NM) that you submit yourself to the guidance of the NDB on an IFR approach would amount to 1000 feet off-track, that sounds like much, but with the obstacle clearance and high minima associated with NDB approaches, this would not be a problem.

Funny little anecdote: The plane I fly (747-400) is getting old, and the IRS systems are not getting any updates anymore. The magnetic variation database is getting old and outdated, and therefore we are not allowed to conduct IFR autopilot coupled approaches to certain airports, anymore, for example BGSF. The heading is actually off by one or two degrees against the chart at some airports, for example at EDDF I usually dial in 247 instead of 246 (the officially charted magnetic front course), it fits much better when flying the approach. But the tolerance is much bigger, and ultimately when flying an approach without reference to true ground track, you don´t know if you are flying a few degrees off course due to some crosswind or due to a wrong declination value. Keep the needle in the middle and the wheels on the pavement, that is what matters.

What weaklink said. Its fine. What is the Magnetic Declination at your location?Magnetic Declination in Lisbon, PortugalMagnetic declination in Lisbon, Portugal is -0.94. To instantly determine the magnetic declination at your location, go to magnetic-declination.comWe get these discussions every few months, and in 95% of all cases its users not understanding magnetic declination or the way that real world aviation sources treat and publish the varying declination, including slightly inaccurate ILS front-courses or VOR radial publication (notwithstanding great circle variation of magnetic bearing along a radial). In pilot school we made up mnemonics like "West is best, East is least" to remember if you need to ADD or SUBTRACT a declination value from a true bearing if trying to figure out a magnetic bearing.

Don´t take our word for it. Download the free and time-unlimited demo and try for yourself!

No, they are from the lockout switches that prevent the pilot engaging the autopilot while the yoke is deflected. They magnetically move to block the autopilot paddle switches.

Yes, it does. You need to change the search highlight (it is right next to the search field) to "City" if you type in a City name. If you search for it with the identifier (CYWG) you change the search highlight to ICAO (although ID will also work). If you want to search for it by name (James A Richardson Intl) you can leave the search highlight any way you like.

User error.

Good instructions are great - but you need 100% of all people to read, understand and agree to them, if you want 100% of all airports authored correctly. We learned from the Gateway that a good percentage of artists are willing to make good and compliant airports - but there is a sizeable fraction that does not care or is able to understand, and letting everyone manipulate the mesh together with a "comprehensive user manual" is like handing out scalpels in 1st grade after admonishing everyone to not cut into their fellow students 😅

Will be fixed - or at least vastly improved - with the next update after 12.4.3.

The problem is that if you make mesh editing accessible, the potential for messing it up is fairly big. We already have the problem with "always flatten" and to a lesser extent with the new FLATTEN polygons - airport designers adjust the elevation mesh to make the airport look good, but do not consider that having the correct elevation (of the runway thresholds) is extremely important. I foresee some type of validation that forces runway thresholds to not only be within a certain range of "official data" (CIFP) laterally, but also vertically.

Austin already implemented it (I would post a screenshot if Avsim did not insist on image posting policy more fit to the 80s than the 21st century 🫣). I believe it will be fielded in 12.5.