That’s what i mean. There are more rotten apples than we think.
Now, assume that a small percentage of that percentage is very vocal on forums… but they don’t even know what they’re doing in real flight. Imagine how confusing it would be for the dev team to get good feedback.
Most people I found extremely vocal on this forum sofar have been arm chair pilots thinking they know what they are talking about, meanwhile not even knowing the difference between kts and mph, or saying full flight simulators are extremely unrealistic. Just scroll throught this thread and you’ll see what I mean, those insane claims and statements didn’t come from real world pilots.
Agreed they aren’t getting useful feedback a lot of the time.
I am a private pilot and I have flown the Cessna 150, 152 and 172 and the 152 in this new version is very very good.
I have a Saitek Pro Flight Yoke and the Rudders as well; they have to be well calibrated to get as near as possible to the reality.
I find the forces acting on the Cessna 152 being quite accurate. For example, when I apply full throttle on the runway, it’s normal that the nose eases to the left and that I have to apply right rudder.
I found a few minor things so far; stall speed seems to be too low and I find the speed passing under me being too fast as I am rolling on the runway on my way for taking off.
Nice, as an armchair specialist this is great news to my ears.
Look You’re wrong. The reason I know you’re wrong is for two reasons. 1) I have actually flown the 152A. 2) You only need to look at a 172 weight and balance sheet to see that it is indeed possible to lock in a spin. The 172 has a utility category box and for higher weights and aft CofG it has a normal box. In the utility box you can do what you want. And I quote, “This airplane is not designed for purely aerobatic flight. However, in the acquisition of various certificates such as commercial pilot and flight instructor, certain maneuvers are required by the FAA. All of these maneuvers are permitted in this airplane when operated in the utility category.” That includes spins which are required for certifications. If you spin a 172 in the normal category, not only will the spin “lock in” but it will be unrecoverable because it develops into a flat spin due to the aft CofG. How do I know? 4 people died about 50km from my house trying spins with rear passengers. But how did they get a 172 to spin if you can’t spin one?
Your Cessna don’t spin comment is based on faulty information. The truth in it is Cessnas are hard to spin and yes they are designed that way. By design under normal stall entry circumstances the likeliness of a spin following a wing drop in a high wing Cessna is near zero. Not all stall entries are normal. The way to spin both the 152 and 172 is to enter a climbing right turn with the power at idle. Then apply full power as the aircraft enters a deep climbing stall. The torque will pull the aircraft dramatically over to the left and you will enter a left hand spin. I wanted to address this directly because your comment is not only wrong, its dangerous in the real world context. DO NOT ASSUME AN AIRCRAFT WON’T SPIN.
On to aileron effectiveness. have you ever sat parked on the ground added right stick and flipped the plane? Chances are overwhelmingly no. Not only does aileron effectiveness tend to zero with reduction in speed. Adverse effects of control input become dominant. This is why you don’t use your ailerons to recover from a wing drop in a stall, you use the rudder. The application of ailerons to raise the wing will increase drag on the downward wing more that it pushes the wing up. This will contribute to the incipient spin, not resolve it. The correct response is to apply rudder to level the wings through adverse roll.
Finally the effect you mention in side slipping is the exact same effect as I mention with increased angle of attack. Just think of it as side slip rotated onto the vertical axis. If the air is passing the pitot tube at an angle as opposed to head on, the indicated airspeed will be lower for a given true airspeed. So even if your TAS is 100kts you can enter a high speed stall and your airspeed indicator should indicate that you are below stall speed. This concept is FUNDAMENTAL to steam gauge IFR flying and the constant cross referencing of dials to each other that goes on to maintain instrument flight even in the case of partial instrument failures.
Please next time consider your responses before you post misleading information about aircraft characteristics. It worries the hell out of me that someone, maybe even yourself, might take the wrong lessons from the flight sim environment to the real sky.
Sure there might be conditions you could get into a developed spin, definitely when not using correct procedure, keeping power on etc. What I’m trying to say is that its hard to assess the FS2020 flight model on this since I assume (and hope) you haven’t tried to perform these maneuvers in real life out of the certified flight envelope, maybe it will develope into a unrecoverable spin, maybe it won’t, I don’t know, you don’t know, maybe Cessna knows. But trying to assess the flight model on spin characteristics based on assumptions is not gonna say much.
I never said Cessna’s won’t be able to spin, I said they won’t stay in a fully developed spin without keeping the controls pro-spin (yes assuming you operate in the approved flight envelope).
Sure aileron control effectiveness decrease with reducing airspeed down to zero, I think the misunderstanding is in your wording “The ailerons shouldn’t work in most aircraft at low speeds but they always do”, the ailerons do work, the effectiveness decreases. The point I’m trying to make is that the ailerons will remain effective down to stall speed, not meaning you should use ailerons in this region of the speed envelope due to risk of wing drop, sure rudder should be used close to stall speed but ailerons will remain effective down to stall speed thats all.
And regarding your airspeed indication claim, no its not like a side slip on the vertical axis, your pitot is below the wing in the free stream airflow, even at high angles of attack or even stall this will not adversly affect your airspeed indications. The free stream airflow below the wing will still meet the pitot probe “head-on”. This might not be the case on airliners with nose mounted pitots, but those effects are mittigated for by the Air Data Computers before reaching the pilot. So no your airspeed indicator will NOT read below stallspeed in an accelerated stall, definitely wrong assumption.
BTW 5 years of classroom (including principles of flight) and flight instruction under the belt and airline captain on ATR and Embraer so don’t worry, I won’t take any flight sim experience into the sky 
Try this mental exercise. You are on the ground and you add full right stick. What is going to happen? Nothing. Your airspeed is 0, your aileron effectiveness is also 0. This might sound strange all planes can enter into an attitude and airspeed combination that provides 0 airspeed. It is what happens at the top of a hammerhead manoeuvre. A hammerhead is just an extreme form of stall. A really good IFR instructor will even know one of the best ways to test a student is to put him under the hood and tell him to recover from this attitude and the student will initially think his gauges are lying or broken.
OK so at 0 airspeed all controls are 0% effective. What about a low sub stall airspeed?
Every control surface has a main effect and an adverse effect. The rudder’s adverse effect is roll, the aileron’s adverse effect is Yaw. Even the elevator has the little talked about adverse effect of initially accelerating the plane in opposition of the desired direction.
What does this have to do with the main control input? As the main control input gets more and more sluggish, the adverse affects of the input become more and more dominant. So if you add right aileron in a stall, the wing will barely respond but the plane will be dragged left by the adverse yaw. In the context of a dropped left wing in a stall, adding aileron to the right will drag the plane further to the left and the wing will drop more, possibly developing into a spin. The correct response to a dropped left wing is right rudder. That way the airflow over the wings is undisturbed and the adverse yaw of the rudder input brings the wings level as desired. In FS2020 you can simply level the wings with aileron as if the ailerons work just fine, which they don’t.
As for certification. Aircraft predate aircraft certification. Modern aircraft are designed as much as possible to reduce the things that used to bite pilots in the ■■■ but many airframe types predate these types of features including a number of aircraft in FS2020. Also while these issues can be mitigated as aircraft designs improve, the fundamentals of adverse control effects remain the same. Finally designs meant to make flying easy will often affect performance in other respects like for example STOL and an experienced pilot might prefer the ability to reduce aircraft speed by a few knots over a safety feature like non stalling ailerons.
Finally the pitot position relative to the airflow dictates the IAS. An aircraft in a high speed stall Lets say 100kts TAS will have an IAS below stall speed during the stall. This is because the pitot tube has the same angle of attack as the aircraft. When the wing is stalled, the IAS will indicate a stall. This is fundamental property of the IAS and is extremely important in steam gauge IFR flying.
Well lets see when I was 7 it was my dad. When I was 15 it was my gliding instructor. When I was 16 it would have been the CFI at my flying school. For the past 20 years its been my doctor every 24 months.
You’ve brought absolutely nothing to the table but your blunt armchair misunderstanding of the dynamics of flight.
Not a real pilot, but with all the licenced GA pilots saying that the flight model is accurate, real C152’s must be way more forgiving than I thought.
Here’s my max takeoff weight C152, shallow diving to 130 knots and then loooping over a runway.
I was making the assessment based on over 50 hours on a specific type thank you. Including all of its certified aerobatic manoeuvres. It took the aircraft through its paces and it behaved spectacularly in every way except below stall speed and when inverted. (the 152A is carburetted and the engine should turn off upside down).
I refuted your claim about maintaining the controls, you can let go of a 152A controls in a proper spin until you want to recover. It won’t do so by itself.
As for pitot. I am not talking about calibrated airspeed. I am not talking about airline flight computers. I am talking about Indicated AirSpeed. The IAS can differ drastically from TAS, that’s why airlines have CAS. Because there’s not enough pressure to make the IAS read correctly. I also am not talking about the stall speed increase relative to IAS with high altitude flight. I’m talking about light aircraft at low altitudes with steam gauges.
Take a step back from your experience and ask yourself why, in free flowing air, would the IAS drop with a 15 degree side slip, but not drop if that side slip was about the vertical axis. It doesn’t physically make sense.
I`m not gonna argue with a CFI. Just telling you my experience.
That’s about the worst nonsense I’ve read in a very long time.
Btw, there’s no such thing as a ‘high speed stall’
I can mostly agree on everything you say. You might be right about the 152, I based my claim on the C172.
However as for airspeed:
IAS can differ drastically from TAS → correct, IAS is depending on air density. IAS = TAS only in standard atmosphere at sea level. No, thats not the reason airliners have CAS, CAS is IAS corrected for position (of pitot tube) and instrument errors. On GA aircraft you normally have tables to compute the CAS from IAS, mainly depending on configuration, its a few kts normally, not significant.
The correct sequence is actually: IAS - CAS - EAS - TAS - GS
IAS - CAS = position and instrument error correction
CAS - EAS = correction for compressibility effects (not applicable for GA)
EAS - TAS = corrected for air density
TAS - GS = TAS corrected for wind
The difference between sideslipping and flying at high angles of attack is the postioning of the pitot tube. When flying at high angle of attack, even past the critical angle of attack the airflow is separating from the upper side of the wing (as is the definition of a wing stall), the airflow on the lower side of the wing is however not adversly affected and therefore the airstream into the pitot tube is also not affected by flight at high AoA or even past stalling AoA.
Yes, the airspeed indicator keeps reading correct IAS even during an accelerated stall. Which makes sense, it’s an AIRSPEED indicator and not an ANGLE OF ATTACK indicator. If the airspeed indicator would always read stall speed at stalling AOA you wouldn’t need a stall warning probe, you could wire your stall warning horn directly to the airspeed indicator. You can picture your pitot in the illustration below. Hope you will take this lesson with you into the real cockpit though 
no a pilot but:
An accelerated or dynamic stall is often referred to as a “high speed stall.” This type of stall usually occurs when a quick maneuver increases the angle of attack (AOA) until it exceeds the wings’ ability to produce lift. Intentional high-speed stalls are often seen during airshows, although they can occur during normal flight as well if a maneuver is executed too abruptly."
https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/how-to-prevent-and-recover-from-aircraft-stalls
Other sources refer to high speed stalls as the wing going over mach 1 and loosing lift.
It’s not a term commonly used, they are normally referred to as accelerated stall and mach or shock stall.
The pitot tube sticks out in front of the airflow even when the root of the tube is under the wing. The angle of attack the pitot tube absolutely has an effect on the dynamic pressure that it reads. That is the position error that is being corrected for on CAS.
That said I did forget to account for wing loading. Higher wing loading means higher stall speed which is why you need the warning. I wasn’t doing accelerated stalls maintaining level flight in a banked condition but through abrupt control movements. In a 152A with its low cruise speed and large wing, the wing loading disappears quickly with the airspeed after you give it abrupt input, so while the regular stall speed should be reached within seconds. I realise that now. I also did not try any specific stall turns.
All that said I still think a number of the things you’ve intimated here don’t demonstrate a complete understanding either. I think the important takeaway is that everyone has something to learn and even relearn.
Sticking out or not they don’t stick out far enough in front of the leading edge to have a significant effect. The tables you’ll find in the aircrafts AFM for calculating CAS from IAS are depending on configuration, angle attack does not have a significant effect on airspeed indication.
I never claimed being all knowing .
i would assume because of how the pressure changes on the static port in a slip… i am under the impression airspeed indicators work by comparing the pitot tube pressure to the static port pressure
Static ports are normally located on both sides of the fuselage and cross-connected so any static pressure errors mostly be cancelled out. The main reason is indeed the angle of the airstream into the pitot probe.
