“Btw, there’s no such thing as a ‘high speed stall’”. Not trying to troll you, just educate: This statement is actually false. It’s called Mach Tuck. Look it up. If you’ve never flown an aircraft capable of achieving this flight regime, totally understandable that you wouldn’t have heard of it. I’ve flown a Global Express high enough to park the airspeed in an uncomfortably small (for me) region between traditional stall and high speed stall. The higher you go, the more dramatic the effects.
“Mach tuck” or “Tuck under” itself is NOT a stall, its a change in center of pressure causing a nose down pitching moment which in turn could lead to a shock stall. Mach tuck starts significantly below the critical Mach number. This is why almost all airliners have Mach trimmers.
I think the discussion was more about the definition “high speed stall” vs accelerated stall and shock stall.
1 Like
True that. I got a bit fixated on initial warning signs of an impending shock stall. My apologies.
1 Like
See @anon50268670 s explanation.
It wou ld be cool if you could spin the aircraft. The flight model is on rails. The release flight model is quite obviously not the flight model they showed in the promotional video with the spin.
? The 172 spins even more realistic than in the promo video.
Like the real one, if you move the CG a bit, she will enter a spin more easily.
I really don’t understand these ‘on rails’ complaints (and I don’t know what this has to do with spins)
This simulator is much better at simulator coordination than previous sims. Rudder is something that is used frequently in real GA aircraft (at least in the Piper Archers i fly). Rudder isn’t as necessary with big jets, the sim also takes very good note of that.
1 Like
Thousands of Hours in King Airs…
the 350i… flight dynamics 7/10
Systems modeling 2/10
Sound 8/10
feels to lack acceleration on the takeoff roll, but once in the air can be flown by the numbers (airspeed wise) the TO and RPM need ajustements.
System wise is horrible.
But if we are talking just flight dynamics, its ok.
higher winds feel like it’s just consistently gusting. there are times irl that strong winds don’t throw your aircraft from side to side. you should be able to crab into the wind and still have a stable approach
I think a big question needs to be answered:
Did not the MSFS team say plainly that manufactures and pilots already tested for the specs and the true feeling of flying the aircraft? Yes they did. Feeling is relative, and it gives so much leeway one way or another. So the feedback here should not be necessary at all if we fully trust that this has already been implemented. But I get the premise/spirit of the topic.
It would take an encyclopedia of explanations, because in any (especially general aviation) aircraft, the feel is going to be somewhat different day to day, we all know the reasons why.
I’m still not certain the weather is correct enough to make such an assessment anyway. Has anybody even heard the term density altitude in these forums or the hype? The “pull-up/don’t sink” warning (BUG or what?) upon performing a normal take off in a default (half tanks/light load) Cessna 172 using a “fair weather” preset condition during the day, makes no sense at all. Could it be the model, the weather, the gravity model, who knows? But there is no doubt something is incorrect somewhere along the line, but its only sometimes, not all the time, making for a greater mystery.
Also I have to wonder, is that CoG really spot on? The UI may say so, but the UI may be faulty, right? Until one dives deep into the SDK and/or configuration files and understands them correctly and fully, I’m not absolutely certain.
But once one gets past the initial trust that the MSFS development team accurately translated the spec/feel data, then the first question is, can a PC simulator really mimic reality? I have not found one yet, but for the most part they suffice. So opinions abound.
I think it would take a holodeck device (quadrillions of dollars worth) of sorts to even begin to approach reality. Until then, Aero Fly II with a VR headset is the closest thing to General Aviation reality I have flown (“feeling” wise), and it does not come close to reality either.
If MSFS matures in the basics, and VR is implemented, then the “details” of how/why we feel will likely be satisfied by then. Yes VR does make that much of a difference in the “feel”.
I fully agree. Aerofly FS2 is the most underrated sim IMO. The Extra is by far closest to RL compared to all the other sims.
2 Likes
Dear all,
I hope you all agree with me that these discussions regarding how the flight model feels are very subjective and not very helpfull in improving the FS2020 flight model.
The only thing we can objectively assess and use to verify if Microsoft / Asobo did a good job is comparing aircraft performance in the sim to the aircrafts AFM, things like:
- Stall speeds under the certified conditions
- Take-off roll and distance
- Climb performance, rate of climb, time, fuel, distance (no wind)
- Cruise performance, fuel flow, speed under various power settings
- Landing roll & distance
Please make sure you use the right conditions according the aircrafts AFM for testing and lets post those conditions for all of us to assess and engage in healthy discussions. So unless otherwise described in aircraft performance tables:
- SL
- 1013.25 hPa
- 15C
- No wind
- Configuration as required
- CofG position according certification (normally worse condition)
- Full power before brake release
- Max. weight
It would also be helpful if real world pilots could post pictures and / or videos from real life and include the conditions at the time pictures & videos were taken. This way we could try to reproduce results in FS2020. Things like cruise speeds, rate of climb, power settings, pitch settings etc.
Lets put our time and effort together into actually making a difference from this moment forward 
Regards, Nijntje
P.S. If anyone has an approved AFM for any of the FS2020 aircraft, maybe we could share in this thread?
5 Likes
they could not even get the basic stats right.fueel capacity,fuel burn rates,weights, speeds …basic stuff anyone has access to just rushed and sloppy,the jets are broke systems don;t work right even the basic ones for 117$ I expected more sorry maybe if this was sold as a BETA early release at a reduced price sure…but no now you will see nickle and dime us to death just to fix things that should have been in ther at release,Even the so called hand painted airports are ■■■■.bad lighting misplaced lights and taxi ways that are half the width but they taxi lights are 20ft in the grass.ramp areas in total darkness its just a mish mash of little things that should have been fixed BEFORE releasing,I thight the beta phase was so that ■■■■ gets fixed before you charge costumers…
1 Like
oops looks like Asobo forgot to read up on Tenerife 
2 Likes
I don’t know what kind of made up phraseology they have used, it definitely isn’t standard ICAO phraseology…
1 Like
I’m not a real world pilot by any means. But I always fly the airliners, and have become quite proficient in the 737, 320, 777 mostly, over the years with FS9, FSX, P3D, Xplane 10/11, and now MSFS 2020.
I am particularly enjoying the NEO- yes, a few things need to be ironed out, but just like in the real world, you adjust and adapt to the quirks of any aircraft. In MSFS the NEO is ALL I fly ATM. The boeing airlines (747 787) are terribly optimized for the sim right now.
The NEO OTOH, is performing great in the sim performance wise. I’m running at mostly ultra in 4K with a 2080ti and a i9 9900k. I see 35 to 45 fps in any scenario, and no stutters on my end.
The biggest gripe I have as you mentioned, is the approach right before touchdown. At an approach IAS of around 140kts, as soon as I hear “Retard” I immediately pitch up and put the engines to idle, and just as it appears that the AC will settle nicely onto the runway, it just floats for days, and then abruptly almost hammers the bogeys onto the asphalt. Maybe I’ll try a slightly lower approach speed- say 130-135kts, although unlike a 738, it’s awfully close to stall on a 320.
My guess is the the ground effect that has been modeled into this AC has too steep of a curve. I’m sure this will get ironed out in time, either by Asobo, or third party community programmers.
1 Like
I’ve tryed to compare some C172 performance with a POH I found on the internet, I don’t know exactly what Cessna 172 model is included in FS2020 but I assume its a Cessna 172S or similair in performance, this isn’t an exact science obviously, so take it with a grain of salt. Also I did not check the full envelope, but it might give some indication.
Take-off:
I tested take-off roll by starting with the nose gear on the threshold, and then pause the sim at 51 kts (rotate speed according to the appropriate table), I then compared a top down view of FS2020 with bing maps to measure distance (again not an exact science so might be off a little). Conditions:
- 2550 lbs
- 0C / 20C and 40C
- Sea Level
- No wind
- Flaps one notch
- Full power before brake release
- Rotate speed 51 kts
- CG center (tried FWD CG, no significant difference in perf.)
I came up with the following take-off rolls:
- SL with 0C = 1003 ft (table 860 ft) = +17%
- SL with 20C = 1193 ft (table 995 ft) = +20%
- SL with 40C = 1355 ft (table 1150 ft) = +18%
Climb Performance:
I climbed starting from SL with 73 kts, noting down the VS around 1000 ft using the following conditions:
- 2550 lbs
- -20C / 0C and 40C
- 1000 ft PA
- No wind
- Flaps up
- Full power without leaning mixture
- Climb speed 73 kts
I came up with the following vertical speeds:
- -20C = 700 ft/min (table 808 ft/min interpolated) = -13%
- 0C = 650 ft/min (table 740 ft/min interpolated) = -12%
- 40C = 450 ft/min (table 603 ft.min interpolated) = -25%
Climbing from sea level at 73 kts in ISA to 3000 ft, clean configuration, without leaning:
- Rate of climb at 3000 ft = 400 ft/min (table = 620 ft/min) = -35%
- Time = 5:46 (table = 4 min) = +44%
- Fuel used = 1.44 USG (table = 1.2 USG) = +20%
- Distance to climb not measured
Cruise performance:
2000 ft PA, ISA, 2550 lbs, 2300 RPM mixture leaned.
- TAS = 109 kts (table = 104 kts) = +5%
- Fuel flow is hard to measure since the G1000 leaning pages etc. are not modelled and there is no accurate readout. Leaning to peak EGT resulted in around 10 USG per hr.
Bugs:
- “Don’t sink” GPWS alert during descent. GPWS Mode 3 alerts should only occur when losing barometric altitude after take-off or go-around, it should disable > 1000 ft AGL.
- Autopilot reacting too slowly, entering a phugoid when using FLC.
- Autopilot not disconnecting at stall warning activation.
3 Likes
In a 172 with a mechanical airspeed indicator it is definitely possible to see the indicated airspeed drop to the bottom of the scale (40 knots) with the needle “sitting on the peg”, when configured for slow flight (full flaps, engine at full power, nose pitched up to where the stall warning starts to sound intermittently).
It’s not because the angle of attack is affecting the pitot tube - it’s because the actual airspeed in this configuration will be less than the airspeed indicator’s minimum reading.
I used to fly a 1974 model 172 that originally had an O-320 engine that was overhauled by Penn Yan Aero, and converted to the equivalent of an O-360. Older 172s had a flap 40 position (newer 172s only go to flap 30.)
When the Penn Yan STC is installed on an older 172, the flap lever is supposed to have a mechanical block installed to lock out the flaps 40 position, but for some reason this was not done. We found that the airplane would not do a power-on stall at flaps 40 and full power with the bigger engine. The aircraft would run out of aft yoke travel before it ran out of flying speed. Just “hanging on the prop”…
That might very well be, but the discussion was whether or not the airspeed indicator should read stall speed in an accelerated stall.
Once off the ground you don’t need to touch the rudder at all. There is no adverse yaw in this sim.
Strangely, adverse roll does appear to be modelled.
1 Like