They’ve said that the airplane models have some age built into their performance, as in the bit of testing they did, they have noticed the aircraft will never quite meet the POH numbers. I’ve noticed that in most aircraft I’ve operated <5700kg IRL.
Some of the models in the sim really do need a kick though, especially the Bonanza and the Caravan which are far too underpowered. Would love to try the Baron, but I only have the gamepass at the moment.
Haha that’s hilarious. Maybe DO try this at home (not at the office!) 
TBM and Kingair get as hot as the surface of the sun (ITT) when you feather on ground, looks like free turbine principle isn’t modeled correctly.
Hi, I have a few hundred hours in GA (PA28 C172) and around 30hrs on the 777-200 level D sim/8 hrs on the 744
For the GA I think the sim does a good job in general, the only issue I have really noticed as missing is the nose drop when you cut the power for landing. On the 172 when you pull the power you really have to hold the nose up as it has a tendancy to drop. I don’t think this is well represented in 2020.
Lots of people complain about rudder sensitivity on TO roll and I think this has more to do with the controls than the sim. In the real deal you have a lot of pressure on the pedals as the nose gear is in contact with the tarmac so this stops you from over applying, in the sim these forces aren’t modelled so you can easily go full rudder and the plane will squirrel around.
The airliners are poor- my biggest issues are
they fly like whales when the 777 is extremely agile and only takes small control movements to turn. Infact the 777 and the 744 are so sensitive that it’s very easy to over control in roll as it doesn’t take much aileron to alter the track.
in pitch the aircraft are less agile yet the 2020 airliners seem to get airborne at v1 without any positive elevator deflection.
engine modeling, I still think the fsim engine for turbofans is carrying over legacy fsx issues and these need to be fixed. Ground friction is improved and this is critical to getting the breakway thrust and static sea level FB correct.
I didn’t check in FS2020 if the TBM feathers in flight, the Cessna Caravan does not feather at all, not on the ground and neither in flight… It is accurate that they don’t feather automatically however, no aircraft does (unless an autofeather system is installed and operating) since the propeller governor tries to maintain prop speed it keeps the propeller into flat pitch in an attempt to solve the underspeed condition, which keeps the propeller windmilling. And as long as the prop keeps windmilling, oil pressure remains available to keep the propeller into flat pitch completing the circle. When selecting feather position, props should feather obviously as oil pressure is dumped and feathering spring and centrifugal weights move the propeller into feather position.
Could check if the FS2020 flightmodel responds to this 
, supposed to have 1000 surfaces of which aerodynamics are calculated right? If this is acurately simulated I rest my case, then all my doubts in the FS2020 flight model will vaporize .
A get a piston engine to windmill. Not that easy to nearly impossible. Thats why you feather the prop manually in a piston engine to reduce drag. You don’t want that spinning disk breaking you if the engine stopped working. This is where MSFS fails horribly in actually simulating something this basic in a simulator.
I just tried the TBM, prop as you said does not feather, but even with a windmilling prop the glide range is ENORMOUS, I’m pretty convinced at this point that prop drag is not simulated at all…
Please try it, the glide angle is so shallow, this can’t be right, definitely not with a unfeathered prop.
Its all still a bit FSXish in my opinion. MSFS20 is at this stage FSX with bing maps lol. They have a very long way to go to get this sim to an actual sim
Ok, this is what I have done, started the TBM overhead an airfield at 3000 ft at 120 kts (glide speed), ISA and no wind, and cut the engine / “feathered” the prop. I then made a glide with 120 kts down to the ground (SL), paused the sim and measured the distance traveled using Bing maps (attached).
I managed to travel 16.9 km which equals 55432 ft, this means the TBM with unfeathered prop has a glide ratio of 55432 / 3000 = 1:18,5 or 328 ft per 1 nm, this seems unrealistic to me, I doubt the TBM would be able to glide this far even with the propeller feathered…
It’s unfortunate that there is no such data available from the TBM POH.
How did you get your CPL with only 150hrs in GA? That must be an interesting story.
Tried the same with the Cessna 172, 3000 ft, ISA, still air, 68 kts glide speed. I did get a 250 RPM windmil speed so this looks reasonable, not the 70% RPM you were suggesting but I assume you were referring to constant speed props and not fixed pitch.
I got 9.25 km (4.99 nm) glide range on the Cessna which is 30340 ft, glide ratio is 30340 / 3000 = 10,1 or 600 ft / nm. Anybody knows the actual glide ratio for Cessna 172S?
Edit: Seems like glide performance should be between 4.3 and 4.7 nm according POH.
EASA Part-FCL Appendix 3
Only 140 hrs actual needed for CPL (A). I believe MPL is even less actual and more simulator.
That would be less than the Space Shuttle or a PZL104.
I’m reading >9 for a 172.
4,5 nm as an example is 27336 ft, 27336 ft / 3000 ft = glide ratio of 9,1:1, seems about right?
Edit: I get your point now, I meant between 4.3 and 4.7 nm, not glide ratio 
Wow, that’s amazing! I keep assuming that other countries are more restrictive given that the FAA doesn’t require spin training for CPL, or a separate night rating.
I’m not 100% sure anymore about the requirements. Night flying is indeed a requirement and I assume a multi-engine piston rating as well, I’m not sure what is included in the 140 hrs actual flying. I think I did 209 hrs all together including simulator, no idea how much has been actual vs simulator, I think this even includes 30 hrs of MCC. I believe unusual attitude recovery is also required part of the syllabus nowadays.
At the end this is just a GAME far, far from our Real World.
I feel sorry for all who can’t fly for any possible reason real aircraft in this Real World…
Life is short, only one so If you have ANY chance go to your nearest flight school and see what’s are your options
In 50 to 100 years this game or similar will be, maybe, closer to real world and again, maybe with the little help of something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLUWDLKAF1M
Btw, there’s no such thing as a ‘high speed stall’
Wrong. Look up “Accellerated Stall”
The higher your AOA, The higher your stall speed gets.
Obviously yes, but the discussion was more about the definition of “high speed stall” vs “accelerated stall” and “shock stall”.
And wrong, the AOA does not influence the stall speed. Its the opposite, an aircrafts wing stalls when exceeding the maximum Angle of Attack, this could happen at any airspeed and at any flight attitude. The AOA at which an aircraft stalls does not change except for using high lift / drag devices, having ice accretion etc.
Stall speed increases by the square root of the Loadfactor, or in a (level) turn square root of 1/cos AoB.
