What did you do in MFS today?

I don’t know if you’re aware of this or not (or even using it), but the stock Bonanza has a lot wrong with its stats. This turned what I found what an underwhelming, underperforming stock plane with poor range into one of my favourite planes.

Also if you use the Working Title G1000 mod, it will add extra pages for the Engine of the Bonanza, including the “Lean” page to help you set ideal mixture.

1 Like

Not yet. I doubt it will be that much more efficient than letting the sim handle the mixture, but I’ll try.

I’ve eliminated the time variable, gallons per hour is irrelevant after all, simply measuring fuel use vs distance. And also established that testing at 4x times speed (2 notches up) still provides (nearly) the same results. Streamlining measurements makes things a lot easier, input the same start fuel (to reset) and map the result.

I have a test running now (still with auto mixture) comparing flying slower yet higher. Early impressions, it’s more efficient than faster and lower. (Using FLC mode to let it climb at will) However it was less efficient at the start, so faster is still more aerodynamic, yet height (leaner mixture) seems to hold more weight. So probably flying at KIAS 110 with more throttle, higher, is even better. The problem is icing, still need to find the most efficient ways to fly safe.

A lot left to test, most efficient speed at different heights (I guess it’s the same in KIAS but always nice to confirm) And then trying to find a more efficient mixture than the sim uses.

Results from current test

PLWN to HI25 910.3nm, Clear skies 26c 76F ground temperature, no wind
Climb to 12K ft FLC 100 then reduce to 90/90 stay at FLC 100

Fuel (80 total) Distance (910.3 total)
12,000 ft 36F 4.93 4.93 32.4nm 32.4nm IAS 100 TAS 122 6.57 nmpg
12,930 ft 32F 8.17 3.24 70.0nm 37.6nm IAS 100 TAS 124 11.60 nmpg
13,480 ft 30F 16.06 7.89 165.4nm 95.4nm IAS 100 TAS 125 12.09 nmpg
13,670 ft 30F 22.45 6.39 244.3nm 78.9nm IAS 100 TAS 125 12.35 nmpg
13,850 ft 29F 28.09 5.64 314.5nm 70.2nm IAS 100 TAS 126 12.45 nmpg
13,980 ft 28F 33.22 5.13 379.1nm 64.6nm IAS 100 TAS 126 12.59 nmpg
14,120 ft 28F 37.73 4.51 436.4nm 57.3nm IAS 100 TAS 126 12.71 nmpg
14,400 ft 27F 47.70 9.97 564.6nm 128.2nm IAS 100 TAS 127 12.86 nmpg

Around that distance I was doing 12.30 nmpg flying faster and lower (with same throttle / propeller settings)
12,030 ft 46.12 5.44 532.4nm 66.9nm 36F IAS 110 TAS 134 10.88 gallons per hour 12.30 nmpg
12,050 ft 51.57 5.45 599.4nm 67.0nm 36F IAS 110 TAS 134 10.90 gallons per hour 12.29 nmpg

Anyway this test should easily land on the shore if I let it keep going! However I’ll need quite a bit of margin to manage with live weather. (Or wait for a nice tail wind)

Actually I overshot this time. When I checking again it was gliding down (selected tank empty) and just passing the airstrip. I circled back and managed to land, that airstrip is hard to find, pretty small haha. It didn’t help I had the simulation rate still too high!

Anyway under perfect conditions, very do-able. Now to figure out how to get a margin for dynamic weather.

Ahh I see you added the glide configuration. That’s not how it performs in game, 1300 fpm would still not reach 110 KIAS and only 1.4 nm per 1000ft, although I left the propeller as it was (90%)

I guess pulling the prop lever all the way down (lowest rpm) would be best for emergency glide? I’l try not to let it get that far, it’s not much of a glider!

Awesome project! But I’ll stick to the stock version for now, I’ll get it to Hawaii in live weather one way or another :smiley:

Yeah, the stock plane’s performance numbers aren’t in line with the POH, including cruise speeds, fuel flow, fuel burn, etc. This tries to line things up more like reality than what’s in game now. Before this mod, I flew the Bonanza twice and hated it. After this mod, I love it and now with the Mooney out of commission, it pretty much took over as my #1 piston aircraft. If you like the Bonanza, you’re doing yourself a disservice not using this mod along with the G1000 mod.

Oh I like it, but I’m quite used to the stock version by now!

This is all in preparation for when I eventually get to exploring the Pacific Ocean, and fixing the plane after 90,000 miles would feel like switching planes.

I already found a path through the Himalayas and tested it on the highest airports in the world. Btw Kenya is awesome! (Flew there early morning today)

1 Like

I flew my a380 mostly. It’s a such beauty.

1 Like

I just managed to land my 787 Dreamliner manually, not the smoothest landing but not bad. Just came in a bit quick and I couldn’t work out how to input the wind speed and direction which is I think why my ILS was a little off to the left. Took over and got it down!!

1 Like

doesnt’ this vary depending on what level of ILS or CAT1 versus II vs !!!?

I assumed these were non-precision approaches and would therefore require more manual handling on final because the beacons were offset from the runway


Sorry, lost me there, just a beginner with this stuff . Had it on LNAV and then pressed the approach button after it caught the glideslope.

The A320 since the update needs the weather , wind speed and direction , entering into the computer before it lines up the ILS properly. Once the wind is set the ILS lines up perfectly. I assumed the 787 was the same but couldn’t see where to input the weather. Its not on the approach screen like it is on the A320

the FMC in the 747-8 has the weather button in the FMC… but it doesn’t work.

what I was saying… all ILS landing systems are not equal, and will have varying degrees of accuracy. Ie you couldn’t use full auto land features on some, but it’s fine on others (irl)

So far, without looking up charts… this is why some are perfect landing and others require more manual input. I need to scrub up on all this as well!

this might help (both of us) https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24778/what-are-the-differences-between-cat-i-cat-ii-and-cat-iii-as-concerns-aircraft

1 Like

After landing there, I tried to drive home (on the road) on my usual route from the local airfield.

But I “damaged my landing gear” on a bridge.

It was very easy to navigate the roads, they looked very familiar. Buildings on the way, not so much. It’s also hard to drive at an acceptable speed.

Also the cars drove on the wrong side of the road. Not that that really matters because they are ghosts, luckily, because they don’t stop.

Conclusion: would not recommend if you want to be home in time

1 Like

I tried it myself with the published max glide config and also got some horrid 1300rpm sink rate so it’s not making much a difference in stretching the glide. I tried the automixture setting and can confirm the sim tries to set the fuel/air mixture to generate the most power and not cruise efficiency. There is no EGT gauge in the stock plane but with manual mixture I just lean it back so the fuel flow drops about 25% which is a good tradeoff to lose just a few kts of speed.

Last night I tried to figure out what speed is most efficient for the (stock) Bonanza at 12K ft. I thought it was around 110 knots IAS. It turns out it’s slightly under 100 knots IAS. The stock Bonanza must have more drag in game than the real thing.

The data:

12K ft alt hold, vary throttle, left tank 40.00, right tank 30.00, fly about 50nm (x4 sim rate)

100%/100% 36F 14% IAS 120 TAS 146 859.1 809.0 35.41 10.915
98%/100% 36F 15% IAS 119 TAS 145 802.6 752.0 35.43 11.072
96%/100% 36F 16% IAS 117 TAS 143 739.0 688.0 35.45 11.209
94%/100% 36F 17% IAS 115 TAS 140 657.1 607.0 35.58 11.335
92%/100% 36F 18% IAS 114 TAS 138 596.8 546.0 35.57 11.467
90%/100% 36F 19% IAS 112 TAS 137 536.6 484.9 35.54 11.592
88%/100% 36F 21% IAS 110 TAS 134 474.8 415.4 34.96 11.786
86%/100% 36F 22% IAS 108 TAS 132 404.1 352.6 35.67 11.894
84%/100% 36F 24% IAS 106 TAS 130 341.6 287.1 35.44 11.952
82%/100% 36F 26% IAS 104 TAS 127 278.6 224.4 35.51 12.071
80%/100% 36F 29% IAS 100 TAS 122 214.0 163.0 35.82 12.201
78%/100% 36F 31% IAS 98 TAS 119 67.0 15.0 35.74 12.207
77%/100% 36F 32% IAS 96 TAS 118 345.0 290.0 35.50 12.222
76%/100% 36F 35% IAS 94 TAS 115 501.0 449.0 35.74 12.207
74%/100% 36F 44% IAS 87 TAS 107 438.0 383.0 35.31 11.727
72%/100% 36F Stall

12K ft alt hold, vary propeller, left tank 40.00, right tank 30.00, fly about 50nm (x4 sim rate)

100%/100% 36F 2700 rpm 14% IAS 120 TAS 146 859.1 809.0 35.41 10.915
100%/ 96% 36F 2581 rpm 15% IAS 119 TAS 145 952.0 893.0 34.69 11.111
100%/ 92% 36F 2474 rpm 16% IAS 117 TAS 142 794.0 740.0 35.21 11.273
100%/ 88% 36F 2379 rpm 18% IAS 115 TAS 140 726.0 673.0 35.36 11.422
100%/ 84% 36F 2263 rpm 19% IAS 112 TAS 136 663.0 609.0 35.35 11.613
100%/ 80% 36F 2159 rpm 19% IAS 113 TAS 138 600.0 549.0 35.53 11.409
100%/ 76% 36F 2051 rpm 15% IAS 119 TAS 145 535.0 480.0 34.90 10.784
100%/ 72% 36F 1941 rpm 16% IAS 117 TAS 143 465.0 410.0 34.88 10.742
100%/ 68% 36F 1913 rpm 17% IAS 116 TAS 141 396.0 332.0 34.09 10.829
100%/ 64% 36F 1914 rpm 17% IAS 115 TAS 141 317.0 266.0 35.29 10.828
100%/ 60% 36F 1912 rpm 17% IAS 115 TAS 141 256.0 204.0 35.20 10.833

Since a picture says more than a thousand numbers
KIAS on the horizontal axis vs Nautical Miles per Gallon on the vertical axis

Changing the propeller angle lowers the rpm and at first it slows down the plane. Yet when the blades get more grip on the air the plane speeds up again despite the lower rpm. It’s no free lunch of course, it still takes more fuel and is actually less efficient than simply decreasing throttle. Those are the outliers at the bottom of the graph.

Visualizing my earlier tests

Horizontal axis is the amount of fuel left (weight), vertical axis nautical miles per gallon

The lower line is from staying at 12K ft and let the speed build up as weight decreases, from 106 KIAS to 112 KIAS (with throttle and propeller set to 90%)

The higher line is from limiting speed to 100 KIAS (FLC 100) and convert the extra power into altitude (thus leaner fuel mixture) with altitude varying from 12,000 ft to 14,830 ft

Now to find the most efficient fuel mixture (so far I’ve let the game handle it, auto mixture)

1 Like

Sounds very promising, losing a bit of speed is only advantageous as I’ve found out.

Is there a way to calculate a ball park for fuel mixture setting? I have no idea what the game sets it to, so no idea what to adjust. Only when you start at a certain height it shows what the mixture setting is with the stock Bonanza. I guess I can start at different altitude airports to figure out what the game uses.

Got my list ready!

Daocheng Yading Airport (IATA: DCY, ICAO: ZUDC) 14,472 ft (China)
Qamdo Bamda Airport (IATA: BPX, ICAO: ZUBD) 14,436 ft (China)
Kangding Airport (IATA: KGT, ICAO: ZUKD) 14,042 ft (China)
Ngari Günsa Airport (IATA: NGQ, ICAO: ZUAL) 14,022 ft (China)
El Alto International Airport (IATA: LPB, ICAO: SLLP) 13,325 ft (Bolivia)
Yushu Batang Airport (IATA: YUS, ICAO: ZLYS) 12,762 ft (China)
Inca Manco Cápac International Airport (IATA: JUL, ICAO: SPJL) 12,552 ft (Peru)
Shigatse Peace Airport (IATA: RKZ, ICAO: ZURK) 12,408 ft (China)
Lhasa Gonggar Airport (LXA/ZULS) 11,975 ft (China)
Jiuzhai Huanglong Airport (IATA: JZH, ICAO: ZUJZ) 11,312 ft (China)

You’re getting to be quite the test pilot!! There is no EGT gauge in the stock Bonanza and it’s using a constant speed prop, so all that’s left is the fuel flow meter to guess the mixture. Once you switch on automixture, it will override whatever manual mixture setting you have. But you can see what fuel flow value it’s set at during cruise, switch off automixture, and lean to lower the fuel flow to experiment.

1 Like

Ah! That’s what that FFLOW stands for, makes sense. GPH, gallons per hour, got it. Maybe once in a while I should read a manual haha. More fun just to start pressing buttons and see what happens!

I can see why you would want a digital readout for that, zoom helps. I’ll test the actual effect in game later. It should be easy to make that trip with leaner fuel.

I always seem to end up making spread sheets while playing sims. In Elite Dangerous it ended in a formula to calculate the fastest way to land, given the gravity of the planet and the current height (ships hover in Elite Dangerous until you turn the engines off) Putting the faith of my 170 million credits Anaconda in the hands of a couple calculations.

Turn off engines until reaching a certain speed in free fall, then turn them back on for max deceleration and if calculated right, stop right above the surface. If wrong, game over. (or stop too soon, less dramatic) It’s a sickening feeling since at first you don’t seem to slow down at all. Of course I had to test it out on a 9.8g planet with only 0.5g deceleration available. (on top of overcoming the gravity that is)

£1 to anyone who guesses where I’m landing?

1 Like

Only for the first one or for everyone who correctly guesses? For how long does the offer stand? Can you be found if 1000+ users have guessed correctly?
Do you trust us not to tell each other where you are landing?


I continued on my search to extend the range of the (stock) Bonanza.

More data points to find the most efficient cruise speed at 12K ft

Added a test run with 90% propeller while varying throttle to reduce speed. The combination of slightly lower rpm (2440 rpm) with lower throttle gives a slightly better result than at max rpm. (However don’t drop the rpm too low, under 2200 rpm, where mileage will go down)

It’s clear about 98 KIAS is the most efficient speed.

I added another run with everything at max, climbing as high as possible

Fuel left at the bottom (weight left) The less weight the higher or faster the plane can go. The lower lines are from speeding up while weight decreases, the higher lines are from climbing.

Since it’s a sim and engine wear is not a problem, simply running at max the whole time while climbing as high as possible gets the best mileage. The plane got up to 18,080 ft with 144.4 nm left to go, then a glide at -200 fpm while maintaining 100 KIAS crossed the remaining 144.4 nm with 3,750 ft altitude left. About 0.65 gallons and 10.08 nm per 1,000 ft, slowing from 135 TAS to 107 TAS. This won’t work with live weather though, icing will be a problem.

To expend mileage at 12K ft (safe for icing on the way to Hawaii) I’m now looking fot the optimum fuel mixture. I started with the most efficient throttle / prop settings to lean the fuel from there

12k ft vary mixture for 82%/90% IAS 98 TAS 119 (12.277 nmpg with auto mixture)

82%/90%/40% 36F 2439 rpm 35% IAS 94 TAS 115 370.0 315.0 35.45 12.088
82%/90%/32% 36F 2439 rpm 32% IAS 97 TAS 119 210.0 146.0 34.96 12.698
82%/90%/30% 36F 2439 rpm 31% IAS 98 TAS 119 299.0 244.0 35.76 12.972
82%/90%/28% 36F 2439 rpm 32% IAS 97 TAS 118 135.0 84.0 36.12 13.144
82%/90%/26% 36F 2439 rpm 33% IAS 96 TAS 117 643.0 588.0 35.85 13.253
82%/90%/24% 36F 2439 rpm 34% IAS 94 TAS 115 573.0 520.0 36.03 13.350
82%/90%/22% 36F 2439 rpm 36% IAS 93 TAS 114 498.0 445.0 36.05 13.418
82%/90%/21% 36F 2439 rpm 37% IAS 92 TAS 112 423.0 368.0 35.91 13.447
82%/90%/20% 36F 2439 rpm Stall

Mileage goes up as speed drops until speed reaches a critical point. The trick is to start with a higher throttle setting to find the optimal lean fuel mixture for max mileage, so that the drop in speed lands on the optimal speed (98 KIAS) I’ll find it tonight!