What did you do in MSFS today? (Part 1)

[TrueDrezzer]

I would try turning off the auto-mixture as you can also play around with that to get either the best mixture for power or economy. That will make a range difference on your long flight! Each plane has different metrics to determine this, mostly based on EGT values (power = 50’F rich of peak EGT on C172 for example, economy cruise = 50’F lean of peak EGT on the Mooney). Err on the rich side to help cooling and engine life, but that’s not a concern in the sim.

Add another variable, humidity, although it’s a smaller component of the performance equation.

Generally, travel aeroplanes get more efficient and deliver more range the higher they fly, and aero engines like to operate at a certain range of power, so I would try flying higher as your plane gets lighter. Airspeed is life, and altitude is life insurance, so more height gives you more glide range when you do run out of fuel. Getting up to cruise altitude at Vy helps you enjoy that efficient height as quickly as possible, but the climb angle is uncomfortable for passengers and strains the engine.

Test pilots have done all the work to put the data into each plane’s POH, but as the planes in the sim aren’t real life, and passenger comfort / oxygen / engine cooling / wear / noise isn’t a concern, it’s up to pioneers like you to experiment!

Yes, there is a point where flying slower actually burns more fuel over distance. The slower you fly, the more “trim” or AOA you need to generate lift to counter the weight, which increases induced drag. At some point, this induced drag is so great that you need to add power. Try flying at stall speed and see how much power you must put in just to maintain altitude.

Happy experimenting!

[SvenZ]

Confirmed in game, 110 KIAS is the most efficient climb

I measured fuel use under identical circumstances for climbing to 12K ft then maintaining 12K ft at 81% throttle / 80% propeller until 850nm left to go (60.3 nm travelled)

Climb speed, fuel an distance left when reaching 12K ft, and fuel left when reaching 850nm to go (60.3nm traveled)
FLC 110 12,000 FT 34.87 875.2nm 16F 32.80 TAS 119
FLC 100 12,000 FT 35.47 882.6nm 16F 32.78 TAS 119
FLC 90 12,000 FT 35.53 885.3nm 16F 32.58 TAS 118

Reaching 12K ft sooner makes the plane fly slightly slower, negating the benefit of leaning the fuel mixture faster. It doesn’t matter that much, but 110 is best and faster.

The best way to extend range is to cut throttle to 50%, propeller to 70% and drift down with only nav mode on. (AP will still keep the same attitude)

For extreme savings, from 18K ft I got this for the first half hour
50%/70% no alt hold, drifting down
18,000 ft 5:29 39.95 TAS 103 26F 102.4 nm
8,280 ft 5:59 37.00 TAS 99 52.1 nm 5.90 gallons per hour, 17.05 nmpg (17.46 -> 16.78)

Slow but incredible mileage for a long glide. The plane levels off at around 5K ft with these settings while still doing up to 13 nmpg.

However since the speed is so low (TAS 97) any wind will have a big effect. Good with tail wind, very bad with a head wind.

I guess the best strategy is to climb at KIAS 110 to 12K ft, reduce throttle and propeller (81/80) then maintain FLC 100 to resume climbing while losing weight. with 100nm left to go (maybe sooner), turn off FLC mode and drift down at 50%/70% to level off at 5k ft. That should leave plenty of margin to reach Hawaii from PLWN.

Now to deal with icing… Keep an eye out on temp and weather, drift down in time and reduce throttle and propeller not to exceed KIAS 100. Slow and steady.

[TrueDrezzer]

OK I had to do some testing myself In the C152, I can maintain altitude at 80KIAS with 2100RPM. At clean stall speed 40KIAS I need the same power level as well… so now I’m using the same amount of fuel but only traveling half the speed.

[TrueDrezzer]

Great test! So if 110KIAS is the most efficient climb, shouldn’t it be the most efficient descent too? According to the POH, the plane will glide at 1.7NM / 1000ft at LOW RPM prop. Cruise mixture setting is 20’C lean of peak EGT, which adds more than 120NM range vs the max-power mixture setting.

[Shredmetal7077]

Had a play on the mach loop with the MB339, forgot to set the altimeter before take off, got lost a couple of times. All in all, productive.

- YouTube

[SvenZ]

Yep, I need to speed up the descent, so far I’ve only tested that for ‘hang’ time instead of distance.

I let it crash over night with 50/70 settings from 12K ft and found that it had traveled 470nm (where I found it in the ocean when I got up) That was one tank, 37 gallons.

Before that it had traveled 320.3nm on 27.67 gallons (which was the slow climb plus cruising at 12K ft at 100 KIAS) while doing 12.88 nm per gallon at the end. I let it sit at FLC 100 and climb at will, it only went up to 12,190 during that time, TAS varying between 120 and 122. Most of the weight was still there.

Extending that for another 9.33 gallons = 120.1 nm. All together 910.4 nautical miles.
Crash on the runway! (need 910.3)

Next is doing that first part again at the faster climb rate and 110 KIAS travel speed, plus that glide test was sub optimal (just wondered what it would do)

I changed to testing with the clear skies setting instead of live weather, which is still not constant. The biggest difference is the temperature, only 16F at 12K ft, instead of 44F with live weather. I imagine that is slower or rather lower, thinner air, less grip.

More tests later today, it looks promising.

It turns out temperature has a much bigger impact than I thought. Doing my tests with the clear skies preset, not only still generates randomized 2 to 3 knot winds (significant on 100 knot speeds) but also sets the ground temperature to 16c, instead of 26c where I’ll be flying.

The difference

FLC 110 12,000 FT 34.87 875.2nm 16F
FLC 110 12,000 FT 34.11 866.0nm 36F

A lot warmer at higher temperatures (now closer to what I observed with live weather) resulting in a longer climb and worse mileage.

It’s not easy to go the distance with the Bonanza’s gimped engine. The listed cruise speed can only be reach while diving to the ground! I’m running a new test in the background, now with 26c ground temperature and all wind eliminated. Less and less variables in the mix might finally yield some valid comparisons.

[cdv00079374]

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 | G36 LOIJ — LOWZ

From LOIJ to LOWZ great view！

[N405HT]

flying up the Amazon River and its tributaries below tree-level in the A5 is great fun…

[TrueDrezzer]

Canyon carving in the Goosenecks north of Monument Valley!

[VeryOldPilot]

Spend a few hours throughout the day visiting airports around the world to count and make a list of the users (All Players) flying airliners/GA despite the alleged unusability since the last update. I assumed that MS/Asobo would not have to count complaining forum posts/users to get a aircraft usability/satisfaction assessment because they must have immediate access to such data/statistics (i.e. number of users per hour/day, user country, mileage flown, etc.
I was amazed at the number of users who were flying airliners throughout the entire day and gave some thought to how MS/Asobo would assess complaints made on the forum.

[FlyForever5443]

I flew right through Mount Rushmore and didn’t crash.

[justcruisin1186]

aside from then something significant fails to work, I think you will find many simmers are not up to the stage the airliner deficiencies are THAT much of an issue and have much to learn just to get the basics. At least that was the case for me. I am however now at a point where I want to delve deeper into the FMC RTE programming, overrides etc and beginning to be unsure if I am pushing against my knowledge limits or the sim limits. Frnkly I would go to XP11 at this stage if the looks of the sim were not just so damned stunning… so I will persist as they keep ironing. I am quite intrigued they are going back over areas one at a time to upgrade them. It confirms to me they got it out with a pplan to then tweak and fine tune things like SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE! seriously dudes… you do an Roman Aqueduct right then totally miss that?

What did I do today? after experimenting with the FMC nav system and landing at EGLL Heathrow, saw another Queen of The Skies about to take off so decided to pursue and attempt to fly in formation.

I twas all going well until I finally overtook them then tried to slow… after a 40min chase and they vanished (quit the session) as soon as I started to slow down and join. grrrrrr Obviously they didn’t like the idea of a selfie with a couple of Queens

I suspect they knew I was pursuing since their altitude would suddenly drop 5000ft and they would change it as soon as I matched it… eventually settling at the same FL I thought they had figured out what I was doing. And yes… I kept enough space for it to look like I was flying along with, not attempting to harass

I really need to get some mates who like flying,…

also, watching a youtube vid, I might attempt some overnight flights and let the AI-ATC do the hand offs. Didn’t know that was a thing, cause I turn it off usually

[Monkfishman3086]

For practice: Prepared a local flight like I would do in real life. EBZH - EBZH via Antwerp and crossing that CTR. On the (physical) VFR map.

While I was flying, practiced my radio communications: actually saying the stuff I should say out loud, and setting the correct frequencies in the SIM. I don’t use ATC in the sim, I don’t know how to use IVAO yet so I just pretend.

Since the weather here is currently lousy I set the weather manually this time to the winds I saw in windy which I used for flight prep.

I noticed turbulence was very high, maybe I set something wrong in the manual weather because it was never THAT crazy in Live Weather. In real life, I probably wouldn’t be doing that trip with that kind of air and just turn back to land.

Also, the Savage Carbon is crazy fast for the short distances of the legs I usually fly. It was a little busy, keeping the plane steady, setting frequencies, VFR navigating on the physical map, and pretend talking to the radio. A bit stressful so good practice, will do that again. Great way to keep stuff fresh when not actually flying (I’m a VERY novice ultralight pilot so …)

The visualisation of the scenery is REALLY close to what I see in real life, although I feel cities are a little harder to spot in the sim. Wind turbines are also less obvious than they are in real life. I really like the influence of the sun on visibility, felt very realistic.

Also, with the Savage Carbon, that was once again a butter smooth landing that used up barely any runway. Perfect.

[VeryOldPilot]

Thank you for sharing your experience and opinions - which according to the forum CoC - every forum members should be entitled to, if such complies with the forum CoC’s. I must however mention that my forum contribution and thus my response to your post is somewhat hampered because the enforcement of such CoC’s appears to me to be selective depending on the product update dissatisfaction level voiced on the forum by a minority because of a new bug in an update. Troll accusations to kill differing opinions and off-topic non-constructive criticism on every thread then appear to be allowed allowed (see my post history)
I am happy that you are enjoying the sim, getting your moneys worth and are convinced that the purchase was the right investment or purchase for you and your family. Please correct me if I misunderstood your product satisfaction.
Unfortunately, I am currently too busy helping some 200+ members of a flight sim club my company supports, financially with hardware, software, Internet access, etc., with advice from forum RW pilots (who like 3 RW lawyers have 5 different legal opinions - see forum threads) and forum IT/ Devs/ Programmers claiming years of experience (who like RW lawyers and RW pilot have 7 different legal/expert opinions - see forum threads) to comment further on your post.
It’s obviously very confusing but should not be so.
Nevertheless, I can say that I am happy that you are enjoying the sim without detrimental affects on your life, family or mental health.
I can tell you that the planes you wanted to chase were not piloted by my teenagers. They have learned to fly the sim airliners and accept and master every bug as a challenge and would have helped you ‘get a selfie’ if you were really there.
I would invite to join the club and join the flying experience but the forum culture and parental control does not allow that at this time.
Happy flying

[justcruisin1186]

thanks for hte detailed response.

One small point that I do as well… treat the bugs as a in-flight problem to get around.

FMC not updating button pushed… going in by hand

Screens vanished? revert to old skills

Too much fuel burn… experiment with engine out procedure and finding the nearest airport, then check you mental arithmetic for descent and unpowered glide distance

Glideslope do a catch and release? be a pilot and fly the darned thing by hand!

Weird approach and the system insisted on taking you back tot he previous way point, doing 2 u-turns? fly it with the heading bug!

Frankly the biggest problem I have… wanting to fly an airliner while all that beautiful VFR stuff is below, and I can’t say I am a fan of constantly hopping between planes

[sparrowdog17]

Nice. I’ve been doing the exact same thing in North America. Same rules. Started from home. Haven’t settled in for that flight across the Atlantic yet. Heading south.

[VeryOldPilot]

Thanks for your additional positive contribution to the MSFS community and to the long-term success of the sim to the benefit of the community majority - even if a small very vocal minority may thus be disappointed in the short-term in respect of any/all ‘I want it now’ demands and expectations.
If MS/Asobos were to read this thread, these posts, such would probably confirm their belief that their development plans and strategy are correct.
As promised and accepted by the majority of users - and not denied by you - it’s a 10-year on-going development and I am therefore grateful that you consider small details as a challenge instead of whinging points
Like you, I am confident that your additional contribution - in combination with the very sincere advertised commitment by MS/Asobso will result in a fix of the small points you mention. And in the meantime only pose exciting challenges for a pilot to deal with - as if programmed to test a re-experienced on a Level D multi-million $ simulator.
I hope that you will, like me, look forward to our community and forum being flooded by million of young newcomers who will kick out the old hat attitudes and take over the community for their children.
I am sure that you will get used to, and learn to enjoy, hopping between planes. It’s a bit like hopping from one thread to the other to make non-constructive complaints in the hope Asobo gives you want you demand.

[SvenZ]

I continued my plight to reach Hawaii in the Bonanza. I eliminated all weather variables and left as much as possible up to automation to establish a base line. This is how far I got today

891.1nm, 12.2nm short. But I can swim to shore from here!
(The airstrip is at 1,500 ft, so still not close to getting there)

I took off with only 140 pound weight for the pilot (co-pilot at 0), and 80 gallons (480 pounds) of fuel. Clear skies, deleted the wind layer, set ground temperature to 26c (instead of 15c)

PLNW to HI25

My data today

Climb to 12K ft FLC 110 then reduce to 90/90 stay at FLC 110
12,000 ft 5.89 5.89 44.3nm 44.3nm 36F
12,020 ft 8.04 2.15 70.0nm 25.7nm 36F IAS 106 TAS 129
Measurement every 30 minutes
12,020 ft 13.47 5.43 135.3nm 65.3nm 36F IAS 107 TAS 131 10.86 gallons per hour 12.03 nmpg
12,020 ft 18.92 5.45 200.9nm 65.6nm 36F IAS 108 TAS 131 10.90 gallons per hour 12.04 nmpg
12,020 ft 24.36 5.44 266.6nm 65.7nm 36F IAS 108 TAS 132 10.88 gallons per hour 12.08 nmpg
12,020 ft 29.82 5.46 332.6nm 66.0nm 36F IAS 108 TAS 132 10.92 gallons per hour 12.09 nmpg
12,020 ft 35.25 5.43 399.0nm 66.4nm 36F IAS 109 TAS 133 10.86 gallons per hour 12.23 nmpg
12,025 ft 40.68 5.43 465.5nm 66.5nm 36F IAS 109 TAS 133 10.86 gallons per hour 12.25 nmpg
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
12,130 ft 56.81 5.24 664.6nm 65.2nm 36F IAS 110 TAS 135 10.84 gallons per hour 12.44 nmpg (1 minute short)
12,230 ft 62.40 5.59 734.3nm 69.7nm 36F IAS 110 TAS 135 10.82 gallons per hour 12.47 nmpg (1 minute long)
12,340 ft 67.78 5.38 801.3nm 67.0nm 36F IAS 110 TAS 135 10.76 gallons per hour 12.45 nmpg

Descent FLC 110 aiming for -200 fpm by reducing throttle FLC mode does not work for descent
12,340 ft 7:20 9.22 109.0nm IAS 110 TAS 135 70% throttle -200 fpm vs mode
11,000 ft 7:28 8.14 92.2nm 1.08 70% throttle
10,000 ft 7:33 7.42 81.5nm 0.72 IAS 108 TAS 128 change to 69% throttle
9,000 ft 7:38 6.68 70.8nm 0.74 IAS 111 TAS 129 change to 66% throttle
8,000 ft 7:43 5.95 60.2nm 0.73 IAS 111 TAS 127 change to 63% throttle
7,000 ft 7:48 5.22 49.7nm 0.73 IAS 111 TAS 126 change to 60% throttle
6,000 ft 7:53 4.52 39.3nm 0.70 IAS 111 TAS 124 change to 57% throttle
5,000 ft 7:58 3.80 29.2nm 0.72 IAS 111 TAS 122 change to 54% throttle
4,000 ft 8:03 3.10 19.2nm 0.70 IAS 111 TAS 120 change to 51% throttle

Out of fuel

3,000 ft 16.4nm IAS 93 TAS 99 -1300 fpm
2,000 ft 15.1nm IAS 96 TAS 96 -1300 fpm
1,000 ft 13.6nm IAS 81 TAS 84 -1000 fpm
Splash 12.2nm

Things learned today,

• FLC mode does not work for descent
• It takes about 0.72 gallons per 1000 ft descent at -200 fpm
• Throttle can be reduced 3% per 1,000 ft to stay at optimum IAS
• Out of fuel, the plane drops like a brick, -1300 fpm to maintain speed
• Fuel weight decreasing makes less impact than I thought / hoped for

Now to change parameters to get more mileage, and I realize I should have measured on distance and leave time out of it. It’s distance vs fuel anyway. Time to pull up excel and make a graph…

Btw, how accurate is time acceleration, it would make this process a lot faster! I guess I can test that as well

[hobanagerik]

@SvenZ

FLC mode does not work for descent

I’ve played around with this, but I forget the aircraft, perhaps the Caravan. For me it did work, but it seemed that a trigger was needed. Say I’m at 4000ft at 140kts. I set my ALT to 2000ft and FLC to 150kts. Nothing happens unless I decrease throttle, and push FLC up to something much higher, like 170kts. Once some trigger point is reached the nose drops, and it will level off at 2000ft.

My assumption was that as long as I had set my FLC to greater than my current airspeed that the nose would drop, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Once it has triggered though, I can decrease my FLC to something lower, like there is some hysteresis going on here.

[SvenZ]

I had it working in an earlier trial run, or at least the plane was going down (from reducing throttle). But it never matched the speed I set. Climbing it’s very accurate, on that descent it was more than 20 knots off from the set speed.

This time I reduced the set altitude to 1500 ft, reduced throttle to 70%, disengaged and re-engaged FLC mode (set to 110 knots), tried to increase the speed a bit yet all it did was increase the trim while the plane slowed down to 90 knots IAS.

VS mode is instant, however it’s time based. A distance based descent rate would be more useful since ground speed decreases on descent.