fuel flow and performance chart c172

[lorenzosgro]

hello! my name is lorenzo, i noticed the first time i was using this c172 that fuel flow and the data in the performance chart were perfectly planned, now, it can be my fault or the new update, but at 2000ft. 2000rpm i dont get that 6.6 gph, should i lean to recomanded lean mixture even at 2000ft?

it used to be just like the performance chart that is what i liked a lot!!

I am using the propeller of the c172r (standard one)

thank you for your support

[Oracle427]

What fuel flow are you getting?

What is the outside temp and pressure when you are testing? Is the aircraft in good condition?

[lorenzosgro]

outside it was 10 degrees it was standard weather from fsx options..aircraft was new 0 hours

pressure i don't remember i got 8 instead of 6.6

without leaning

[Oracle427]

I was able to get a fuel flow of 6GPH at 1900 RPM at 2000 feet on a standard day as is published on the chart.

[lorenzosgro]

i updated to the latest update? should i go back

[Lewis - A2A]

Always run the latest version of the software and remember that numbers in books are around a abouts, get close and remember tolerences but don't expect exact math precision, the real world doesn't work that way and as we model more and more for the simulation neither will our simulation.

Conditions as Oracle mentions can greatly affect this so check the conditions, check your aircraft and make sure you pre-flight and walk around if flying seriously. 0 hours doesn't mean the aircraft hasn't been sat for long enough for water to gather in the fuel or the oil to go.

thanks,
Lewis

[Great Ozzie]

Hi Lorenzo,

I just ran a test too: At 2000' using Clear Weather theme and recommended lean, I was burning 7.3gph.

As Lewis said, do not expect this to be "precise" or exact to book. It is one reason why RW one budgets at least an extra hour's worth of fuel i.e. be on the ground with at least an hour's worth of fuel in the tanks. That, for me, is one of those "non-negotiable" personal minimums.

Also, wise to heed the AOPA ASF recommendation below:

The AOPA Air Safety Foundation recommends that pilots of unfamiliar airplanes add one or two gallons per hour to their computed fuel consumption until they see how much the airplane actually burns.

-Rob

[lorenzosgro]

thank you very much for your support!!

i was thinking i needed to reinstal..becouse i cannot see the passenger inside..so i tought there was something wrong

[Welsch]

No passengers when you look at the plane from the outside, or when you are inside the cockpit and look around (that would be normal, there are no passengers shown when you are in the cockpit view)?

[Scott - A2A]

Also, remember, many figures in the book are estimates, and not taken from the actual plane. Accu-Sim is actually deeper and closer to the actual planes than whatever estimates they use in the book because our planes are all based on actual flight tests.

In the Skylane, the book and Accu-Sim diverge quite a bit when you move to lower RPM and higher power settings, but we confirmed Accu-Sim is closer to the real plane than the book.

Scott.

[lorenzosgro]

thank you all very much..

to answer the previous question.. no i cant see pilots looking from the outside.. should i reinstall??

when i push "empty plane" i just see the seatbelts mooving like there was a gohst

[Oracle427]

Have you turned on advanced animations in the FSX settings?

[lorenzosgro]

oh ok thats why? i was trying to save fps

[lorenzosgro]

thats only functional for effects? not realism of performance or phisics

[Oracle427]

Because those are the requirements to use A2A aircraft!

Check all the settings in the user manual to make sure you haven't missed something that will give you sub optimal results.