Cheers Brett!

Just posting an update on This Noob's progress.

Over the last week I've been working on several things which are new for me...

1. Trying to see if I can feel the difference between different aircraft. When you just start up on the runway and fly about a bit, taking screenshots, one small plane feels much like another. It's always brought a smile to my face when I see a C182RG described as a high performance aircraft, but there must be a reason for it so I set up a 'hillclimb' test. I flew the RG in the Himalayas, taking off from Lamidada at around 4100ft (I think) and flying with 3 people and enough fuel for there, back and 45 mins roughly north to Lukla at 9100ft. If you take the straight route then it involves climbing over and clearing a ridge at cca 7000ft about halfway to Lukla.
I first wanted sensibly to avoid too much risk, so I circled over Lamidada to 7000 then headed north, just using a terrain map for guidance. No problem at all, though almost kissed the rock wall at the end of the runway on landing.  I returned to Lamidada using the NDB there as an additional aid to check I was on track. Worked fine. Then I went straight to Lukla without circling first, and the RG cleared the ridge okay and was at a good height above Lukla when I arrived in 15mins. Great - less time, less fuel.  The RG had power to spare in all situations at that height. Tried the hillclimb again with the 172, same payload/fuel (put the 172 almost at max) and found it a lot more sluggish - it only just cleared the ridge, was noticeably slower and only just got to Lukla height when we arrived there in 19 mins. Finally I did it with the 150 Aerobat. 1st we couldn't take 3 people or much luggage, so put two in and loaded it to almost max. Then, climbing was very sluggish indeed, but thanks to the low speed we had time to clear the 7000ft ridge and get a fair amount of height above Lukla just before we got there in 25 minutes. Take off from Lukla was very bad though, only by the skin of my teeth...

I was very pleased with the results, I could really feel the differences between the planes, and see the data. So I'm going to use the RG as a benchmark for light GA singles, and the Lamidada-Lukla 'hillclimb' as a performance test too. It will really help me to sim more realistically and enjoyably, I think.

2. I've started work on basic piloting skills in the Aerobat, doing touch and goes + pattern flying with a direct headwind on runway bearing, then with a crosswind on take-off, sourcing your tutorial here and combining this with the'flying a rectangular course' tute in the FS Handbook...

http://www.flightsimbooks.com/flightsimhandbook/CHAPTER_05_02_Rectangular_Course...

Turning is my weakest point; I only have a 'twist grip' joystick for rudder and making co-ordinated, standard rate turns with reference to the horizon outside or the attitude indicator inside is just very tricky. So working on that in particular, as well as climbing turns, turning into/out of a crosswind, crabbing for wind correction, constant-speed flying, correct approach techniques etc - and checking out my course on the in-sim map after a couple of goes. Not doing too badly...

3. Now I'm working on a set of 'rules' to define my new 'serious' approach to simming, as well as a training programme... again, trying to be systematic and really 'get into' simming properly. I'll post them when I'm done, might give people a chuckle.

Cheers

Krigl

Thanks Brett! You're a mine of info! I wouldn't mind trying the turbo trick on my 182 but I'm not sure I'd know what things to rename in the .cfg.

Airspeeds and altitudes... trimming is my other massive weakness, I try to trim to take pressure off the stick, but always end up with my nose going up down like a pigeon that's into heavy metal, or slip into an uncontrolled climb. 

Well, I don't expect I'll ever get really skilled or accurate at this... I just want to get as close as I personally can to realism, and most importantly enjoy it, so it's practice practice practice.

Loving the C150 right now, so easy to land - and so slow! Last night I was reallly tired and kept nodding off while on final. When I opened my eyes I found myself still going where I wanted (wind was at runway heading), just a little bit lower. Fell asleep 3x and still managed a great centreline landing.

Don't think it's the RG, but I do have the default FS9 182 in my FSX directory, if you're interested?

I don't have FS9 installed... but here's the engine paragraph from the C172.. it's similar to the C182..

Just change the lines to those numbers. That will give you a quick and dirty turbo-normalization.

Make a backup of the aircraft.cfg file FIRST.. just in case..


[piston_engine]
power_scalar = 1.0                              //Piston power scalar
cylinder_displacement= 90.0                     //Cubic inches per cylinder
compression_ratio= 8.5                          //Compression ratio
number_of_cylinders=4                           //Number of cylinders
max_rated_rpm= 2700                             //Max rated RPM
max_rated_hp= 180                               //Max rated HP
fuel_metering_type= 0                           //0=Fuel Injected, 1=Gravity Carburetor, 2=Aerobatic Carburetor
cooling_type= 0                                 //0=Cooling type Air, 1=Cooling type Liquid
normalized_starter_torque= 0.3                  //Starter torque factor
                               //Is it turbocharged? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUE
                               //Max design manifold pressure, (inHg)
min_design_mp= 0                                //Min design manifold pressure, (inHg)
                           //Altitude to which the turbocharger will provide max design manifold pressure (feet)
emergency_boost_type= 0                         //0=None, 1=Water Injection, 2=Methanol/Water injection, 3=War Emergency Power
emergency_boost_mp_offset= 0                    //Additional manifold pressure supplied by emergency boost
emergency_boost_gain_offset= 0                  //Multiplier on manifold pressure due to emergency boost
fuel_air_auto_mixture= 0                        //Automixture available? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUE
auto_ignition= 0                                //Auto-Ignition available? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUE
max_rpm_mechanical_efficiency_scalar= 1.0       //Scalar on maximum RPM mechanical efficiency
idle_rpm_mechanical_efficiency_scalar= 1.0      //Scalar on idle RPM mechanical efficiency
max_rpm_friction_scalar= 1.0                    //Scalar on maximum RPM friction
idle_rpm_friction_scalar= 1.0                   //Scalar on idle RPM friction
BestPowerSpecificFuelConsumption=0.49           //SFC at Best Power mixture ratio

Just a few quick comments regarding your original questions about density altitude and flying over mountains...

As Brett said, density altitude calculations are very important for takeoff and landing performance, but if you plan to cross a mountain range, it is equally (if not more) important to have proper DA information for your climb to altitude.  There have been many fatalities because pilots thought that they only needed DA info for takeoff and landing, but neglected to remember that DA also influences your rate of climb and ceiling.  I've read many NTSB reports and spoken with eye witnesses of accidents where pilots 250HP ships couldn't even outclimb the terrain a few miles from the strip!  They took off alright, but they didn't have any extra horsepower to climb and they neglected to lighten their load. 

In fact, there are some somewhat simple calculations to use as rule-of-thumb to calculate your expected climb rate.  In fact, you lose about %3.5 HP per 1000 feet in DA.  

Example: 230 hp airplane at a 5000 ft airport where the DA = 7600 feet

HP reduction  = 3.5% x 7.6 = 27% reduction
(approximately 73% available)
230hp x (73%)= 168 hp available at 7600 ft DA

Depending upon your loading, this may be a go/no go decision.

The calculations beyond this point get a bit more complicated since excess HP is what makes you climb, but just remember that if you're flying in close proximity to mountains, make sure you're going to be able to outclimb the ridges.  The airplane (Cessna 182) in the above example needed to leave behind 800lbs in cargo in order to achieve the same sea level power/weight loading!   That's equivalent to two 180-lb passengers, two 75-lb bags, and 48 gallons of gas!


I know this is just FS, but its just food for thought.