Let's Play: Microsoft Flight Simulator X!

[RPharazon]

Wait what?
How can anyone make a Let's Play of Flight Simulator?
Well, sir, let's see if we can't find out.

For anyone who doesn't know, Flight Simulator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator) is an intensely popular series of simulator, originally created by SubLOGIC in 1980 for the Apple II, it was acquired and developed by Microsoft as of 1982. Since then, it has been through 10 iterations (Flight Simulator X being the most recent, released in 2006). There is a new version being developed, called Microsoft Flight, but it's not being developed by the same in-house development team.

I'll be playing Flight Simulator X, with FSPassengers, and Active Sky X. I also have Ultimate Traffic 2 as an addon, so we'll see a bunch of neat realistically-painted planes.

This is largely based on my previous experiences of doing a proto-LP of FS2004 on a long-dead forum, back before FSX came out. I took a Piaggio P.180 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti), and flew around the world, starting at Vancouver International Airport. I went west, circumnavigated the world, ended up at Vancouver International Airport around 5 real-time months later, and around 230 in-game hours later.

Now, the world is only 21638 NM in circumference at the most, you say, and the P.180 has a speed of 320 knots! Surely it must only have taken about 50 hours, maybe 60 or 70 given non-cruise times!

Well, I flew under one condition. I must keep the ocean (or appropriate sea) and land in view at the same time. This effectively limited me only to coastlines.
Yes, this means I went up to Alaska, down through the eastern coastline of Russia, through Japan, around China, down through the various bits of Southeast Asia, around Australia, back around Asia, around India, through Arabia, copping out a bit by flying over the Suez Canal at the Piaggio's service altitude, around Turkey, Greece, and Italy (the P.180's homeland!), over the Pyrenees (yes, at the service ceiling), up through France and the UK, through the Orkneys and Shetlands, all the way over Greenland, down the eastern coast of Canada and the US, through the Caribbean islands, over the north of South America, through the Panama Canal, and all the way up through the west coast of Mexico, the US, and Canada.

What I'm thinking of doing is following any per-flight or per-country/continent conditions (suggested by you helpful people). Say, a flight without the use of GPS, or without the use of any navaids (including the map), or a flight with failed instruments.
Whether or not it'll be an around-the-world trip will be decided by the general turnover.
Format will be screenshot-style, with maybe a few videos every now and then. I'll write in an informative manner, and any videos I make will be purely for demonstrative purposes, or if I'm doing an ILS CatIII landing just above minimums.

I'd also like any suggestions for the plane I'll be using. No tiny planes (C172s) or huge planes (19+ passenger planes). Somewhere around the area of a Baron 58 or King Air 100 would be perfect. Legs will be 2-3 hours in length, all flown in real-time, and I'd appreciate anything that can get me around 400-1000NM in that time.
If you suggest any non-vanilla planes (I have Deluxe FSX), then make sure that it's easily accessible, free, and with a working FSX non-virtual cockpit.

Schedulewise, the LP will be done on a "as I can do it" basis. Not a terribly cheerful prospect, but it is necessary. I often get fatigued in doing projects.

Also, have I mentioned that I'm an actual pilot?
I currently hold a Canadian Private Pilot License with a Night Rating, training towards holding a Commercial Pilot License with Multi-Engine and Class 1 IFR ratings, training through the Aviation Diploma program at Mount Royal University. As such, I'll be a bit busy in my actual flying, but I always have time to spare, as evidenced by my 30 hours of Steam gametime in the past two weeks. However, for the next few weeks, I'm grounded from flying, from a broken toe. I need to do this in order to keep a semblance of proficiency.

Alright, I'll let the thread sit and fester for a day or two, and then get started on the awesomeness. Comments, feedback, suggestions, and awesomeness is very much appreciated!

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This could be pretty cool. Adding any narrative embellishments to it?

[RPharazon]

This could be pretty cool. Adding any narrative embellishments to it?

Well, using FSPassengers, I'll be "taking a bunch of people with me".
FSPassengers, depending on the plane you choose, starts up only giving you maybe a co-pilot, and maybe 1/3 of your airplane's capacity in passengers. As you make more flights, and make them well, your reputation increases, and you gain more passengers per flight.
It's supposed to be a proper little simulator of cockpit procedures and some airline management, but it works wonderfully as a stats-keeper, flight-tracker, immersion tool, and flight manager. It also keeps you flying properly, as it rates you on the quality of the flight, softness of landing, and other criteria.

So, my idea is to say that I'm carting around a bunch of friends on a bunch of trips, and maybe we'll gain some along the way.

[factotum]

You could always try and crash a Beechcraft on a mysterious island somewhere in the South Pacific, starting from Nigeria... :smallwink:

[RPharazon]

Current plan:

Around the world flight.
Starting somewhere in North America.
Using a Cirrus SR-22. (Awww yeah, apparently my FS2004 version still works).
FSPassengers on, 8% failure chance, very low amount of money.
Crashes will be documented, posted, and laughed at.
Then the leg will be done all over again.
ActiveSky X on, using real-world weather, updated every 10 minutes.

Special Conditions:
All done in real-time, with no time acceleration (FSPassengers penalizes you if you use it).
Limited fuel, full realism, aircraft stress causes damage.
In-game ATC used and followed. I know it's a poor excuse for actual ATC, but it's a start.
Maybe I'll do the coastline-only bit again? Anyone have any "global" suggestions?


Also, a little something to whet your whistle:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/2210/teaser1f.jpg

[factotum]

Well, you could always go with the navigation methods used by the flight pioneers--e.g. follow roads when you're over land, and use the sun to judge your direction when there's no land visible. Your course will probably end up somewhat random, and you'll need a road atlas!

[Trekkin]

Perhaps the roll angle for your plane at cruising altitude should be equal to your current longitude?

Do a barrel roll...across the entire planet!

[Cogwheel]

Somewhere out there, there is a mod that lets you stick wings on to a monster truck.

I will now search for it.

[xp194]

London to Sydney.

Real time.

No breaks allowed.

Stream it.

Endurance flying! :-D

[RPharazon]

Well, you could always go with the navigation methods used by the flight pioneers--e.g. follow roads when you're over land, and use the sun to judge your direction when there's no land visible. Your course will probably end up somewhat random, and you'll need a road atlas!

Flight pioneers? I use that all the time when I'm actually flying. I just have a VFR Navigation chart. It often lies. A lot. As in, a farm will be indicated as a town.


Perhaps the roll angle for your plane at cruising altitude should be equal to your current longitude?

Do a barrel roll...across the entire planet!

What would I do when I'm beyond 90 degrees east or west? Fold myself into an alternate dimension? Do an imaginary barrel roll?


Somewhere out there, there is a mod that lets you stick wings on to a monster truck.

I will now search for it.

If you can strap a GE90-115B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90) to it, it can most likely fly. A single one of those puppies can provide enough power for a 747 to fly normally. The Boeing 777 uses two.
Also, if you do find it, I can do a Very Special Episode.


London to Sydney.

Real time.

No breaks allowed.

Stream it.

Endurance flying! :-D

In an SR-22 I wouldn't get much farther than Cyprus or summat.
I could do it in a 777 though...


First leg will be up sometime today.
I will start probably in Seattle or Vancouver or something, and go southwards along the coastlines. The plan is to stick to the coastlines, and work backwards down the west coast, across Panama, up the Caribbean, up the east coast, across the Atlantic, and then onto Europe.
I think I'm going to stop the coastline bit as of somewhere in Nova Scotia or something, and then visit every country in Europe.

After that, I'm not really sure. I'm not planning on visiting inland Africa or South America since FSX has barely any airports there. I'll just be going through the Middle East, then.

[Trekkin]

What would I do when I'm beyond 90 degrees east or west? Fold myself into an alternate dimension? Do an imaginary barrel roll?


I had meant that, if we take the roll angle of the plane to be the angle between the perpendicular bisector of a line drawn between the wingtips and the inverse of the vector representing gravity, that angle would be equal to the current longitude. So at 0 degrees (taking your starting longitude as 0), you're flying level, at 90 degrees you're sideways, at 180 degrees you're inverted, at 270 you're sideways the other way, and at 360 (so once you're back at your starting location) you're level again. I added the "at cruising altitude" so you could still land while flying halfway tipped over.

But really, it was silly. Good luck on your flight!

[RPharazon]

LEG ONE
Victoria International Airport (CYYJ) to Portland International Airport (KPDX)

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9862/cyyjkpdx01.jpg

Welcome to beautiful Victoria International Airport. Actually a very small airport and located far from Victoria itself, it is nevertheless quite important. Here we sit, loading up, chilling next to a LearJet and a King Air 200. You can see an Air Canada Airbus A3somethingorother in the background.


http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4262/cyyjkpdx02.jpg

A little while later, we taxi around the airport after getting clearance from the ground controller. We go up to the active runway (09), and hold short of the yellow lines.

Runways are numbered based upon their orientation relative to magnetic north, except when you're close to the magnetic north pole. Compasses go wonky there. Say a runway is oriented at 087 degrees magnetic. It would be called 09. Since obviously you're not just going to make a runway a one-way affair, its reciprocal heading and direction (087+180 = 267), its other end would be called runway 27. A neat thing to keep track of.

If there are two runways going parallel to each other, they are called Left, Right, and sometimes Center. When naming a runway, keep in mind that it's all relative to the runway heading. If a runway is called 07L/25R, the parallel runway would be called 07R/25L.


http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/1074/cyyjkpdx03.jpg

We line up on the runway and apply full throttle. This view is the view that I have to stare at for a long time. On the left panel, you see relevant orientation and flight data.

From left to right, you see the power, airspeed ticker, attitude/bank indicator, altitude ticker, and vertical climb indicator. Below the attitude/bank indicator is the heading indicator. The purple line you see is our GPS navigational track, while the plane is oriented in whatever way we're actually going. We'll come back to this later.

On the right you see a whole bunch of relevant data. We'll also come back to this in a future leg. The rule of thumb here is that Green = Good, Red = Bad.


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9409/cyyjkpdx04.jpg

Takeoff! Off we go on our trip. You gotta love fisheye lenses.


http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7852/cyyjkpdx05.jpg

We cross over into the US in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. See that nice water down there?
Neat story about it. Originally, FSX was supposed to be a DX10 launch product, with a patch to upgrade the graphics to DX10. You can see a comparison of what the difference should have been here (http://cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/directxflightsimulator.jpg), but in reality, after the patch, all that was noticeably different was the water you see down there. A pity.


http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3471/cyyjkpdx06.jpg

More of that pretty water.


http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/5161/cyyjkpdx07u.jpg

All glass cockpits (the LCD panels from before) require backup instruments in case of electrical failure or avionics failure. Those are the round things. Airspeed, attitude indicator, altimeter. You can see our airspeed is in the yellow, so that means we're over the Vno, the speed at which you can safely fly in turbulent conditions. Since we're cruising in calm air, we can go into the yellow arc, but not the red line.

The blue panels to the right are the radio and GPS stacks, the Garmin 430s. Very awesome, and include radio, navigational radio, and GPS functions into one neat little device. I love these things, and I know them inside and out from real-life experience. We'll talk about them later on.


http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3672/cyyjkpdx08.jpg

A while later, and we're over the mountains west of Seattle. We had to climb up from 7,500 feet to 9,500 feet in order to get over them safely. Currently, we're climbing down to 5,500 feet to get below clouds.

There is a pattern to these altitudes. Cruising altitude separation is done in thousands of feet, and depends on flight rules (visual or instrument) and direction. Flights going west go in even thousands (4000, 6000, 8000...), and flights going west are in odd thousands (3000, 5000, 7000). VFR flights add 500 feet. Since we're going east on a VFR flight, we're sticking to odd+500 feet altitudes.


http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9334/cyyjkpdx09.jpg

The town of Olympia, notable for us since it has a VOR waypoint. We'll talk about those later on as well. Basically, they can be used as homing beacons or navigational aids. Very expensive to maintain, but very, very useful. Get two of them, or one of them with a DME (again, we'll talk about that later), and you can pinpoint where you are without need for visual reference or GPS.


http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1716/cyyjkpdx10.jpg

We're into Oregon now. You can tell, can't you?
We're at 5,500 feet. This is dangerous not because of the ground elevation, but because we'd have three minutes to land if the engine failed.


http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5959/cyyjkpdx11.jpg

Portland International. Taken from 10 miles away. I love telephoto lenses.
We're cleared in to Runway 10L. You can't see it in this screenshot. All of that is taxiway.


http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9831/cyyjkpdx12.jpg

We land. I made a very nice landing but, uh, I broke the flaps since I encountered windshear that made my airspeed leap to above the flap maximum. FSPassengers is very particular about airspeed-induced failures. If the game glitches out for even a second and gives you an airspeed that will make something fail, it will have no mercy.


http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2463/cyyjkpdx13.jpg

Landed and parked. Let's see if we can't find someone to fix these flaps for us.
Failures in FSPassengers must be fixed before your next flight. We currently have $3,000,000 to go around the world. The flight, without repairs, cost us $2,000. The repairs will cost about the same amount of money.
Not the most representative cost (that flight would have actually cost about $300 at the most), but it works for our purposes.


http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2316/cyyjkpdxroute.jpg

Our flight path. You can see our flight level changes. Not exactly coastline, but I think I'm not going to follow that rule until LA. Coastal airports get numerous by that point.


And our FSPassenger evaluation:

Departure: 10h56 (18h56 GMT)
Arrival: 12h08 (20h09 GMT)
From: CYYJ - Victoria Intl - Canada
To: KPDX - Portland Intl - United States
Nbr of Passengers: 2
Incident Report: The flaps were extended at excessive airspeed and were damaged. There was an exceptional pilot on board and despite the dire situation he was able to land the aircraft safely.

Report:
Flight Distance: 186 Nm
Landing Speed: 91.94 kt
Time Airborne: 01h06:26
Landing Touchdown: -210.77 ft/m (nice)
Flight Time (block): 01h13:29
Landing Pitch: 5.88°
Time On Ground: 00h07:39
Landing Weight: 3163 lbs
Average Speed: 168.58 kt
Total Fuel Used: 19 gal
Climb Time: 00h09:39
Climb Fuel Used: 4 gal
Cruise Time: 00h22:38
Cruise Fuel Used: 6 gal
Average Cruise Speed: 183.56 kt (M0.29)
Cruise fuel/hour: 18 gal (calc)
Descent Time: 00h34:09
Descent Fuel Used: 8 gal


Overall a good flight. The average cruise speed was 180 knots, and is about 207mph, and 333kph. We zipped along, to say the least.



I hope you enjoyed this leg of the trip. It was a bit short, but mercifully so. FSX crashed-to-desktop not once, but twice, meaning I flew this trip about twice over. It at least showed me what not to do.
Now, let's see if I can't ramp up the AA and AF for the next leg.

[factotum]

I'm a bit surprised that maximum throttle on the engine in that plane is only 2700rpm--my diesel engined road car goes to 4500, and I thought aeroplane engines would have gone higher than that purely to improve the power output!

[RPharazon]

I had meant that, if we take the roll angle of the plane to be the angle between the perpendicular bisector of a line drawn between the wingtips and the inverse of the vector representing gravity, that angle would be equal to the current longitude. So at 0 degrees (taking your starting longitude as 0), you're flying level, at 90 degrees you're sideways, at 180 degrees you're inverted, at 270 you're sideways the other way, and at 360 (so once you're back at your starting location) you're level again. I added the "at cruising altitude" so you could still land while flying halfway tipped over.

But really, it was silly. Good luck on your flight!

But longitudes only go up to 180 degrees... Perhaps the IDL is 0 degrees, and anything eastwards increases? I can imagine landing at Heathrow upside down.
Anyways, thanks!


I'm a bit surprised that maximum throttle on the engine in that plane is only 2700rpm--my diesel engined road car goes to 4500, and I thought aeroplane engines would have gone higher than that purely to improve the power output!

Car engines are geared, though, and you're not running them at a near-constant level for hours. Plus it's a whole different form of propulsion. One is turning four wheels to move, while the other is moving air to move. Often, on light aircraft, the propeller is simply bolted onto the crankshaft. You can have geared aircraft engines, and indeed, once you get into high-performing aircraft, their gearings are intricate and disturbing. Turboprops, for example, are simply jet engines with a propeller attached to them. The jet engines spin at 37,500 RPM (on a PT6), but the propeller itself spins at around 2,200. The object is to get high torque on the propeller. It makes a hell of a difference.

Plus, 2500-2700RPM is common. Aerodynamicists have found a good propeller diameter that pushes a lot of air without being too heavy. Spinning it past 2700 RPM or so means that the blade tips go faster than the speed of sound (rotational motion and all that), creating a hell of a lot of noise, and more importantly, tearing the propeller apart. The Cessna 172 has its redline at 2700RPM. The Diamond 20 has its redline at 2800RPM. The Cirrus SR22 has its redline at around 2800RPM.

While engine and propeller designs sometimes do let the propeller go faster than the speed of sound, they are specially designed and much too expensive and particular for light aircraft. The Tu-95, a gigantic bomber made by the Soviets (and then Russians) has four engines, each engine has two counter-rotating propellers. Each one of them exceeds the speed of sound. It is the noisiest military aircraft on earth.

Next update probably today tomorrow.

[factotum]

Often, on light aircraft, the propeller is simply bolted onto the crankshaft.

Ah. That makes a lot of sense, thanks.

[Pahvimato]

Looking good. Except for this bit:

Flights going west go in even thousands (4000, 6000, 8000...), and flights going west are in odd thousands (3000, 5000, 7000).

I don't think that made any sense.

[AsteriskAmp]

Looking good. Except for this bit:

Flights going west go in even thousands (4000, 6000, 8000...), and flights going west are in odd thousands (3000, 5000, 7000).

I don't think that made any sense.

Odds are for east, but yeah, it needs correction.

[RPharazon]

I have problems in saying directions, believe it or not. I lost count of the number of times my instructors have said "[direction]? Are you sure?" and I responded "Gimme a sec... I mean [actual direction]."

I just talk about headings now.

But to clarify. Going west, flight levels are even thousands, and going east, flight levels are odd thousands. The way I remember this is the phrase "Easterners are odd."

[Flickerdart]

Man, this plane stuff is complicated. On the very special episode, you're going to have to not follow any of the rules and see what happens.

[RPharazon]

INTERMISSION ONE
The MFDs, or; How to get out of doing an actual update.

We're going to be looking at the Multi Function Displays of the Cirrus SR22. The original models, such as the G2 that we're flying, this "glass cockpit" is made and designed by Avidyne, and it is called the Integra system. On pretty much every other light aircraft glass cockpit, the creator would be Garmin, and it'd usually be a G500 or a G1000.

Anyways, we will first look at the left display, which displays the required flight information.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4599/feb27up01.jpg

Starting at the top half, going left to right.
The vertical green bar you see is a representation of the engine's available power output at the time, considering throttle setting, RPM, manifold pressure, outside air temperature, altitude, and density altitude. We're at 72%, which is a good percent. Not the best percent, but a good percent.

AP RDY at the top means the autopilot is ready and not malfunctioning.

The vertical ticker you see after that is the Airspeed indicator. We're currently at 155.5 knots of airspeed, with the blue bar projecting that, at this current setting and whatnot, we'd stabilize at 160 knots. Since the entire bar is green, we're not in danger of going overspeed (bad), underspeed (bad), and we're not close to any relevant climb-out or glide speeds (good I guess).

We're heading northeast, as you can see by the NE.

After that is the attitude indicator. This is an important one. On the vertical tickers, you can see our nose attitude relative to the ground. We currently have an attitude of 2.5 degrees. At the top, you can see the bank angle. This is the tilt of the wings, or more scientifically, the orientation of the plane relative to the longitudinal axis. Each notch is 5 degrees of bank, with the bigger notches indicating 30 and 60 degrees, while the triangular notch at the side indicating 45 degrees. Anything past 30 degrees is a steep turn (fun to do, but I suck at them), and anything past 60 is near-certain death. We're currently at almost 0 degrees of bank, leaning slightly to the right. This is good if we want to go in a straight line.

The right ticker is the altimeter. All the numbers here are in feet above sea level, not ground. At the top, you can see the Autopilot setting (1700). We're currently at 4870 feet, and each notch is 20 feet. At the bottom, you can see a little 29.92". That is the altimeter setting, in inches of mercury (an antiquated measurement system. Europe uses millibars, with the equivalent being 1013). Basically, since altimeters are just glorified (and very expensive) barometers, their calibration is a bit off if the ground air pressure is not exactly at 29.92. Therefore, we pilots get corrections to the altimeter whenever we tune into the weather. Low pressure is anything below 29.92, but usually above 28.00, while high pressure is anything above 29.92, but usually below 31.00. If you're 1.00 off, you can be up to a thousand feet off your actual altitude. An erroneous altimeter reading can cause crashes.

At the right is the VSI, the Vertical Speed Indicator. This measures our vertical speed in hundreds of feet per minute. The purple notch is the autopilot setting (currently at 0), while the line indicator says that our actual vertical speed is 100fpm. In actual airplanes, this thing can lag up to 30 second, and is useless in emergency situations such as spins and stalls. In practical use, you only use this in already-established descents and ascents, but really, it's just a Y/N answer to the question "Are we climbing?". In FSX, though, it doesn't lag at all, making it very useful indeed.

Along the bottom, going from left to right.
We have our main navigational selector (currently tuned to the first GPS system. We can set it to GPS1, GPS2, VLOC1, VLOC2, ADF, and off). After that is our bearing selector, just a secondary navigational selector in this aircraft. After that is the Aux, which is not actually tied into anything, but can be a good secondary system just in case. Below that is a little button you can modify to change the range and view functions of the heading indicator to the right.

Before we get to the heading indicator, there's a box at the bottom. OAT is the Outside Air Temperature, currently at 5 degrees Celcius. Below that is the True Air Speed and Ground Speed indicators. True Airspeed is airspeed corrected for temperature and pressure. Ground Speed is airspeed corrected for wind. Ground speed is what you need to look at to do any time and distance calculations, while True Airspeed is what you need to look at to see if the plane is performing as it should.

The Heading Indicator is pretty self-explanatory. The green line indicates our set course bearing, useful for a VOR or ILS approach. The purple notch indicates our set heading bug, to control the autopilot. The big red X indicates that our main navigational tool (GPS in this case) is not functioning, or isn't set. This makes sense as we haven't inputted anything into the GPS. The circle is just a big ol' compass. This needs to be reset with the compass heading every 15 minutes. The white line indicates our track (the way we're actually moving towards), and the heading number at the top indicates the way we're pointed (not the way we're moving towards). We're currently on a heading of 060 degrees. Not 60 degrees. 060.

The box to the right is just a cursory overview of the engine. We'll be talking about that after.

The boxes at the right are the autopilot setters. We have our heading bug set to 360 degrees, the altitude bug set to 1700 (which would plow us into the ground considering that ground altitude is 3900 in this flight), the VSI bug is at 0fpm, and the barometer setting is at 29.92"Hg.



http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7936/feb27up02.jpg

The top row is the important stuff.

Our engine (and prop) RPM is at 2699RPM.

Man Press is actually Manifold Pressure, not some sort of weird sexual act or human-powered pressing device. This is also measured in inches of mercury, and is currently below the standard atmospheric pressure, so it's sucking in air. This is a bit tricky to explain, and I'll explain its usage in a video later on. It's what you need to look at to properly set the power, since the prop RPM is relatively constant.

% Power shows us the system's calculated power output. In normal, non-glass cockpit planes, this is a figure you'd have to look up (and guess at) in the manual, but here, the plane calculates it for you. Handy! We try to keep it below 80% during cruise. Below 75% is optimal, but we need to get to places quickly.

Oil Temperature and Pressure are self-explanatory. As long as they aren't red or white, they're fine. If the pressure goes down and the temperature goes up, the engine is seizing due to lack of oil and will die in the next 15 minutes. Rev the engine down a bit, and look for a field to land in. If the temperature is down and the pressure is up, that means it's way too cold for the engine, and something is going to break (probably the cooler) if you don't fix it. Revving up the engine and leveling off is a good idea.

Below that, to the left, are the temperature indications for each individual cylinder. This plane has six cylinders (pretty powerful, since each cylinder is HUGE, and four cylinders are the norm in this type of aircraft). TIT is... probably vulgar. I honestly have no idea and I've never heard of the term before. Let's pretend it doesn't exist for now. If it's green, we don't care. EGT is the Exhaust Gas Temperature. CHT is the Cylinder Head Temperature. You can set the fuel-air mix of the fuel system to an optimal setting by monitoring EGT, and you can tell if a particular cylinder is wonky using the CHT. This is intensely handy if you want to know whether or not a cylinder is broken.

To the right is the electrical system readouts. The main bus and auxiliary bus each carry 28.0V. This is good. Our alternators (two of them! Neat!) each have a load of 40 Amps. Alternators generate electricity. Our Battery is not being used (it's only used on startup and in emergencies), and it's not being drained. This is good in flight.

To the bottom we have fuel indications. We just took off, so we've only used 0.8g of fuel. Our fuel flow is 15.8GPH (calculated on the fly), so we're doing well (our max fuel flow is close to 30GPH). We have 91.2g of fuel remaining, plenty for any flight. The plane calculates the time remaining at the current fuel flow (5:45 of flight!), and our fuel economy (10.5NMpG). This is about 13MPG. Not that great of a fuel economy, but we're going twice as fast as any car, without having to worry about traffic. Pretty good, eh?

Density Altitude is calculated on the fly (which is a welcome reprieve from having to calculate it using one of these things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6B). Basically, the air is acting as if it's 4880 feet above sea level. Currently, our indicated altitude is at parity. If the density altitude was below our indicated altitude, it'd be good for speed and power, and if it was above, it'd be good for... pretty much nothing. You want density altitude to be as low as possible. If it's too high, you might not even manage to take off.

OAT is Outside Air Temperature. Self-explanatory, and really kind of a term to make pilots seem smarter than they are. If a pilot tells you to see what the OAT reading is, do not make a confused face, or else the pilot will win. Instead, say "Oh, the thermometer reading?" and make a troll face. That way, you will win.

*A Note about Airspeeds.
There are many relevant speeds in aviation.

Indicated Airspeed (IAS) is the airspeed indicated by your airspeed indicator. This is a deathly serious matter, and the one most important in terms of aerodynamics. Too low, and you will stall and fall out of the sky (slowly). Too high, and the plane will break apart.

Calibrated Airspeed (CAS) is the Indicated Airspeed corrected for any errors in the placement of the sensors (the pitot tube, yet another lesson). This is often a small correction in light aircraft, but can be big in old or big aircraft.

Equivalent Airspeed (EAS) is the Calibrated Airspeed corrected for any errors in pressure. Not a big problem at all, or touched on, if you're flying below 20,000 feet. Above, it can be tricky.

True Airspeed (TAS) is the Equivalent Airspeed corrected for any errors in temperature. This is the important number to make sure of when you are actually seeing how fast the plane is comparatively going, in terms of performance.

These calculations can be performed backwards in an order best described by the mnemonic ICE-T. You can convert from True to Equivalent, or Equivalent to Calibrated, but not directly from Indicated to True. You have to pass through Calibrated and Equivalent first. Since Equivalent corrections are non-existent for light aircraft, we're not touching Equivalent.

Ground Speed is not even an airspeed. It's Indicated Airspeed corrected for wind. Say your IAS is 100 knots, and you have a 10 knot headwind. The wind is pushing you back in relation to the ground, but not in relation to the air. Your IAS is still 100, but your Ground Speed is 90 knots. Take away that headwind, and your IAS would drop to 90, and your Ground Speed would still be 90. If you have a tailwind and you're going 100 knots IAS, you'd have a Ground Speed of 110 knots. This is kind of tricky if you don't have good spatial awareness, and in case of precise calculations, an entire side of a flight calculator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StudentE6BFlightComputer.jpg) is devoted to this kind of thing.



That's about it. I hope you enjoyed this text-heavy instructional interlude in lieu of an actual flight. I was too busy cleaning planes and hangars and doing document audits today, so alas, I could not make a flight. I'll be in class for the next three days, so I'll probably make another one of these instructional interludes on Tuesday or Monday or something. What do you want to learn about?

[Trekkin]

One minor note: TIT is the turbine inlet temperature. I'd assume it means the inlet for whatever forced induction system keeps the air pressure at a level comfortable for the engine, although I know very little of aircraft engines and there could well be a separate turbine of which I'm unaware.

[factotum]

One minor note: TIT is the turbine inlet temperature. I'd assume it means the inlet for whatever forced induction system keeps the air pressure at a level comfortable for the engine, although I know very little of aircraft engines and there could well be a separate turbine of which I'm unaware.

Could just mean the engine is supercharged--a lot of WW2 fighter engines were like that!

[RPharazon]

Ah, Turbine Inlet Temperature makes sense. This particular model of SR22 that we're flying has a turbocharger.

A bit of a lesson for everyone else!
Airplanes, generally since the post-World War II era, use turbochargers, not superchargers. They also use them for different reasons than cars. You see, above a certain altitude (around 16,000 feet or so), piston engines simply don't have enough air to continue running effectively. At this point, the pilot then uses the turbocharger to make sure that the fuel:air mixture is still optimal. It's simply a method to prevent the engine from dying, not so much to get better performance at low altitudes.

Superchargers are generally not used since they derive power directly from the engine, instead of from the exhaust. Since aircraft engines generally run at ~2500 RPM, or geared to run at 5000RPM, they can't take advantage of superchargers, since superchargers are most efficient at values above 5000RPM. In addition, a supercharger installation is heavier and more complex than a turbocharger installation, the HP:weight ratio drops to inefficient levels as the engine increases in power.

However, this doesn't mean that all supercharger engines are useless. Back in World War II, the supercharger-equipped Merlin engine allowed British fighters to effectively gain an advantage over inferior (in terms of engines) Nazi aircraft, and actually allowed them to intercept high-altitude bombers quickly and effectively. It was also widely used in pretty much every other British aircraft. After the war, however, jet engines and turboprop developments were a more efficient means to achieve high HP, and for low-HP high-altitude applications, the supercharger was superseded by the turbocharger.

Last fun fact: Pilots are notoriously bad at using any sort of turbine boost system in piston engines. To properly take care of any -chargers, you have to let them cool down for 10 minutes or more at a low RPM, or else they cool too rapidly and can warp or crack. Since most rich, private pilots are also impatient ones, mechanics make a lot of money on turbocharger repairs. I gather that the TIT here is to monitor that temperature on shutdown.

[Trekkin]

If you're still taking questions, I have a technical/mechanical one:

What does the flaps breaking due to excessive airspeed actually mean, mechanically? I'm just wondering what component usually fails, assuming there is one, when the flaps are damaged like what happened during the first leg of this flight, and whether they're designed to stay wherever they were set before breaking or if they fall into some kind of default position (or off the plane).

[RPharazon]

If you're still taking questions, I have a technical/mechanical one:

What does the flaps breaking due to excessive airspeed actually mean, mechanically? I'm just wondering what component usually fails, assuming there is one, when the flaps are damaged like what happened during the first leg of this flight, and whether they're designed to stay wherever they were set before breaking or if they fall into some kind of default position (or off the plane).

Depends on the plane, usually. In Flight Simulator, breaking the flaps reverts them to no flaps at all, as FSPassengers simulates them simply falling off.

However, in real life, I generally only have first-hand experience with light aircraft like the Cessna 172 and Diamond 20. Generally, going overspeed with flaps down in a Cessna 172 results in the center of the flaps warping massively, the flaps jamming, the flaps connectors failing (and taking the flaps with them), or just a general looseness. Generally, this doesn't happen unless you go 10+ knots above their maximum speed.

In a Diamond 20, the flaps are made of a sort of thick carbon fibre composite material. Very resilient, so they don't explicitly bend (ask my head and back during a walkaround, and they will agree that the flaps are very hard and painful). However, the piston that sets the flaps back will often bend or snap, and the flaps will get jammed.

In bigger airplanes (think airliners), the flaps generally have to withstand a lot of force, so they are a bit (a lot) more resilient than flaps in light aircraft. There are pictures that show what happens during an overspeed with flaps down, and generally the flaps bend, the flap mechanisms break, and in extreme cases, the flaps break off. However, in those extreme cases, other important things tend to break off. Things needed to fly the airplane no matter what. Generally, if flaps in bigger aircraft break, if they've been deployed past 5-10 degrees, their weight makes them drop due to gravity, leaving them stuck at full. This is Very Bad.

Generally, however, flaps have a good speed tolerance of about 10-15 knots over their stated overspeed values. This doesn't ever, ever mean that one should fly past the overspeed limits, but it also doesn't mean that Flight Simulator has the right to make it a 1/0 decision.