Part of being a good pilot is understanding the various types of climbs rates; Best Rate compared to Best Angle. But what about the Best Rate of Climb at various Take-Off weights? Does Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS) change the performance of the same aircraft at different take-off weights? I set out to test the Best Rate of Climb in a Cessna 172 at Maximum Take-Off Weight and a lighter weight. As it turns out, I was pleasantly surprised. MSFS takes the difference in weights into account.
If your reading this article, I am assuming you have watched the video embedded above already. Using the same Cessna 172S, I compared the Take-Off performance at Maximum Take-Off Weight to that of a much lighter weight. The same aircraft configuration is used for both Take-Off demonstrations.
The Cessna 172S Best Rate of Climb is 74 knots. In the video, the first take-off is at Maximum Take-Off Weight for a climb to 6,000 feet. The second take-off also climbs at 74 knots to 6,000 feet; but at a much lower take-off weight. I was not sure if MSFS would make any performance changes when the Take-Off Weight dramatically differs, but it does. I was pleasantly surprised of the performance difference, which is what happens in real life flying too.
Maximum Take-Off Weight
As you would expect if when driving a vehicle, heavy vehicles (or aircraft) take longer to accelerate. Look at the position of the windsock on the right in the image below. The windsock is slightly forward of the magnetic compass when the aircraft reached the rotation speed of 55 knots. The airspeed indicator shows the aircraft having reached 55 knots.
Since I was too busy focusing on controlling the aircraft, I failed to mention the lighter aircraft accelerated quicker than the heavier aircraft. If you watch the video again, you can actually see the difference in acceleration rates between the two test flights.
Lighter Take-Off Weight
Look at the position of the windsock when the lighter aircraft reaches the rotate speed of 55 knots. The aircraft reached 55 knots a lot of quicker at a lighter weight. This is why the windsock is much further away in the image below.
In both flight tests, the aircraft started from the exact position on the runway.
Obviously the Cessna 172S is a small reliable aircraft. Not much room is required to take-off or land the Cessna 172S. However, you need to keep the performance difference in mind when your flying higher performance aircraft.
Consider Runway Lengths
When I started flying the Beechcraft Baron, you really have to start considering the length of the runways. There are some airports across the US Mid-west I would not fly a Beechcraft Baron into. This was due to my own personal runway length limit. Keep in mind, my experience flying Barons is limited compared to flying the Cessna 172S.
Setting Personal Limits
When I flew the Baron out of Indianapolis Metro Airport (KUMP). KUMP has a 4,000 foot (1,219 metres) runway, which became my personal runway length limit. That was plenty of length for the Baron to take-off and land at Maximum Take-Off weight. The personal minimum runway length restriction of 4,000 feet was applied to any airport I flew the Baron into. The mid-west has many airports with runways shorter than 4,000 feet and I simply avoided them in the Baron. The Cessna 172S on the other hand, no worries.
With a Cessna 172S, runway length is usually not an issue a pilot needs to worry about for most airports. It is easy to fall into the trap of not checking the runway length. Most airports are going to be suitable for the Cessna 172S as far as length goes. It’s a good habit to always consider the runway length and the average take-off and landing distance for your Cessna172S. It’s something to keep in the back of your mind when flying into an airport your not familiar with.
Hopefully you’ve gotten something out of this video; Best Rate of Climb in a Cessna 172 at Maximum Take-Off Weight and a lighter weight. If you enjoyed the video, please consider liking, commenting and subscribing to the Ground Speed Gaming channel. The learning never ends; Thank-you.
