Realistic 172?

[Walter]

Does anybody know of a very realistic Cessna 172? I think it'll help me with my flight lessons.

Thank you,

Walter

[Cirrus N210MS]

Try The One from Carenado Its Great

[Walter]

Thanks! I had been looking on their page, but I missed the "next" button, so I didn't see the 172. :icon_lol:

Thank you! :medals:

[Naki]

or wait for A2As or Realair's 172

[Chunk]

or wait for A2As or Realair's 172

+1

I like Carenado's stuff, but they don't hold a candle to A2A or RealAir.

[RyanJames170]

+1

I like Carenado's stuff, but they don't hold a candle to A2A or RealAir.

there newer stuff dose but there older stuff like before the 185 dosent anymore... but personly i would wait on the A2A bird or the Real Air one

[bstolle]

Due to numerous requests, I'll make a brand new FDE for the default and the Carenado 172 based on my Carenado CT182T.
Don't expect a 100% perfect 172, but at least she will handle and 'feel' more realistic than the default one.
Should be ready within the next few days.

[Dimus]

That sounds great Bernt!

Could that FDE be adjusted to apply to the Carenado 172 too?

[Daube]

Due to numerous requests, I'll make a brand new FDE for the default and the Carenado 172 based on my Carenado CT182T.
Don't expect a 100% perfect 172, but at least she will handle and 'feel' more realistic than the default one.
Should be ready within the next few days.

That sounds cool. With your FDE and the actual damage mod, the default C172 might become quite a nice addon :)

[Firekitten]

I'd agree that some of carenado's older birds don't hold up anymore... but I wouldn't ever include the 185 in that bracket... its one of the older ones that really holds its own still.

Mind you, less said about their pipers the better... Still need to finish the new Arrow to go with the 235 and saratoga.

[Chunk]

Well Bernt's FDE will make the default and Carenado 172's MUCH better. Thanks!

I have the 185, and also enjoy the Bonanza/V-Tail as well. For the price, they are fantastic, but I'd still rather have an A2A or RealAir model.

As an aside, all I've flown in the past three weeks has been the Baytower RV-7. ;)

[pilottj]

Agreed with the above, wait for the RealAir or A2A 172. The Carenado 172 will be greatly improved with Bernt's FDE update. However the nightlighting in it is waaaaay to bright. They could have just used the default pink lighting which would have been much more realistic. The bright white dome light is the light you turn on AFTER the night flight to find all the pencils and things you dropped on the floor during the flight.

As far as Carenado's early works, I still like the Archer II...certianly as an alternative to the 172. I don't know that the FDE in it is 100% realistic, but it is a very stable hand flyer...with decent night lighting. The Archer II is great for working on basic IFR. I didn't like the 185's flight model before Bernt fixed it. After adding his FDE, the 185 was very enjoyable.

With all that said tho, agree with Chunk...can't go wrong with the RV-7. It does everything right.

To the original poster. Unless you are just going to use FSX for proceedure training and memorizing checklists, I would highly discourage using FSX for working on private pilot lessons. Do not learn bad habits picked up on a 2D screen when your head should be looking outside and building good habits in a 3D peripheral world. Good peripheral vision is very important, as well as your butt being in the airplane seat, 'feeling' slips and skids as they relate to your control inputs. Unlearning bad habits from FSX will cost you more $$$ in the long run. If you decide to go for your instrument ticket, then by all means, use FSX. It is an excellent training tool for IFR flight.

Cheers
TJ

PS...Chunk...how about those GIANTS:applause::icon29:

[Chunk]

PS...Chunk...how about those GIANTS:applause::icon29:

:D I'm pretty stoked about Timmy's start last night!

I've only got a couple hours of flight training so far, but I'm in total agreement with TJ. There is no replacement for the "feel" of the airplane. FSX is a sim, but it can only simulate so much.

Back on topic, I don't have the Carenado 172, and I don't use the default planes at all anymore, but I think I'll end up with both the A2A and RealAir versions. I truly believe they'll model two totally different types of planes.

[fsafranek]

No one mentioned it but there is also 1958 Cessna 172 by SimFlight3D (http://www.simflight3d.com/). It is an older model with the square tail but it matches within a year one a friend owns they we go up in once in a while. The panel was modeled after a specific aircraft though. And it has wheel panels. But that's the only drawback I've found.
:ernae:

[Walter]

To the original poster. Unless you are just going to use FSX for proceedure training and memorizing checklists, I would highly discourage using FSX for working on private pilot lessons. Do not learn bad habits picked up on a 2D screen when your head should be looking outside and building good habits in a 3D peripheral world. Good peripheral vision is very important, as well as your butt being in the airplane seat, 'feeling' slips and skids as they relate to your control inputs. Unlearning bad habits from FSX will cost you more $$$ in the long run. If you decide to go for your instrument ticket, then by all means, use FSX. It is an excellent training tool for IFR flight.

I'm only going to use it for checklist memorization and maybe try to see if it'll help me taxi better... I tend to stay to the side of the line. :icon_lol: Thank you all for your suggestions. Now I have to decide which I should go for. :salute:

Many thanks!

Walter

[pilottj]

My instructor always said, put that line between your legs and you will be on the centerline :) Your brain wants to put it where you think the center of the plane is, which will put you off to the side.


Cheers
TJ

[ryanbatc]

It will be good for the flows and checklist/memorization stuff. Try not to focus on the instruments so much when doing VFR maneuvers in FSX. Think more about the relationship of the horizon to your cowl, and the wings to the horizon...

[Walter]

My next flight is Saturday, so I will use this advice then! Thank you! I felt accomplished last flight because I had to straddle a chunk of metal that was in the way. The last time I ran it over because I was getting tired after landing 4 times and I accidentally taxied too fast. We were practicing working in the pattern and performing full stop landings. That gets tiring after an hour! :jump: (I'm excited because I didn't crash).

Thank you for your advice!

[flaminghotsauce]

Flight simming is not good for VFR, I agree. But when you start working on your VOR, ADF, etc, and cross-country flying, it's most excellent. I was completely NOOB when I went into flight lessons, so I bought MS flight sim 2000 PRO which came with the printed book. I learned about radio navigation and did the approaches before I ever started flight training. It wasn't really a detriment to my VFR flying. It took only one reminder to look out the windows, and I was good.

When the flight sim was really REALLY good was when I was practicing for my Instrument checkride. I flew every approach in FS2004 at the airport I was testing at, and every nearby airport in case we went over that way. I did hard IFR, hard IFR with big winds, Hard IFR with big wind partial panel, and basically WORE IT OUT. When I got to the airport to do my actual check ride, I was so overprepared it was dead simple. It felt like just another flight. Easier than my first driving license.

[beana51]

I like the REALAIR C-172SP...I use it in both FS9 and FSX.With a repaint it looks good!..I like it because you can "SLIP" it ..it does this maneuver with a greater degree of accurately than most....this I feel is more realistically in practicing X-WIND landings on the Sim. ;)

http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l609/beana51/screenshot2250.jpg

http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l609/beana51/screenshot2249.jpg

[flyingip]

FS is not really good to fly VFR using only landmarks, because they are pretty hard to see. I usually fly my routes I plotted on my charts in FSX before I use them in real life, it is really useful to practice tracking and timing and wind corrections :) Believe it or not but I've never been in a C172 though! It's a good thing I can fly a realistic one in FSX soon ... However I wished there were some more realistic Piper Cherokee 180's available too

[Dimus]

My instructor always said, put that line between your legs and you will be on the centerline :) Your brain wants to put it where you think the center of the plane is, which will put you off to the side.


Cheers
TJ

Mine was telling me to put the line between two certain identical parts of a man's anatomy...:kilroy:

Don't know what he said to female students...

[Chunk]

... However I wished there were some more realistic Piper Cherokee 180's available too

You're in luck then. A2A is making an Accu-Sim Cherokee along with their 172.

[aeronca1]

You're in luck then. A2A is making an Accu-Sim Cherokee along with their 172.

Hmmm, time to start polishing up the credit card again!

[Victory103]

Wow, really didn't think the stock C172 was that popular! 100% about using FS for "chair" flying prior to any checkride and especially instruments. Agree about VFR flight, but you can still go over the PTS maneuvers in the sim, just don't pay attention to the flight dynamics. As a renter (for now) with access to a 172P and PA-28 Warrior, it's hard to come back to the sim and and expect anything remotely on par. I did use the sim when first learning the Garmin 430, the freeware mod helped with finding some pages.

[pilottj]

A2A's Cherokee will include all engine options I believe, which means you can have the Cherokee 235...which is quite a little hotrod.:salute: I imagine the 172 will come in 160 or 180hp flavors as well.

Cheers
TJ

[orionll]

There's a freeware Garmin 430 for FSX?

[flyingip]

With the Cherokee 235 you could take another Cherokee with you on top of the fuselage and it would still take-off :icon_lol: The useful load is massive in that thing.

A2A's Cherokee will include all engine options I believe, which means you can have the Cherokee 235...which is quite a little hotrod.
TJ

A continental O-300 6 cyl. might be included as well if they are doing all engine variants for the 172.

[fsafranek]

There's a freeware Garmin 430 for FSX?
Yep. Over at FS2X.com (http://www.fs2x.com/Freeware.htm) in the freeware section.

A bunch of very nice gauges by Don Kuhn and Nick Pike there.
You'll no doubt recognize for on the freeware aircraft as well.
:ernae:

[Victory103]

orionll,
That's the gauge I have replaced all my stock FS9/X Garmin's with, again not all the pages work but they are good enough along with the free Garmin POH.

If anyone want's real numbers I would love to help out with a former USAF CAP C-172P I fly whenever the Warrior is booked, as much as a hot TX summer day will help!!!

[bstolle]

If anyone want's real numbers I would love to help out with a former USAF CAP C-172P I fly whenever the Warrior is booked, as much as a hot TX summer day will help!!!

If you would be willing to do 1 or 2 actual test flights, I can e-mail you my test flight questionnaire and you could get a 172 that has super realistic unbeatable FDE. Just PM me if you are interested.

[orionll]

If you would be willing to do 1 or 2 actual test flights, I can e-mail you my test flight questionnaire and you could get a 172 that has super realistic unbeatable FDE. Just PM me if you are interested.
I'm a student pilot in a C172M and I'll be flying Saturday. Mind if I take a look at the questionnaire as well?

[bstolle]

I'm a student pilot in a C172M and I'll be flying Saturday. Mind if I take a look at the questionnaire as well?

Sure thing! EVERY actual 172 pilot who's willing to perform tests in the real 172 is invited of course!!!

[fliger747]

Ah yes , the Cessna 172. My first "big airplane" after the 150. Hey, 150 hp was more than any car I had owned to the time. much 'heavier" in feel from the 150, but still with the huge Cessna flaps. Lightly loaded we landed it in all sorts of ridgetop mine strips in the bush. Takeoffs were somewhat more "exciting" given the roughness and lack of length of some of our early bush pilot fields. A pretty viceless stall, preceeded by that Cessna WEEEEEEEEEEEEE stall horn, enough of a drop to fly out unless one was really ham fisted.

Good plane if ya don't fill it up.... O-320, one of the great bomb proof gen av engines. A smooth flier, like its bretheren the 180 and 182.

T

[Dimus]

Bernt, you have PM from me as well.

[bstolle]

Bernt, you have PM from me as well.

Got it thanx :) Just adapting the questionnaire for the 172....

[orionll]

Cool, sent you a PM.

[metalman739]

I also sent you a PM

Cheers

[pilottj]

Hey Bernt
I was curious if you think the Carenado Archer II could use an FDE update or if you think it is good enough. The Carenado version is a pretty stable handflyer, and while its been almost 20 years since I flew a Warrior, I recall it was very stable in cruise too.

Cheers
TJ

[Thunderbolt]

Hey Bernt
Carenado Archer II could use an FDE update


yes that would be really great.

[bstolle]

Hey Bernt I was curious if you think the Carenado Archer II could use an FDE update or if you think it is good enough.

Haven't flown the Carenado version since quite some time. A new FDE would only make sense if I can get RW pilots actually perform 1 or 2 extensive test flights with the real one.
You wouldn't believe how many promises I've got over the years that the pilots would actually perform a few tests with the real plane. The only usable response I got was for the 'ultimate' Carenado 185 FDE and the KCFS Seabee.

[Victory103]

No issues with helping, although my numbers might be different as ours is sporting the 180hp conversion, yet it still flies like any other 172. Need to get my hands on one of the former USAFA T-41's we used at Peterson AFB Aero Club.

[Firekitten]

Haven't flown the Carenado version since quite some time. A new FDE would only make sense if I can get RW pilots actually perform 1 or 2 extensive test flights with the real one.
You wouldn't believe how many promises I've got over the years that the pilots would actually perform a few tests with the real plane. The only usable response I got was for the 'ultimate' Carenado 185 FDE and the KCFS Seabee.
Its actually not 'TOO' bad, all the boxes are ticked, apart from the lift scalar curve in the primary aerodynamics section. its just too low. It ruins the rest of the feel of the aircraft. if you discount that, technically its fairly close. I redid it for my custom pa28-236 Dak, Might tune it down to Arrow engine specs if I get chance.

[TeaSea]

I own a 1979 Archer II PA 28-181, so if you get to playing with it let me know and I'll go run around for you.....

Personally I think the Caranedo Archer is a pretty good representation although it is not as stable in cruise as my actual airplane....tends to want to wander around. My only other real criticism is it doesn't have the Apollo III Autopilot. While this was actually an option on the Archer II, I have NEVER seen one here in the states without it.

If I could figure out how to put one in, I would.

[bstolle]

Thanx for the heads up, I'll keep your offer in mind!

[dandog]

Speaking of Cessna 172's, what do you all think of the SimFlight 1958 172? It seems to fly fairly realistically to me, but I don't do anything fancy in small GA planes.

[Victory103]

Done renting the 172 now, so really can't contribute to any of your FDE adjustments, but if you want to add/port over the C-182, that's my next mount for a couple weeks then a Baron B58 and finally a King Air.