The cessna c-172 skhawkl
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: The cessna c-172 skhawkl

  1. #1

    The cessna c-172 skhawkl

    The C-172 has\ to Be One of the most Popular Plane in the world...I'am sure Many of Us Trained,owned them....The Peoples plane...and Yet In all the Years on the sim i still Have not Found a model Reflecting its true flying Quality's..true many attempts. Up Graded defaults to expensive Models Understanding over time The plane has Different characteristics ....My ques is "IS THERE A CORRECT FLYING C-172 OUT THERE?..Reflecting a factory fresh Model Of a given Year ??....Thnx all!

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by napacon View Post
    The C-172 has\ to Be One of the most Popular Plane in the world...I'am sure Many of Us Trained,owned them....The Peoples plane...and Yet In all the Years on the sim i still Have not Found a model Reflecting its true flying Quality's..true many attempts. Up Graded defaults to expensive Models Understanding over time The plane has Different characteristics ....My ques is "IS THERE A CORRECT FLYING C-172 OUT THERE?..Reflecting a factory fresh Model Of a given Year ??....Thnx all!
    The best C-172 for Flight Simulation is made by A2A.

  3. #3
    Having flown a 172 only once I don't have a lot to compare it to, but I have had the same problem with the Cessna 152.

    The Cessna 172 is not just one of the most popular planes ever built it is THE most produced plane in history with more than 40,000 built.

  4. #4
    Thnx The A2A. A bit Pricey...When 400,000 C-172 have been built,Kinda makes them Popular I would think !....What I Found To date is The Robert Chicilo version ..the FSX default C-172 ..Seems he tweaked it a bit as to make small differences..A Gift from him...Another Factor Are Our controls And their settings ..My CH YOKE and PEDALS have a wide range of adjustments.. Both With their CH Program And In FSX its self ..Have Time in the Cessnas C-150,C-152 C-172..And to Date In The sim ? I cannot Find the Feel I am Looking For..Well Maby Not? One ..back in FS9 The REALAIR SIMULATIONS C-172SP....So Called KANGAN BATMAN, Ugly as Sin,...This Model can Be Spined and Slipped Flew well ...We Know all planes Trainers More so, from Hard use get out of trim ..No two are exactly the same...But a model Should Be Made as If new...Well Thnx

  5. #5
    For over 10 years I flew nothing except what was on the DVD that was used to install FSX, I saw many of the planes put out by A2A but as you say, they are a little too much money. About 6 years ago I finally broke down and got the A2A Piper cub. It was light years ahead of any of the default planes and I was hooked. I now have all of the A2A planes except for the two big propliners.
    Every once in awhile, A2A will have a sale , do yourself a favor and get their C-172, you'll be glad you did.

  6. #6
    Thnx RUDYJO..Yes Makes sense..May have to do that..tho the most common Of all planes with the Greatest Impact to Aviation has been lacking,In the sim world as to Fidelity....A lot of Kids and others may go to a Flight School with?? ya got it,the venerable Cessna..recognizing this FSX now its self Old ., May be the problem..Its gone as far as It Will go....Never the less Occupies my time And Would not Like not having it..Thnx!


  7. #7
    Well, I did a brand new ground up FM for the default C172 SP you are welcome to try if you like.

    I was surprised how well and accurate it turned out.

    I did a trial flying lesson in one back in May 2016 and found it matched the new FM very well!

    Cheers

    Paul

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by napacon View Post
    Thnx RUDYJO..Yes Makes sense..May have to do that..tho the most common Of all planes with the Greatest Impact to Aviation has been lacking,In the sim world as to Fidelity....A lot of Kids and others may go to a Flight School with?? ya got it,the venerable Cessna..recognizing this FSX now its self Old ., May be the problem..Its gone as far as It Will go....Never the less Occupies my time And Would not Like not having it..Thnx!

    Check the A2A website, www.a2asimulations.com Go halfway down the homepage and you'll see the information and videos about it, also check the forums, each plane has it's own sub-forum.
    I have always bought the A2A planes directly from A2A. If you get it, remember to download the latest update.

  9. #9
    The A2A C172 (R model) like all their other products is indeed an excellent aircraft and of course has the added benefit of accusim.

    Whilst the flight model is good, it does have one issue that I and several other owners have noticed.

    That is, an excessive float on landing.

    I remember landing (or trying to!) at Popham (UK2000) in FSX one day with 10kts pretty much down the strip, and it floated for what seemed like ever. So much so, that I had to hit the brakes hard to try and avoid hitting the boundary hedge, which I recall I actually did!

    This was not something I experienced in the real 172SP, and can't imagine that the R model would be any different!

    Cheers

    Paul

  10. #10
    Did you install the latest update?
    If something doesn't seem right, it gets mentioned on the forums. A2A is always updating their planes, even planes that first came out 7 years ago.
    Check the C172 forum at A2A.

  11. #11
    You have me curious now... I used the A2A 172 to help a couple family members and friends with learning and practicing instrument procedures, and it's great for that with very smooth, realistic instrument and needle movements. I never paid much attention to how it lands, I'll check it out.

    FWIW, a real 172 CAN float for almost as long as you want to hold it off. The published approach speed is a bit high, and coupled with a very light wing loading, you have all SORTS of extra performance to hold it off and milk it for a silky landing. Many GA trainers are like that; they're designed to be super forgiving after all. You don't HAVE to hold it off that long and you often shouldn't, but it can be done, so if the A2A model flies that way instead of just plopping on like many sim models, that's not necessarily wrong.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradburger View Post
    Well, I did a brand new ground up FM for the default C172 SP you are welcome to try if you like.

    I was surprised how well and accurate it turned out.

    I did a trial flying lesson in one back in May 2016 and found it matched the new FM very well!

    Cheers

    Paul
    Thnx Paul,,of course would Like to can you please Tell Me How? where? again Cheers!

  13. #13
    SOH-CM-2019
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Mt Maunganui, New Zealand
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,577
    Speaking as a real world pilot with extensive experience in Cessna aircraft (and many others).

    In the 150/152 series I have about 3000 hours, and in the 172 series over 500 hours.

    This experience was in about 20+ different aircraft in each series, and what I've found is a huge difference in performance, empty weights, control feel etc.

    Performance alone could be a 15-20kt difference in cruise speeds for the same type. Some climb really well , while others are dogs.

    So while we'd like the sim aircraft to compare with the real world aircraft, it depends on what aircraft you choose to compare it with and how that performs and flies like.

    Pete.

  14. #14
    Absolutely all are out of trim..The Training is telling on them..Some were HOT Some were DOGS as you say...however in our WALTER MITTY World here..,the reasons Not clear..And Often the Anomalies Abound ,some Severe ..No Sim I Know Can SLIP,or Do Cross winds or Spins. .Ditto stalls One in FS9 attempted it with some results. ..Like FSX is old . so to are the models we attempt to use...Yes Entertaining, Fun , SOLO in a 747??,..May be I,am Just asking to Much..But that's the fault of our Sim..Always invites Improvement. always tasks us For more .Which May Not be in there...HAVE FUN and THANX PETEHAM

  15. #15
    FWIW I got time to do a couple quick patterns in the A2A 172 tonight and it felt pretty good. The amount of float available in the flare following an on-speed approach felt very familiar. One thing that always gets me at first when I load up an A2A plane is I over control it at first... but when I think about it I realize that the control deflection required is closer to the RW plane than most sim models are, and then I settle down and they're a pleasure to fly. I don't know all what kind of black magic Accusim consists of, but it really is like flying a completely different (and better) sim.

    Also FWIW, the A2A birds stall and spin and slip pretty accurately. Their 172 is stubborn and tends to fall out of the spin unless the CG is right at the aft limit of the utility category, just like the real plane. The Milviz Beaver also stalls and spins and slips very well.

    In my personal experience with the sim, it's definitely not always true that you "get what you pay for", but it CAN be true. Those planes are examples.

  16. #16
    SOH-CM-2017 BendyFlyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Country New South Wales Australia
    Posts
    679
    Napacon interesting question as to realism vis a vis the Cessna 172. As Peteham says, they were or are all the same but different in little ways, some were lively little beasts others complete dogs, depended on whether they were bent or dirty or the doors did not close or seal nicely etc. I flew them all C150, 172, 182, 210 (strutted and non struts), 205, 206 and 207, 310 etc. Some for a little time some lots, especially the 206. None of them had sparkling performance but they all had one thing in common, they all would float and float and float if you did not have the speed nailed and your touchdown point etc sorted. Yes the 172 would spin but it was not recommended and it was better at an incipient spin for a demo only but the C150 well it would pitch and roll into a really tight nose down attitude in a flash and spin with a pronounced nose down attitude, recovery was straight forward. I often thought it felt like there was a bit of lag in the controls for all of them with that silly tubular control column rod they all used. They were not sparkling climbers either, except when empty. The best of the lot was in my biased opinion the C182, better power basically the same cabin but a great load lifter and the first 210 with struts, solid and quick. They all would bite you if you got slow in a turn in the circuits.

    As for the sim models, did not think the FSX default was particular good in the handling or performance department although basic fit out was fine. It was not that bad either but it never sat at the speeds for the various attitudes I expected it should, a little too quick etc. Have not tried the rest. It did not really feel like a 172 to me and rolled too quickly in the sim compared to the real thing. Like all high wing aeroplanes they had their good points and bad.

  17. #17
    I am flying almost exclusively 172s and I have access to 4 examples in two different clubs. Some are Reims 172M types and some 172P. All of them are of the old carburetor type, not the more modern S or SP types with the fuel injected ones, like the model A2A have. There are differences indeed but such that you come to recognize after some time flying them. Having the A2A bird I can vouch for its FDE, and especially the notorious floating tendency.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •