Instrument Panel Height in FSX / slash / Carenado C172N

[wconkle]

I primarily use FSX for flying GA aircraft and my favorites are the trainers (like the ones I am currently learning to fly IRL) and experimentals like I hope to someday build. One thing I have noticed in FSX is that the panel height is unreasonably high in some aircraft, most notably the venerable old Cessna 172.

On that note, and since I am primarily flying this plane in my flight training, I purchased the Carenado 172N, hoping for a better simulation experience than the standard included version. I realize that this model (Carenado's) has been out for awhile, so I won't go into a review, but suffice to say that I love this plane as much as all of the planes I have gotten from this developer, despite the unreasonably high price.

Still however, the panel in this model is so tall that I can barely land the plane for not being able to see the runway. It's really no better in this regard that the standard 172, and actually worse. Yes, I realize that the seat is adjustable, but when you do raise the eyepoint enough, the side windows are unuseably low. And just for comparison, I flew a very similar plane today for a lesson; I could see easily over the cowl and under the wing at the same time.
In contrast, I often fly the Carenado Archer II (my current favorite plane in FSX; yes, I know I'm boring!) and it's veiwpoint presents no problems at all, very similar to the Warrior that I have taken lessons in.

I realize that this is a very small gripe, but the SOH website has been nagging me to post something every time I log in, and this really probably is the biggest irk I have with FSX, so I figured I would ask if any of the more learned amongst you could comment on this or explain why it is so.

Thanks in advance to anyone who addresses the question, and thanks for all the great posts that help make FSX my funnest, cheapest hobby!

Wes

[res non verba]

I think i got used to...

i agree with you... the eye position is not the same and the rpm settings don't match with the real one too, but still a good way to train procedures and a lot cheaper than the c172 flight hour, here i pay 140euros + landings for a c172

cheers

:ernae:

[mfitch]

The difference in RPM (over 200) has annoyed me as well. I have not noticed the viewpoint issue. However, I used TrackIR which may enable me to work around it easily.

The C172P I rent does have a side view issue. While I can see out the windscreen and the side window, the view from a few inches higher (taller person) cannot see out the side window without ducking.

[wconkle]

As far as the RPM go, I am not too offended, as I really think that it matters which engine/propeller combo the plane is running. For example, I have taken lessons in 172s with both the 180hp Lycoming O320 (2003 model) and the older 145hp Continental O300 six cylinder, and I noticed about a 200 RPM difference at comparable points in the flight profile.

I totally forgot to just sit in the plane and compare it to my FSX version, but I do clearly remember that I was able to look back under the wing and see all the way down the field. As suggested, that may be because I can move my head IRL but it's pretty much fixed in FSX. I've been holding off from the Track IR because of the price, but maybe I should just go ahead!

Fitch, how's Anchorage? My stepmother used to always say, "The only good thing about Los Anchorage is that it's only a short floatplane trip away from Alaska!" haha

[mfitch]

Yes indeed, from Anchorage, Alaska is only 50 miles in any direction. I love to watch float planes at Lake Hood. I would get a float rating, but they can't be rented (except with CFI) and are of course more expensive to buy.

I had not thought to compare the engine/prop combo for the settings. I rent a 172P (1981 model) and 172SP (2009) model. The SP has the 180hp engine. Since it is more expensive to rent, I haven't done any pattern practice in it, so I don't remember the RPM's. Being new it is so stable, one barely has to think to get a smooth descent.

[TeaSea]

http://www.gate.net/~seaplane/index.htm

Then come to Florida and get your rating!

[mfitch]

Unfortunately getting the rating isn't a problem (lots of instructors here). The problem is getting a plane after I have the rating. Floats are expensive.

[pilottj]

I recall the 180hp 172s I flew that max power was about 2500RPM. Depending on your elevation and age of the engine you might get a little less. Lol yeah Mfitch I remember when I was working on my CFI before I ran out of funds, the little FBO had a nice little collection of older 172s, a 'new' 172 with all the GPS goodies, and a 1960 Piper Comanche 250. The old 172s rented for the usual going rate. The newer 172 went for the same as the Comanche. If you are going to pay about the same rate...which would you pick? ....the new 172 or the old Comanche? :icon_lol:

Cheers
TJ

[flaminghotsauce]

Back to the original thread topic, I've noticed that the Carenado 172 panel is pretty far up there. IRL, I could see the cowl and would use the nose of the airplane to line up with the far end of the runway sight-line wise to land. In the Carenado I use the top of the panel! But I can see enough runway I can land fine though. If it's too much of a gripe, my suggestion would be to raise the seat as a pre-landing checklist item, although it messes up the view out the side.

Or get a Track IR.

[wconkle]

Hotsauce, that is pretty much exactly what I do! Haha, I guess it really is time to get the Track IR. Only problem is that is worth one flight lesson (my unit of cost these days), and it will have to wait until after FTX Northern Rockies!

Thanks for all the input, guys!