Advice on Carenado's 172...

[Guest Twister]

Hi,I am contemplating the eventual purchase of Carenado's Cessna 172.I'd love to see some screenshots before buying the product (especially interested in the panel).Can anyone comment on this plane and its flight model ?ThanksTwister

[Guest]

Hi TwisterWell I can only comment on Carenado's Bonanza and Piper Archer IIThey are both stunning and the latest Piper Archer II is really my favorite I love everything about it and it fly's really well.I did not see his 172's but a while back I went and got his free 152's and the Tomahawk and even those were amazing they were the reason I purchase the Bonanza and Piper Archer II.I was tempted also to get the 172 but now I'm on the archer full time.Paul G :)

[Guest]

Hi,If you want more about carenado 172 go to carenado 172 test by avsim staffI'm very interesting in purchassing the c172sp, because it seems very accurate an i'd like that someone who have it confirm it.Thanks-- zaack

[Ericson 0]

I own Cessna 172 and new Piper Archer II - i'm verry happy with Archer II spiecialy after merge with DF Archer ( gauges , air file, sounds ) i stopped flying Cessna after relase of Active Camera - becouse Cessna don't have VC ( and i switched to Archer II :-) Details of external model are awsome, one of most detailed and accurate aircraft designed in FSDS. Flight dynamics also ok . 2d panel - bitmap ,gauges and pop-up panels are in high quality. I wpuld chage only 2 things - the tachometr has redline @ 2400 rpm and engine spins up to 2700 rpm so you will go behind red line shortly after take off. Also fuel and engine guages should be little wider - to fill space in bitmap for them.I wish that Carenado had upgrade Cessna 172 to FSDS 2.0 :9regadrsEricson

[Guest Twister]

Hi,I'd like to thank everybody for their replies.I'm a Cessna-driver and would like to get a decent 172 for my virtual flying as well. I know that the latest add-ons designed in G-max and FSDS 2 are better from a graphical point of view but I don't mind.All I want is to feel in my familiar suroundings (172 cockpit) while using FS2K2.Again, cockpit screenshots from Carenado's 172 would really help.Twister

[Guest Mgarmy]

Hi,I fly the Carenado 172 quite often. The flight model is acceptable. However the panel is to big. It covers more than 2/3 of the screen which is hard on approaches and flying VFR in general. If you are flying a real 172 you will feel at home with the layout of the panel which looks quite good. The RPM readings are a bit of but acceptable. Mannie

[yellow5 0]

The C172 looks great! The only reason I have not bought it is because FS2002 already has a 172. If you are not using FS2002 then I would suggest it, because I have never had a problem with Carenado's products. They do pretty good quality at a fair price. But then again it is your choice. I have a good feeling that you will not be disapointed when you get it....

[Guest]

Twister as Zaack replied take a look at the Avsimm comercial review of Carenado's 172 they have good screenshots of the panel but they say that there are no virtual panel.http://www.avsim.com/pages/0202/cessna172ii/cessna172ii.htmlI must say the panel looks really good as I flew a 172 1974 for many years.Paul

[Guest]

I have their 172N and I love it. It has replaced the default 172 a long time ago as my Cessna (until being replaced itself recently by the slightly larger Dreamfleet 177 Cardinal.Mind that it is an original FS2000 product so you don't get all the niceties of a new FS2002 release.The panel is indeed quite large which takes some getting used to. Small people who drive large cars will have less trouble as the view is what I imagine theirs from their cars to be :-lolMy version has no autopilot. Was a bit surprised initially but I guess many 172s will not be fitted with an expensive piece of kit like that.

[Guest Twister]

Hi again,I got a chance to look at the Carenado's cockpit and was disappointed - the gauges' resolution is rather low and the inclusion of the radio stack in the main panel is such a waste of space - it forces the designers to reduce the gauges' size - so much for readability...The lack of VC is another problem...I do have Dreamfleet's Cardinal...I cannot bring myself to like the ugly,tacky "mahogany-like" finish of the panel - it's so damn distasteful - what were they smoking at the time in Cessna ? I know, I know...seventies and all...Anyway, let's hope that one of the leading add-ons designers will release a good C-172 in the future...after all that's the most popular GA aircraft on the planet...Twister

[Guest]

Twister,Roger that!! What we need (please) is a Cessna 172SP (or XP) using the same quality as the Marchetti FS.260!!!Robert Tiffany