Sign in to follow this  
Guest Smiley

160hp Cessna 172

Recommended Posts

If I wanted the Cessna 172 to perform like a 160hp N instead of a 180hp SP , do I have to do anything special, or can I simply adjust the following entry in the aircraft.cfg?{piston_engine}power_scalar=0.88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

That sounds like a possible way to make the change. In this months AOPA Pilot magazine it describes the differences between the 160 and 180 hp Skyhawks. Here is the link and in paragraph four you see that the 160 Hp model is limited to 2400 rpm and has a different pitch on the prop. http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/feature.htmlI would just limit the rpms to simulate the lower Hp model.Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I would just limit the rpms to simulate the lower Hp model. >Would work I suppose, but the actual N model with a 0-320 Lycoming peaked at 160 HP with 2700 RPM.What get's me (in real life) is why they even derated a perfectly good engine capable of 180HP to 160HP, unless it was additional FAA paperwork or something.....When it comes to density altitude and load, the additional 20 HP is worth having, since it's no additonal weight. And BTW--- I did find the AOPA article interesting, regarding just a 2 knot difference between the 160HP R model and 180 SP. FWIW, at my 4200'msl elevation, I really CAN tell the difference though.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I think it would be nice if we could get an updated cessna 172 (preferably a model N ).It might not be the most exotic aircraft but it's definitely the most popular GA airplane ever built.Commercial add-on designers are doing marvels lately (new features and details that weren't available in the past - i.e. the SF 260 with its very convincing stall and spins characteristics )I would love to get an extremely realistic C-172, after all it's what most of us fly in real life.What do you think ?Twister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think 160hp is underpowered, I used to rent a 1965 172G with the Contenental O-300 producing a whopping 145hp. I took two friends and some baggagee cross country on a hot day once before, that was fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned to fly in late model Skyhawk SP's and since earning my private pilot certificate, most of my time now is in the late model "regular" Skyhawks (C172R).There's a noticeable difference in the takeoff roll and climb with the SP. Those twenty extra horses are a nice addition to a plane I just LOVE to fly.I am also interested in a company releasing some new, highly realistic Skyhawk's. I'd love a new flight model with the latest paint schemes!!I believe RealAir may be working on this as we speak. I hope that project is still alive!Strangely enough, when I'm in FS2002 I end up spending most of my time in the 'Hawk. Guess I just can't get enough of it in the real world!! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with the few hours (under 15) that I have under my belt, I can feel a huge difference between the 160hp and 180hp models. I have Ron Freimuth's flight dynamics and from what I can tell, it seem true to form with the SP. I'm just a bit more familiar with being able to see the horizon over the cowl at an 80kt climb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prop can make a noticeable difference in climb performance. I've flown 180HP C172SP's with climb and cruise props. The climb prop gets you up and moving much faster (200fpm climb) than the cruise prop. You would almost think you were in a 180 hp plane instead of a 160 hp plane on climb with the same engine mated to a different prop. Perhaps prop pitch combined with RPM could make the difference in FS2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Even with the few hours (under 15) that I have under my >belt, I can feel a huge difference between the 160hp and >180hp models. I have Ron Freimuth's flight dynamics and >from what I can tell, it seem true to form with the SP. I'm >just a bit more familiar with being able to see the horizon >over the cowl at an 80kt climb. I think the only difference in the '160 HP model' is the prop. It doesn't let the engine wind up to 2700 RPM, so HP is lower. I calculated the change in prop diameter required to give it the 160 HP in the 'R' version. I see this note at the top of my C172SP aircraft.cfg: "//Cessna 172SP for FS2002". Under "propeller" I have:propeller_diameter=6.250 //6.629 for 160 HP 2400 RPM C172R So, you may already have that commented out prop diameter. Regardless, change 'propeller_diameter' from 6.250 ft to 6.629 ft and you will have a 160 HP version. The actual AC uses a different prop pitch, changing the diameter was just an easy way to get a similar effect. I checked the HP with a test gauge and it had dropped the correct amount with the larger prop. I didn't see much difference in performance. Though HP definetly dropped. I think the C172N is 160 HP but peaks at 2700 RPM. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I think the C172N is 160 HP but peaks at 2700 RPM. >That's correct. I just happened to have a 1979 Cessna 172N Skyhawk manual sitting close to this computer desk for info. Lycoming 0320L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this