Sign in to follow this  
JSACKS

Flight1 Cessna 172 vs Default FS9 Cessna - Performance Q

Recommended Posts

I love my Flight1 Cessna 172 but she seems to lack power on takeoff as compared with the default Cessna 172 model. I just took off in each from St. Bart's, that scary but very pretty little 2100' long field in the Caribbean. The fully tanked Flight1 Cessna achieved 60 knots after eating up about 80%-85% of the runway and after rotating at that speed (with flaps 10), clipped a hedge low down, lost speed on climbout and crashed over the hill. The fully tanked default Cessna in comparison achieved 60 knots at 50-60% of the runway (and in a further test was at 70 knots at the point where the Flight1 Cessna was just scraping 60). So the default Cessna easily made it out (rotating at just over 60 knots) and over the hill and we all survived.Is the Flight1 Cessna in fact underpowered and if so, how do I tweak the cfg file to get a tad more power out of her?Appreciate any observations, info, or advice from others. Thanks!JS

Share this post


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

I should think it's 'tother way round. - the default model is no doubt overpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha, that is interesting. Well, if that is the case, then so be it! I am far from expert on this aircraft, or on props in general, that is why I posted here. JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every payware aircraft i've used has always had more realsitic (read less power) power curves than the FS counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Flight1 Cessna is a 172R model (1996), which was derated to 160 H.P.The later SP model (1998), which I believe the default is, is rated at 180 HP. Same engine, but different prop & higher r.pm. redline.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, further enlightening. So now I know: no more St. Bart's takeoffs for the Flight1 Cessna!JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JS,I don't have the Flight 1 Cessna 172, but out of curiousity, try this. No flaps, hold a bit of back pressure on the yoke/stick and as soon as your bird breaks ground, lower the nose to pick up airspeed. Hold it until the "last moment" then firmly, but gently, pull back on the yoke/stick (not yank it) and over the hedges you go. Hopefully. :-zhelp Let us know? :-hmmmRoger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other points to mention would be if the Flight1 Model was overloaded? Full fuel adds a lot of weight. Also you have to worry about Pressure and Density Altitudes, these have a huge effect on engine performance. The higher the field, the lower the performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that applies in this case. All was at sea-level and the a/c was slightly below max gross weight. I also did a takeoff test at 50% fuel only and was thus comfortably below MGTOW and I had fairly similar results. I am just surprised that the Flight1 Cessna can eat up around 1900 feet of runway getting to 60 knots at close to MGTOW with flaps 10 set and use up not much less concrete with only 50% fuel too. But I shall keep testing for a bit and try a takeoff with no flaps and see how that goes.The climb out over the St. Bart's airport hill is just a killer for the Flight1 Cessna because it requires a climb angle of 1000-1200 fpm for a few moments to clear the terrain and during such a maneuver, the airspeed drops heavily to stall speed. In the default Cessna, I can just maintain 60 knots and clear the hill by 20 vertical feet and then accelerate with no problem. No such luck with the Flight1 Cessna but now I understand from this forum thread that the Flight1 Cessna is in fact less powerful.JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The Flight1 Cessna is a 172R model (1996), which was derated>to 160 H.P.>>The later SP model (1998), which I believe the default is, is>rated >at 180 HP. Same engine, but different prop & higher r.pm.>redline.>>L.AdamsonYup..L.Adamson got it right!Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The climb out over the St. Bart's airport hill is just a>killer for the Flight1 Cessna because it requires a climb>angle of 1000-1200 fpm for a few moments to clear the terrain>and during such a maneuver, the airspeed drops heavily to>stall speed. Looking up the 172R's spec sheet; I see that it's only rated for 720 fpm at sea-level/ gross weight. In other words, don't even try a straight out climb that requires 1000-1200 fpm; at least in real life. These planes just are not performance demons, and you really need to pay attention to payload & density altitude, with these machines.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first place I every heard of density altitude was at a near sea level tropical airport.At certain temperatures, dewpoint and pressue settings - our A-3 Skywarrior jets could not takeoff NAS Agana Guam (PGUM) with a fuel load sufficient to reach the Philippines or Japan. 298 ft ASL - 10,000 ft runway.Remember the aircraft spec charts are for 56 degrees F - and it's never that cold on St Barts.On that short runway - temperatures in the high 80's / low 90's can result in a density altitude issue which basically takes away 10-15% of the runway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to try the St,Bart's t/o using the default C 172, but at reduced power. :-lol Would anyone care to suggest an rpm for this that would duplicate the Flight 1 Cessna 172's 160 h.p. engine? Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad stratagy, but it's not really STOL precedure is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jon,You got that right! I've been messing around this morning trying 2OO0 rpm from RW 10 at St. Bart's. I've "killed myself" about 7+ time so far. One thing that makes it harder is that FS 9 default does not place you at the exact end of the RW. I've taxied back a few times, but it's hard to get exactly at the very end and spot on looking straight down the center line. I've made it off a few times from the default placement, though. No flaps > hold the brakes > throttle at 2000 rpm > leave the trim at 1-notch above the T/O stetting > pop the brakes > as she rolls, hold firm forward pressure on the yoke ( I have a CH yoke ) to hold it on the RW for gaining speed > at the last moment when you see the other RW number ( you should be a tad over 70 mph and your knuckles white ) haul back on the yoke and, here's the tough part, try to maintain between 50 and 55 mph...closer to 50 better.(1) DON'T TRY THIS IN A REAL AIRPLANE (2 ) if you have passengers on board, tell them to close their eyes (3) have a pot of tea or coffee for a cup in between mishaps. :-)Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Success at St. Barts, Runway 28!Half a tank of gas, no flaps, hold brakes to 2400 rpm, release brakes, roar away, rotate at 60 knots, fly low initially to gain 2-3 more knots, and then pull up to 1100-1200 fpm to clear the deadly little hill. Speed falls to 55 at the top of the hill and you clear the plane spotters by 20 vertical feet. Push nose down to 5 degrees at top of hill, accelerate, and fly away safe and sound!It works. Did it thrice last night.JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JS,Congratulation! If you have a second, how you doing on landings there?Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Remember the aircraft spec charts are for 56 degrees F - and>it's never that cold on St Barts.I think you mean 59F/15C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, landings into runway 10 (i.e., coming in over the deadly hill) have been a piece of cake since the very first attempt in the default Cessna. Have not had a crash or heavy landing and usually touchdown on the white markers or shortly beyond them at -100 fpm. Have also landed in the Dash 7 by Milton Shupe with no trouble at all. The approach is wild and the slope down the hill to runway 10 is totally insane but it's insane in real life, so what the heck!JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...but it's insane in real life, so what the heck!"For sure! I did it last night with my Aerosoft DHC-2 Beaver. Piece of cake... or maybe a cupcake? :-coolRoger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided you approach correctly in the appropriate type of plane--i.e., not in a 737!--it's not as frightening as it looks initially. There's a great pic on Airliners/net of a Twin Otter literally diving down above the slope steeply for the last bit prior to levelling out over the concrete.JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JS,I did a Google Earth search for TFFJ, the identifier for the airport on St. Barts. It seems they have a new airport there with the runway quite different from the short runway, tall hills at both ends, little monster in FS 9. :-(It's a 10/28 runway with the 28 approach flat and directly from the ocean side. No hill.Interesting. :-hmmm--Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting? Are you mad? You MUST have a crazy hill and a life threatening approach for St. Barts to truly be ....St. Barts! What's the point in having a nice normal airport without appalling obstructions (at least in FS) ?!Merry Xmas!JSP.S. The approach to 28 is over the seaside and beach. Are you sure you haven't just found the regular airport there? It's the approach into 10 and the departure out of 28 that is totally crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are you sure you haven't just found the regular airport there? "JS,That's what I thought. I moved around the island from the Google Earth perch looking for the other airport, but i couldn't find it.By the way, that airplane spotter you spoke of in a previous post, I think he flipped me the bird as I flew past. That is, I thought he did. As I recall at the time, I was to petrified to look away from the flying business for long. :-eek And a Merry Christmas to you and yours,--Roger

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