The real air C172 is really good and it works with the default textures of FS. There is also the www.carenado.com they have some very cool looking C172s. With and without wheel pants...

Adam,I use RealAir's excellent flight model (freeware) for the 172SP in combination with Carenado's visual model for a Cessna 172N (payware) and a panel I put together myself. This panel is based upon DreamFleet's 172(N?) panel (freeware) originally designed for FS2000 and among many other gauges several DreamFleet's gauges from their payware C177 Cardinal package. I also used parts of Chuck Grimes' bitmap of his 172SP panel (to be found in the Avsim library). The panel I made reflects a 172SP panel (which has fuel injection and no carburator) as close as I could get it. The layout of the gauges is close to 100% like the real thing and I put a lot of effort to get the panel bitmaps (including warning texts) right.Attached are two screen shots of my panel. Unfortunately I cannot upload it, since it contains parts of other copyrighted work. I hope you enjoy it anyway.Best regards,Henrihttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/12872.jpghttp://forums.avsim.com/user_files/12873.jpg

Nice shoes.

Hi, GW."I didn't like the RealAir C172 because the plane doesn't remain banked.."A real C172 has a tendency to return to center and will return to center, wings level, in banks less than 25-30 Deg. Some of us, old timers, refer to it as "Parasolic stability", mainly due the weight below the wings, and a very small dihedral. The best Bank "stability" is at around 40-45, and that is the reason why CFIs introduce students to turns at a steeper angle of bank, not to make the students sick, in spite of what some people think. The RA 172 behaves properly at the shallow bank angles, but not very well at steep angles. Another problem is the amount of control input, elevator back pressure, required to maintain a level flight, this may be a limitation of the FS itself, since I see it in most / all the GA single engine aircraft. Another thing that seems to be carried from previous versions of MSFS, is the wide turn radius associated with the aircraft. The RA 172 model seem to do better in this area, this may be problem that can be solved, I am just not sure if it can be done without affecting other dynamics. In order to see / feel that, is to actually fly a pattern in a real aircraft, then do exactly the same thing in the sim., this can be difficult to sense.If anyone has an idea of how to fix that, without affecting other dynamics, please post. TV

<

Glad you like them :-lol Henri

Exactly what I'm looking for! I've got Carenado's 172, which I picked up some time ago. Alas, I cannot even get RealAirSim's plane working as per earlier in the post, so it bodes poorly for me with respect to having something of the quality that you present. Hopoefully someone will do a high quality payware version in the not too distant future.Yeah, I like those shoes. They're nearly as spit and polish as that plane.Now Henri... what have I got to do to get you to email me that whole package? }( LOLReally, that's a lovely compilation you have there. My interest in getting a good 172 lies in the fact that each summer a couple friends and I do a few trips around the Maritimes in one of 2 172's. This summer we're going to Digby, NS from Fredericton, NB - my first over water crossing. I like to repeat the flights we've done and plan to do.Thanks, Adam

Thanks Rob. I appreciate your assistance. I'll try to get it working. I know...it's perplexing since it's in the aircraft folder.Thanks, Adam

HI TV, Thanks for your positive and insightful post. I agree our 172 does need rather too much back pressure, due to a higher rate of induced drag in turns. This was necessary in order to contain low airspeed in spins, in addition to other factors. Of course we are always trying to find ways of making the best use of what is available in the FS2002 and sometimes compromises are necessary.Thanks for confirming the return to centre tendency in shallow rolls. Unfortunately it is very difficult to design different effects at different angles so we decided on an overall setting.As you will be aware, all flight models are a compromise between what is desired and what is possible. Our principle aim was to make basic control input and reaction more believable.Thanks again for your balanced post!Regards,Rob Young - RealAir Simulations