Question about the RealAir172

[MattM1121 1]

Howdy,In a previous thread a few people had mentioned the RealAir172. I was wondering what the appeal is of the aircraft. Also, someone had mentioned that there are addons for it. If you have an opinion about this, I'd sure like to hear about it.Thanks,-Matt

[Guest simmer9304]

The RealAir 172 is not an entirely new aircraft but instead it is an edit for the aircraft.cfg and .air file that makes the 172 fly much more like a real 172 and includes the ability to slip. It's a great improvement for the default 172SP and I along with others use it in the Carenado 172N which makes it again more realistic although you may want to tweak it a little to get the correct engine power, remove autopilot, etc.

[Mike5655 0]

The RealAir 172 is not an entirely new aircraft but instead it is an edit for the aircraft.cfg and .air file that makes the 172 fly much more like a real 172 and includes the ability to slip.

Ditto! Check the site for detailed installation instructions and a little more info about the plane, but that's about the extent of it. It's a great a/c to fly, especially if you like it low and slow. It's the only a/c I fly! I know it's based on a real world airplane, but I just don't care for the colors, so I repainted it.

[level7 175]

made by rob young from www.realairsimulations.comall of his planes accurately portray sideslipping and spins in both fs9 and fsx and is well known in the community for his flight model dynamics

[Chock 17,769]

As others have noted, it has good flight dynamics, and because quite a few people learn to fly in a 172, that means they can practice in something which is more akin to what they've been at the controls of in the real world, which accounts for the accolades it gets. In actual fact, the default 172 is not desperately unrealistic in many ways, but the Real Air 172 makes a better showing of things. If you simply wanted to learn the instruments of the 172, then the default one would be fine, but ab initio training is more about looking out of the window and flying by feel, which is where a good flight model will score points.Al

[onurksn 1]

Agreed with everything above! Also, add this soundpack to it and it will even be better:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...amp;DLID=109636

[red1 0]

The RealAir 172 is not an entirely new aircraft but instead it is an edit for the aircraft.cfg and .air file that makes the 172 fly much more like a real 172 and includes the ability to slip. It's a great improvement for the default 172SP and I along with others use it in the Carenado 172N which makes it again more realistic although you may want to tweak it a little to get the correct engine power, remove autopilot, etc.

Can you explain that a bit more? I can add the files to my carenado 172 from the realair one? Does this really improve the flight dynamics?

[Jim Robinson 122]

I've got over 350 hours in the RealAir Skyhawk in one form or another. I had about 200 using the default Skyhawk as a base model, and another 150 since the release of the Carenado 172N flying a merge of the RealAir flight dynamics, Carenado model, and FSX panel. That's by far the most hours I've got in any one aircraft I've ever had installed in the sim, the Vistaliners 727 coming in a distant 2nd. In my opinion the RealAir FDE is superior to that supplied with the Carenado package, and leaps and bounds beyond the default Skyhawk's flight dynamics. The merge with Carenado's stunning (but un-paintable :( ) model and the FSX panel really works for me.I'd tell you how to do it Red, but I can't remember what I did to make it work. It wasn't hard though. Start by making a copy of your "Carenado C172II N" folder, renaming it something like "RealAir-Carenado_Skyhawk" or something similar and do your fiddling around in there. That way you don't risk screwing up the "real" Carenado installation. Follow the directions in the RealAir download (more or less), and you may have to copy the contact points from the Carenado aircraft.cfg if you like the tail-down ground attitude of the Carenado (I don't particularly care for it, I left them as they were).Here's some info on my FSX panel adaptation:http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=204490If you want the panel send me a PM.Jim

[Guest simmer9304]

Yes I'd like to emphasize contact points because when I put the RealAir FDE in my Carenado 172 I forgot about contact points and lights and I ended up with a somewhat odd plane that bounced around, had very squished landing gear, floating lights, etc. The lights and contact points must be taken from the Carenado 172 if you install it on there.