How realistic is the Cessna 172 movement in fsx?

[Guest paul1]

A vague question... but here it goes anyway....How realistic (or, how well of a simulation) is the behavior of the Cessna 172 in flight sim x? I don't have much flying experience (one introductory lesson) so I'm left wondering some of the actions I'm performing would be much, much, harder to achieve in a real airplane (such as recovering from a low-altitude dive, or landing on centerline without damage to the aircraft, etc). Can anyone shed light on this?- Paul in Hong Kong

[Kyle Schurb 89]

It's better than FS9's rendition (if you ever had FS2004), but still fairly far off but then again, I haven't flown the default 172 much. The best overall flight handling of a C172 I've experienced in FS was a custom FDE made by Real Air Simulations for the default C172 in FS2004.It's available on this page if you're curious - http://realairsimulations.com/list_box.php?page=downloads (I know you said FSX though...)I don't have much experience in the real C172 (Only about 35 hours or so) as I've done most of my flight training in low-wing Pipers.

[Guest paul1]

(Only about 35 hours or so)

35 hours sounds like a lot to me! ;)

[Kipe98ab 0]

A Cessna 172 is easily flown and it has gentle stall characteristics. It normally shakes a bit and then the nose drops down. It will recover itself without doing much for it yourself. The flaps are electronic and you can adjust them precisely to the situation (without notches/10,20,30%). This means that landing is very easy. The same goes for take-off. So I would say that it is fairly realistic.To compare with a Piper Tomahawk would in real life stall on one wing first giving a steep bank which you need to recover by keeping the ailerons neutral and use rudder to the upper wing, press down the nose and apply full power. I Piper 140/180/Six are more forgiving but still demand corrective action from the pilot. Cessna 206/210 are easy to recover, but the 172 is by far the easiest plane to recover.When I make stalls in FSX I do not experience hard stall characteristics on any light aircraft and I miss that.I hope this is the reply that you are looking for.

[dmaher 0]

One difference I keep in mind is the sim doesn

[msalo 1]

One difference I keep in mind is the sim doesn

[7107delicious 0]

It's better than FS9's rendition (if you ever had FS2004), but still fairly far off but then again, I haven't flown the default 172 much. The best overall flight handling of a C172 I've experienced in FS was a custom FDE made by Real Air Simulations for the default C172 in FS2004.It's available on this page if you're curious - http://realairsimulations.com/list_box.php?page=downloads (I know you said FSX though...)I don't have much experience in the real C172 (Only about 35 hours or so) as I've done most of my flight training in low-wing Pipers.

Carenando has a better one, though.

[ryanbatc 12,832]

Carenando has a better one, though.

Are you sure? They seem to have major fde issues - I own three of their native models.... Don't get me wrong, their panels and interiors/exteriors are wonderful.

[msalo 1]

Are you sure? They seem to have major fde issues - I own three of their native models.... Don't get me wrong, their panels and interiors/exteriors are wonderful.

I mainly use the Flight1 C172. I was looking at Carenado, but after doing some research, I read many reviews indicating that the Flight1 had a better flight model, so I went with that one. It seems pretty good.-m@

[Kyle Schurb 89]

Carenando has a better one, though.

Flight-wise, no way (in my opinion of course). Model and interior - Yes, but RealAir never made these, just the flight dynamics for the default C172.

[Guest paul1]

Thanks for the replies.

[CoolP 283]

I think the addition of force feedback hardware brings a bit realism into FS too.Badly trimmed planes or sloppy feeling near stall speed and even stick shaker movement. You can configure a stall buffet too so you're able to feel reaching "bad " speeds just before just reading "stall" in the FS winndow and hearing a warning.I think the default FF implementation of e. g. FSX is ok but software like "fs force" really enhance it by a big margin.And back to the C172: she feels pretty good when flying with FF + "fs force" enabled and you even get a feel for her trims and speeds.As far as realism goes: worth a try :)I like the Realair stuff too when going for a "real" stall behavior - they did a great job I think.Only thing unrealistic is that you have to use a joystick instead of a yoke. As far as I know there're no FF-yokes available. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[PingPong 60]

I seem to remember a force feedback yoke on the horizon.I use FS force and a MS Sidewinder for GA flying and I love it!When you fly usually only one hand is on the yoke so a joystick is not that far off from what your control inputs "feel" like.I have heard the "buttkicker" also adds another level of ehancement.To the OP, the C172 in FSX is just fine by my reckoning, I did most of my training in a 172 and I think it's a faithful reproduction. It's also a great plane to learn navigation and procedures in....just my 2 cents.

[jfri 42]

It's better than FS9's rendition (if you ever had FS2004),

In what way is it better than the FS9 rendition?

[brucek 38]

I am currently training on a C172, and I use my sim to practice between sessions. I am a long time Flight Sim user (since the mid 1980's), and I never realized the difference until I started flying for real. Procedurally it's pretty realistic, but it's amazing how different it is with out the feel of the forces. Feeling the yoke getting heavy when you need to trim, the sloppy feeling during slow flight maneuvers, stalls, etc... And even when flaring for landing, my sim is really missing the heavy feel of the yoke as you pitch the nose up. So at this point I just use the sim to practice the maneuvers from a procedure standpoint. I also practice takeoffs and landings in the pattern, but again, mainly for getting the timing of the procedures down. Even without the realism of full motion and g-forces, the sim is still a great training tool.-m@

I have over 200 hours in the C172 and completed my instrument rating in one several years ago. Matt, you have the comparison between the FSX environment and the real world right on. Having been a simmer since 1994, and having a CFI and CFII that also were into simming, here is what I learnt collectively over the years. In a VFR environment, especially when in PP training, it's beneficial when you're able to segregate the qualities and limitations in the sim and the real world. If you can recognize (usually though experience) that the feel in the sim isn't really right or that the landing view doesn't look totally right and in proportion, your mind over time will ignore those instances of "unreality" and you can still benefit from the rest of the simulation which in many cases is really good- especially in IFR training where you are in cloud so not looking at VFR scenery and the dis-proportionate aspects are irrelevant.I like the flight model in the default C172, here's a good test of any model (172SP). Trim level flight at 90 knots (the A/P can help with this), you should see about 2200 RPM. Deactivate the A/P if you have it on, then reduce the RPM to 1800 RPM. The nose should fall smoothly and responsively to maintain 90 knots (IAS), and if you were on a glideslope you should be able to fly it down to minimums with small adjustments of power (assuming a no-wind situation). The default model isn't that bad.Thanks, Bruce.