Sign in to follow this  
Guest Jimbofly

Looking for the best Cessna 172 Addon.

Recommended Posts

What is the best Cessna 172 Aircraft from a third Party vendor out there 2002/2004?Is there anything that is better than the Stock 2002/FS9 Cessna 172. I am currently taking lessons on a Cessna 172S ..and I am looking for a closest one for my FS9.I would like to do a lot of slow Flying (Mushing) and Spins.. to learn the effects ... So I would to have one that would have the closest Characterisitcs to a real one.Any Ideas or Suggestions?One more thing: When I fly on a hot afternoon in Texas (I did this last Saturday).. there is Thermal turbulance.... How do get this on a sim? is there a weather setting that I could set? or am I dreaming?:)

Share this post


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

I really like RealAir's freeware C172 (avaulable in the library), which is a modification of the default with a much-improved flight model. It's been my default for a few months. I know it has the capability to spin.There are a couple of issues with FS2004, but they are apparently working on an update (can't wait).They also have a much-respected payware Marchetti, available at their site:http://www.realairsimulations.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that I read somewhere that Microsoft has eliminated the ability to spin the RealAir 172. They will probably release that as a new feature in FS2006 ($80.00). Despite the sabotoge, with out any explanation, of the AIR file structure I continue to use the RealAir 172 "HOPING" that it is superior to the stock 172. I really do not know if it is or not. I, like many simulator enthusiasts, am always seeking the opinions of real pilots. So far I have read only one from a person named Ian that was very critical of the stock 172. Would like to hear from others as well.Dick KLBE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jimmy...Do you think.. This would work with 2004? (BOth the Freeware Cessna and the SF.260:)If not'' I'll use it with 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also learning on a 172 but did some of my hours on a 152.For now im using the flight1 152 and not bothering flying 172 until realair or someone puts one out for FS9 with dynamic virtual cockpit.Speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed,which 152? the Stock 152 or the Dreamfleet like thrid party 152?If it is the stock you are using..then why not use the 172?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean sabotaged?You mean,, realair 172 will not spin in 2002?Or it will not work in 2004?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir, the FDE system was NOT sabotaged, this is not a move by MS to hamper the FDE engine... It's just been changed, as it is on every version of FS. Again, the accusations rise on every version, they've just been a bit more "vocal" about it this year (lots of younger members this time around, I believe)DP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Do you think.. This would work with 2004? (BOth the Freeware>Cessna and the SF.260I can't speak for the SF.260, but I am fying the RealAir 172 in FS2004. It seems to fly pretty well, though I haven't done a real side-by-side comparison with FS2002. There are a couple of issues ... the engine will quit on low idle, and there's a minor issue with the virtual cockpit. I think they might end up tweaking the flight model a bit to accomodate the changes made in FS2004, but overall it still seems like a great flyer to me.That said, I'm very much anticipating RealAir's update to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion. I would modify sabotage since Microsoft is not "treacherous" unless you count price fixing in that realm. However, I would substitute arrogant when they refuse to document significant changes that impact the core of the sim - flight. Yes, this always happens and eventually the repetition of silence becomes tiresome. If one of the few flight modeling experts can say that the performance of the stock 172 or the RealAir 172 is no different than in FS2002, or that any changes to FS2004 have improved it, then I will go away. Otherwise, one can only hope that Microsoft will provide documentation on changes in a timely manner. Maybe continued arrogance eventually becomes treachery?>Sir, the FDE system was NOT sabotaged, this is not a move by>MS to hamper the FDE engine... It's just been changed, as it>is on every version of FS. Again, the accusations rise on>every version, they've just been a bit more "vocal" about it>this year (lots of younger members this time around, I>believe)>>DPDick KLBE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick,This is completely off topic but your profile is hidden so I thought I would post it here.I live about 2 miles from KLBE and am current researching places to get my PPL. If you have any handy info and are willing to share, please e-mail me at gess@wpa.netThanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I continue to use the RealAir 172 "HOPING" that it is superior to the stock 172. I really do not know if it is or not. I, like many simulator enthusiasts, am always seeking the opinions of real pilots. So far I have read only one from a person named Ian that was very critical of the stock 172. Would like to hear from others as well.Dick KLBE:DIn my opinion this is THE best 172 for FS9 at the present time.I have many hours of flight time in the right seat of C-152 and C-172 airplanes, time spent with hands and feet poised and ready to defend my life and limb and the health and welfare of the student pilot sitting to my left (not to mention persons and property on the ground) as that student went about the business of learning to defy gravity in a safe and competent manner, so I believe I have a good basis for comparison.Could it be better? Sure, but with a little tweaking (flap drag for one), easily accomplished, you end up with a passable rendition of the real aircraft.If only MS would put a cowling out front in the VC to alleviate the feeling of "flying a panel" and give computer aviators a better reference point then it would be a near great FS aircraft. I wish this level of attention to detail to the flight dynamics had been extended to the other default aircraft. 1 down and 23 to go! Perhaps by FS2050! :DAs far as the Real Air C-172 in FS9 is concerned, I found that it would not "spin" at all, but that the default Skyhawk would "spin" in exactly the same manner as the Real Air model did in FS2002, right down to the very same (inaccurate) spin recovery technique. Is this only coincidence? You can draw your own conclusions, but in the final analysis it really doesn't matter as someone will always figure out the new "rules" and make better flight models for FS9 aircraft than MS can produce if only because they have the time to do it right.Should Rob Young decide to update his C-172SP FDE for FS9, I'm sure that it will be once again more accurate than the MS version, as his work is excellent.>Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion. I would modify sabotage since Microsoft is not "treacherous" unless you count price fixing in that realm. However, I would substitute arrogant when they refuse to document significant changes that impact the core of the sim - flight. Yes, this always happens and eventually the repetition of silence becomes tiresome. If one of the few flight modeling experts can say that the performance of the stock 172 or the RealAir 172 is no different than in FS2002, or that any changes to FS2004 have improved it, then I will go away. Otherwise, one can only hope that Microsoft will provide documentation on changes in a timely manner. Maybe continued arrogance eventually becomes treachery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Douglas,you said... "As far as the Real Air C-172 in FS9 is concerned, I found that it would not "spin" at all, but that the default Skyhawk would "spin" in exactly the same manner as the Real Air model did in FS2002, right down to the very same (inaccurate) spin recovery technique. "What is the accurate spin recovery technique..in the real world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Manny, if you want to try this for real then please take a good CFI who is thoroughly familiar with spin training in the aircraft to be used along with you, check the POH to see what the factory test pilot did during certification, and be aware that weight and balance can have a profound effect on aircraft spin behavior. If you don't take these precautions then you didn't hear this from me!For Flight Sim Reference Only:From a standard spin entry and a one turn spin, for GA aircraft certified for spins and operating in the utility category:1.Power at idle2.Verify ailerons neutral3.Flaps up 4.Full opposite rudder against the direction of the spin until rotation slows5.Forward elevator to break the stall.6.Neutralize rudder and (gently) recover from the dive.It has been said that all GA aircraft will recover from a spin if you simply remove hands and feet from the controls. However, that won't save you if you spin out of a skidding turn from base to final. It would probably take intervention from the highest authority of all to prevent your becoming a statistic in that situation, but knowing the proper technique for recovery and being proficient at applying it greatly improves your chances.For a better understanding of the principles and techniques involved with heavier than air flight, a really good reference is: Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiescheafter all these years still one of the best references available. A true classic, and a valuable resource for both real and virtual pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The default C-172 in FS9 is the best flight model ever>produced by MS.I really liked the default 172 as well. However, after I got my shiny new rudder pedals I realized that they were of little use with this plane, because it always seemed to stay coordinated no matter what I did with it. As soon as I banked, that little black ball would stick in the center like glue.Is this your experience as well?I'm flying the RealAir 172 right now just because it requires the use of the rudder pedals to execute coordinated turns, though there are some things I like better about the default 172.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Doug.I have that book.. I have been reading it.. (I am still in the beginning) and hence my interest in knowing about spins... I just would like to get this demon off my back.:)I would like to know about ..as much as possible.. so I will never have to be in such a situation and even If I am.. I'll know.. not to panic and get out of it.Hence ..wanted to see.. how much I can learn using a simulator.. before I would even request or do for real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no sabotage. If you had been even remotely attentive as to what people have found it is that MS have reduced the size of the air files and increased the size of the cfg files. Some of the DEFAULT aircraft in FS2004 have the ability to spin!The internal physics engine of FS2004 is of a higher fidelity than FS2002, but it turns out that some of the existing flight models for existing payware aircraft have to be reworked to accomodate the new physics engine, and you might find that when Rob Young releases a new air file for the SF.260 it may well fly better than it did in FS2002.The same could be said for the 172.My two cents.James

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