Flight model fidelity, aircraft configuration files, .air files. I am by far no expert with this stuff. Here is what I know, got my ppl in 91, IFR cert in 93, co-owned a 172 for 9 years.Get the RealAir Simulations FS9 freeware offering - fly it in a pattern. Load the default - do the same.If you can not immediately sense the difference between these two, you have a fundemental problem with either your hardware or software setup.I dont know what he does, how he does it or even why he does it for free, but I am letting you know that this is as close to the real thing you will get sitting behind your PC.Hats off to Rob Young and crew of RealAir Simulations for showing the field what a coordinated effort of file configurations and research can (and should) yield.My Sincerest ThanksMike Starkerppl sel ifr 2311 hrs 172

HiWell, that sounds really great, but where are these air files and for what version of MSFS are they?ThanksJason

JasonThe aircraft he is talking about is the Real Air Simulations Cessna 172 which has been updated for FS2004 with a new "accurate" flight dynamics file. You can find it herehttp://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?DLID=...hor=&CatID=RootUnlike most aircraft in FS2004 (original or addon) the new 172 is actually much like the real thing in terms of behaviour and performance PLUS you can spin and side-slip this aircraft as in real-life (side-slipping a real 172 is alot of fun as the high wing design gives you an excellent view of the ground as you descend like a brick with wings..)So if you want a REAL simulated aircraft check it out.It's a welcome reminder that FS2004 is a FLIGHT SIMULATOR not a piece of ARTWORK (for those people who get upset when they find there are one too many rivets on the engine cover or that the paint job is the wrong colour)RegardsAdamLondon UK

Mike,I could not agree with you more! Rob's updated C172S for FS2004 is an absolute GEM. Most of my PPL training was in 2000-2001 Skyhawk SP's. I'm earning my instrument ticket in one right now. I love these airplanes. They're safe, stable and real workhorses. I've been using FS2004 a lot lately since it's ATC AI supports selection of instrument approaches. The default C172 was starting to really frustrate me.After just one flight in the REALAir 172, I can honestly say that my frustrations are over!Thanks Rob!

I would like to add my thanks too I have just downloaded and flown the 172 and its a pleasure to fly but then you only have to look at there other aircraft to see the same quality hats off to you Rob and all the crew at Real Air your work is truly appreciated regards to all Michael

Rob did this with Fly! aicrafts and I am glad to be able to use this outstanding 172 in MSFS. Thank you and the team for this great plane.Michael

I really hope other pay and freeware aircraft designers will listen to the amount of praise Real Air Simulations have received for their fantastic aircraft and concentrate as much (if not more) on the flight model of their projects rather than spending too much time trying to make them look pretty. I don't personally care whether my Airbus has GE, RR or a Volkswagen Beetle engine - as long as it performs as close to the "real-thing" as possible!I cannot wait for the new FS2004 SF260 to be released!RegardsAdam

I too love the RealAir 172 and I purchased the 260 which I am eagerly awaiting the 2004 update for. 1 thing I notice is that the torque at low rpm's doesn't seem adequate. In the 172SP I fly I can taxi at 1,000 rpm and usually have to pull the power down to 750-850 to keep off the brakes taxing to the active. In the RealAir C172 if I try to taxi at 1,000 I come to a stop. Also in the real 172SP pattern I was trained to use 1,500 rpm abeam the threshold and pitch for 80-70-65. In the RealAir I need to keep 1800 -2000 to keep the proper descent and stay on slope. This isn't a big deal since I use speed more than rpm. I do really appreciate the effort Rob put into this plane. Bring on the 260!! Call me picky,Charles

HI Charles,I agree with you on the rpm and torque. We worked longer on this than all the other aspects, but couldn't get the power quite right at the lower end, at least not without throwing other already good aspects we had achieved. But as with another issue concerning stall highlighted here, if you remove the two passengers you will get slightly better power per rpm. Regards,Rob Young

"I really hope other pay and freeware aircraft designers will listen to the amount of praise Real Air Simulations have received for their fantastic aircraft and concentrate as much (if not more) on the flight model of their projects rather than spending too much time trying to make them look pretty."While I would love to see that too, I bet it is not likely to happen. Rob spends hundreds if not thousands of hours working on his flight models. He is also has talent for it, or could be considered an artist. Not just anybody can do it. Looking forward to the SF260 in FS2004 as well!Tony

Couldn't have said it any better. Thanks crew!

Ooops forgot about the PAX lol! One of the great things about FS2004 is not having to work out the weight and balance or worrying unduly about C of G limits - lets hope I don't forget next time I go flying for real (Biggin watch out..)I learnt to fly on the Piper Tomahawk so am not that familiar with the "real life" 172 numbers. My current "real life" transport is a DR400 (hint Rob...) the only DR400 I can find for Fs2002 has a great looking model but rather dubious flight dynamics.Adam