Best C172 for FSX?

[TheBFG 1]

C172s are 162hp..

 

C172s have anything from 145 to 180hp. And there's actually no factory model with exactly 162 :)

[Manny 1,293]

As a follow up to Rob's post about the actual science of flying an aircraft vs learning procedures for complex aircrafts, there is a good book to read if anyone is interested. The basic art of flying stick and rudder.

 

Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of Flying by Wolfgang Langewiesche

 

http://www.amazon.co...tick and rudder

 

I loved this particular review of the book

 

 

Be patient and you will learn July 19, 2006

By M. Lee

Format:Hardcover

 

Let's start with a fact: I am a pilot.

 

This book changed how I approached flying and changed how I fly. Let's get the obvious out of the way to assuage the ninnies in the group: Yes it's dated. Elevators are no longer called "flippers" and we don't really call our airplanes "ships." The language is right out of the 1930's. Airplanes today have flaps and tricycle gear. It moves slower than, say, Machado's book. It repeats things. It's basic.

 

Now the best part: It is an excellent and pure book on the ART of flying. I am amazed by the reviewers here with the 2-second attention span that didn't see this. I'll say it again, this book changed the way I fly and made me a better pilot. It emphasizes safety and it explains in pure form what is safe and what is not. The fundamentals are true and the repetition drives the points home. I took notes as I read this because I wanted to apply what I learned in the cockpit. It works, pure and simple. It teaches you basics that you didn't know you didn't know. Really it does.

 

Get the book, be patient, absorb what it says. Savor Wolfgang's humor. Read the book thoroughly and don't apply your media-addled, PDA-addicted, 0-attention-span, 2006 mind. Instead read it for what it is; an instructional manual purely about how to handle the stick and rudder to keep you from getting killed. It's not meant to be anything more and you shouldn't expect it to be. I, frankly, loved it. This should be required reading by the FAA. You want to glide shallower?, push the nose down! What? Amazing. It imparts information that will make you a safer pilot. It's an art form, not "Top Gun." Enough said.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And this

 

5.0 out of 5 stars

The Ultimate Pilot's Basic Handbook on Flying!, June 23, 2012

 

 

By

S. Cartwright "Bearracing" (Reno, NV United States) - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)

 

My family's history in aviation is fairly extensive, my father was a WWII fighter pilot and his first experience in an airplane was riding in a Jenny trainer, with Wiley Post at the controls, that was in 1928 when my father was 12 years old. My oldest brother retired 8 years ago after 40 years at United Airlines (Boeing before that) and I started my flying career when I earned my single engine land certificate in 1967 at the age of 17.

 

I see there are (currently) 96 reviews, with 90 rating "Stick & Rudder" at least "4" stars or better, but I also read through those 6 reviews that rate this book "3" stars or less. I suppose there are always going to be someone who doesn't get it.

 

I particularly like one of those reviewers, that rated "Stick & Rudder" poorly, making the claim the book is irrelevant in today's world, hmmmm(?). Well, in my 40+ years of flying experience, having flown everything from a 1937 Boeing Stearman up to and including a Boeing 737-400 (and probably 50 or more aircraft types in-between), its my opinion, Wolfgang Langewiesche's Stick & Rudder, has been, is, and continues to be relevant to anyone wishing to learn to fly.

 

During my lifetime, I have met or have become personally acquainted with a number of noteable pilots, including: Brian Shul (SR-71 Pilot), Major General "Chuck" Yeager (1st to break sound barrier), Brigadier General James Howard (only USAAC fighter pilot in ETO to be awarded the MOH), Brigadier General Paul Tibbets (WWII Commander of the 509th Composite Group and pilot of the Enola Gay), Major General Charles Sweeney (Pilot of Bockscar on the Kokura/Nagasaki mission), Scott Crossfield (1st person to break MACH 2), Captain Suzanna Darcy-Hennemann (lead Boeing Test pilot on the 777-300ER program), Don Sheldon (pioneered early Alaska bush flying techniques, especially as related to landing on glaciers and high altitude frozen surface operations), Eugene Cernan (Reno Air Race Pilot and commander of Apollo 17, last flight to the moon), Bill Anders (Reno Air Race Pilot and Lunar Module Pilot; Apollo 8, 1st to orbit the moon),and the list goes on.

 

You know what all these individuals and myself have in common, other than being "pilots"(?), everyone of us have stated that Wolfgang Langewiesche's "Stick & Rudder" is a required basic read, for anyone aspiring to become a pilot!

[liampilot 0]

C172s have anything from 145 to 180hp. And there's actually no factory model with exactly 162 :)

 

Apologies, i meant 160 :). My flying school has C172Rs with 160hp Lycomings.

[LAdamson 240]

Apologies, i meant 160 :). My flying school has C172Rs with 160hp Lycomings.

 

And the 172R's engine is a 360 cubic inch Lycoming, which is normally 180 HP derated to 160HP, with 2400 rpm redline instead of 2700.

[LAdamson 240]

The vast majority of GA aircraft accidents are still the result of a worryingly familiar pattern of events: Loss of lift or wing drops/ spins while flying in marginal conditions, low and slow, or literally flying into the ground in bad visibility despite being equipped with GPS, sophisticated autopilots, glass displays and a whole lot of other equipment, none of which seem to halt the steady stream of fatalities or injuries due to loss of control.

 

Getting off subject a bit..............

 

The CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accident statistics will change for the better. GPS combined with synthetic vision are wonderful devices, that will go along way in preventing the usual flying into mountains. I'm from a mountain area, and we'd average three a year around here. Since CFIT ( and hopeful prevention) is somewhat of a hobby of mine......I keep track of most accidents, and the devices in the aircraft at the time. Especially the make and model of GPS, as well as the installed location, if equipped.

 

As far as simulated aircraft go, I don't see a purpose in exact duplication of the more sophisticated GPS units. These are sims within themselves, and should cost accordingly, if available............not to mention requiring another monitor to be really useful.

 

L.Adamson

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

I am a huge fan of high-wing aircraft and Cessna's in particular. A breath of air is welcome and needed for me. I find most of the Cessna's out there have problems. Dated, inflexible cockpits or poor FDEs. I know there are some glass cockpit models that are entering the market but a glass cockpit, to me, isn't necessarily a good thing for practical reasons (mounting evidence that, while it helps with into terrain, in it's current design, it *increases* problems in takeoff/landing/go-around). I am looking forward to the RealAir 172 and I truly hope they follow it with a constant speed prop model.

[teropa 4]

Hi,

 

Just a note on the spin side of 172,

 

After the M-model introduced the newer type of wing, the spin entry was dramatically more difficult, requiring application of power in the proper attitude and combination of control inputs.

 

So, your garden variety C172 should not spin that easily.

 

That said, I can't wait to get the RA new C172, and I am thrilled to hear that it's going to be perhaps a more basic version, ie. non glass what it looks like to be :). I would be happiest with an older gen model, to be honest :).

 

Tero

[nudata 10]

Non-Glass traditional - yes. Or, at most optional glass.

Flight Dynamics are ultra-important in the 172. It is arguably the "standard" aircraft for General Aviation. Fortunately for us RealAir has the reputation for the best FDE's in our virtual GA world. Given that our flying is a pretend excercise, to also have a "pretend" flight model is really awful. I use the RealAir Bateman flight model in a Microsoft body for my aircraft of choice but the new 172 is an instant choice.

[GHarrall 494]

Hi,

 

Just a note on the spin side of 172,

 

After the M-model introduced the newer type of wing, the spin entry was dramatically more difficult, requiring application of power in the proper attitude and combination of control inputs.

 

So, your garden variety C172 should not spin that easily.

 

That said, I can't wait to get the RA new C172, and I am thrilled to hear that it's going to be perhaps a more basic version, ie. non glass what it looks like to be :). I would be happiest with an older gen model, to be honest :).

 

Tero

 

Tero,

 

Quite right. When learning most of my time was in a 152 but we also had a 1975 172M. It was notoriously difficult to spin. Even the CFI had difficulty getting it to go half the time!

 

Great for everyday flying, not so great for spin recovery practice.

 

I heard a rumor that USA PPL training does not include spin recovery training requirements. Is this true?

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

I heard a rumor that USA PPL training does not include spin recovery training requirements. Is this true?

 

When I got my license 13 years ago it wasn't required. In fact, I've never been in a spin...training or otherwise. It was a requirement for commercial license.

[tttocs 301]

The US (FAA) does not require spin training for the PPL - rather they stress recognition and avoidance. Individual instructors may still teach spins, however.

 

There are really good arguments for both spin recovery and spin avoidance as preferred training, BTW. One of the biggest in favor of teaching avoidance (besides a high spin training accident rate back when the FAA made the switch) is that it's difficult for many pilots to maintain spin recovery proficiency.

 

My primary instructor, lo these many years ago, required spins (did mine in a 152 Aerobat), and I'm glad he did, but I haven't done them since, in large part because spins were prohibited in many of the airplanes I flew, including the one I eventually owned. Many planes built during GA's heyday were either difficult to spin (like the later 172's referenced here) or were not approved for it.

 

Scott

[Oracle427 45]

I am a huge fan of high-wing aircraft and Cessna's in particular. A breath of air is welcome and needed for me. I find most of the Cessna's out there have problems. Dated, inflexible cockpits or poor FDEs. I know there are some glass cockpit models that are entering the market but a glass cockpit, to me, isn't necessarily a good thing for practical reasons (mounting evidence that, while it helps with into terrain, in it's current design, it *increases* problems in takeoff/landing/go-around). I am looking forward to the RealAir 172 and I truly hope they follow it with a constant speed prop model.

 

What have you heard about glass having influence on TOGA?

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

What have you heard about glass having influence on TOGA?

 

When I'm not flying I read quite a bit of safety information. Truthfully, I wanted to see the *opposite* (I fairly much love technology). The report below has a lot of food for thought, not just about TAA, but a bunch of other information...

 

http://www.aopa.org/...port-022412.pdf

[Oracle427 45]

Thanks, I'll check it out the details of the report. I also like to read these in my spare time so I don't "repeat history".

 

I had "flown" for years in sims using analog gauges and then went on to train and get my PPL in a G1000 172. Early in my training I flew a couple of times in an analog 172 and my instructor even commented that I flew maneuvers better in the analog cockpit.

 

I struggled with "transitioning" to reading the tapes at first, but after a year, I am very comfortable with the different instrumentation. At first I found it very difficult to get useful "rate of change" information from the tapes. The magenta trend indicators are lifesavers. In any case, it's not like one should be watching the panel in VFR conditions doing takeoffs and landings! :)

 

I am very curious to see what sorts of problems have been observed.

 

---

 

Attempting to get back on topic... I use the default FSX C172S G1000 as it does a decent job at simulating the real C172S I am familiar with. I am looking forward to the release of the new RA 172. I hope that it will freshen up the cockpit visuals, increase the fidelity of the systems and improve the simulation quality at lower airspeeds during takeoff and landing where the default model falls short.

 

I wasn't happy with anything else I found and decided to stick with the default all these years.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

The report doesn't go into why, only that the data is showing it. When I was reading it I got to thinking about the speed tape. It doesn't show a complete picture like a gauge...only a window. The angle of the needle speaks volumes on a small airplane...a fast glance is all you need. They could animate a gauge (and do some pretty cool things with it too...showing a blur of the recent needle history direction up or down). I think the glass cockpit manufacturers still have to figure some of it out.

 

One note. I'd love to see a sim airplane maker not reinvent the wheel on the glass cockpit but actually do some inventing on their own, trying things to see what makes the airplane safer. They could even gather stats from agreeable sim pilots. Who knows...they could get a patent for an innovation.

 

Okay, okay...back on topic. I don't see much in the pay Cessna realm. I think Carenado did a decent job on some but their avionics stayed in the 60's and 70's. Nothing particularly wrong with that but when you see those old airplanes with GPS's shoehorned in them by real owners you know there's more going on than the love for pure old cockpits. Nobody else, that I'm aware of has a good Cessna for FSX...nothing much better than the default.