You can just cut 'n' paste the RA cfg/air files into the C172 folder, Manny: just need to keep the old cfg so that you can copy over the [fltsim.xxx]sections afterwards.

 

I'm feeling like the dimmest bulb in the chandelier because I'm still not completely grasping how to do this. I understand copying the RA airfile, but it has a different filename (RealAirSimulationsC172SP.air) than the default FSX C172 (Cessna172SP.air). Do I rename the RA air file for leave it as is?

 

That being done; do I replace the default FSX C172 aircraft.cfg file with the RealAir aircraft.cfg, or just the few lines in the [fltsim.0] section, so that the air file can be found?

 

The RA file contains some different aircraft data (propeller, engine, etc.), but perhaps the performance data in the RA air file is all we care about?

 

My intent is to pick up the RA C-172 as soon as it becomes available, so hopefully this is just temporary.

 

Thanks,

Ernie

In the interim, you might consider the new Flight1 C177 Cardinal - it handles very well

and has nice legible instruments, ideal for training.

In the interim, you might consider the new Flight1 C177 Cardinal - it handles very well

and has nice legible instruments, ideal for training.

 

+1

 

The Cardinal is brilliant and my desire for a 172 is no longer...........

I like the C177 too! After the release of the outstanding Lancair, I am really thrilled about the upcoming Realair C172!

RealAir when it's out.

 

 

David DD

Not sure if I missed it, but xcan I use the RealAir .cfg and .air file with Carenado's 172?

I bought the F1 C-177, but didn't like it, F1 was great about returning it, so I guess that I will stash the cash until the RealAir C-172 comes along.

I'm feeling like the dimmest bulb in the chandelier because I'm still not completely grasping how to do this. I understand copying the RA airfile, but it has a different filename (RealAirSimulationsC172SP.air) than the default FSX C172 (Cessna172SP.air). Do I rename the RA air file for leave it as is?

 

That being done; do I replace the default FSX C172 aircraft.cfg file with the RealAir aircraft.cfg, or just the few lines in the [fltsim.0] section, so that the air file can be found?

 

The RA file contains some different aircraft data (propeller, engine, etc.), but perhaps the performance data in the RA air file is all we care about?

 

My intent is to pick up the RA C-172 as soon as it becomes available, so hopefully this is just temporary.

 

Thanks,

Ernie

 

Did you ever figure out how to make the RA work w/ the default FSX 172? I too would like to know how to make this work. I'm confused as well as to how/where to put things.

 

I understand the basics of repaints and editing .cfg files but not when it comes to adding/editing .air files.

 

Can someone that has done this type up a short little tutorial for people like me that are lost?

 

Thank you.

I'm still voting that the default C172 is really close to realistic, performance-wise. It can takeoff and climb, with a full-load almost dead-on, compared to the last N-model I flew (I have well over 2,000 hours in C172s).. which suggests a climb-prop.. and it cruises accordingly. .......etc etc

 

Brett,

 

The RealAir C172 alternative flight model is quite old now, and was made for FS2002 then FS2004. FSX handles in a slightly different way, so converting to FSX is not ideal without a re-edit of the flight model. However I think some are missing the point of why we offered the alternative. It was not primarily for any "performance" reason, but for reasons of HANDLING.

 

All the default single and twin prop GA aircraft in FSX suffer from a really bad handling problem. You can see this immediately as you rotate. You need excessive up trim on take off and even then, you get a sudden ballooning unless you are extremely gentle with the stick. If you move the stick forward or back in the cruise, the default C172 (and Baron) move up and down like a yo-yo. There is absolutely no finesse in elevator control.

 

If you input rudder it is virtually locked in the air, with almost no fluidity and no ability at all to side slip. It is far too stable. There is no ability to spin....only spiral dive. These are just a couple of flaws in a long list of handling problems. But in essence there is very poor pitch stability and far too much lateral stability.

 

However, it seems that there is focus and concern amongst sim pilots, one might even say obsession, that the holy grail of flight models is all to do with climb rates, cruise speeds and exact power settings. While of course these are important, for example none of your posts seem at all concerned with how the C172 actually handles. To me it is the handling that is easily the most important aspect of a training aircraft. How else is someone new to flying going to learn to recognise an approaching stall, incipient spin, accelerated stall, recovery from loss of lift, correction of yaw, side-slipping to lose height, and a whole raft of control-oriented maneouvres which have little to do with raw performances figures?

 

It's true that the default C172 is largely good on the numbers. But that's the easy bit! The hard part is getting all that to work with believable basic handling. One of the reasons we became GA specialists is because we want to promote and encourage good basic flying skills, safety and manual flying. I, like many other sim enthusiasts, enjoy programming and "flying" airliners and managing complex FMCs, flight planning and related practice, but those largely procedural skills are miles away from the ability to manually handle a GA aircraft with a bit of cross wind, turbulence and other weather while doing a simple circuit around a small airfield, or shoot a non-precision manual approach at a challenging destination.

 

We're often getting to the point where 13 year old sim pilots can fly procedurally an Airbus from London to Moscow with fine skill and that's wonderful. But I'm not sure the same person could always keep a cessna straight and level, not lose 100 feet on a simple turn and do a simple pattern or overhead join without screwing up!

 

These skills are being further eroded by the current trend to include incredibly over the top autopilot and navigational aids in essentially simple GA aircraft, of the kind which, though useful, tend to gloss over the need for much more basic handling skills. For that reason, we are likely not to include all singing and dancing gizmos in our C172 project because we want to produce a simulation that rewards good basic handling skills.

 

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.

 

All the best,

 

Rob - RealAir

 

Brett,

 

The RealAir C172 alternative flight model is quite old now, and was made for FS2002 then FS2004. FSX handles in a slightly different way, so converting to FSX is not ideal without a re-edit of the flight model. However I think some are missing the point of why we offered the alternative. It was not primarily for any "performance" reason, but for reasons of HANDLING.

 

All the default single and twin prop GA aircraft in FSX suffer from a really bad handling problem. You can see this immediately as you rotate. You need excessive up trim on take off and even then, you get a sudden ballooning unless you are extremely gentle with the stick. If you move the stick forward or back in the cruise, the default C172 (and Baron) move up and down like a yo-yo. There is absolutely no finesse in elevator control.

 

If you input rudder it is virtually locked in the air, with almost no fluidity and no ability at all to side slip. It is far too stable. There is no ability to spin....only spiral dive. These are just a couple of flaws in a long list of handling problems. But in essence there is very poor pitch stability and far too much lateral stability.

 

However, it seems that there is focus and concern amongst sim pilots, one might even say obsession, that the holy grail of flight models is all to do with climb rates, cruise speeds and exact power settings. While of course these are important, for example none of your posts seem at all concerned with how the C172 actually handles. To me it is the handling that is easily the most important aspect of a training aircraft. How else is someone new to flying going to learn to recognise an approaching stall, incipient spin, accelerated stall, recovery from loss of lift, correction of yaw, side-slipping to lose height, and a whole raft of control-oriented maneouvres which have little to do with raw performances figures?

 

It's true that the default C172 is largely good on the numbers. But that's the easy bit! The hard part is getting all that to work with believable basic handling. One of the reasons we became GA specialists is because we want to promote and encourage good basic flying skills, safety and manual flying. I, like many other sim enthusiasts, enjoy programming and "flying" airliners and managing complex FMCs, flight planning and related practice, but those largely procedural skills are miles away from the ability to manually handle a GA aircraft with a bit of cross wind, turbulence and other weather while doing a simple circuit around a small airfield, or shoot a non-precision manual approach at a challenging destination.

 

We're often getting to the point where 13 year old sim pilots can fly procedurally an Airbus from London to Moscow with fine skill and that's wonderful. But I'm not sure the same person could always keep a cessna straight and level, not lose 100 feet on a simple turn and do a simple pattern or overhead join without screwing up!

 

These skills are being further eroded by the current trend to include incredibly over the top autopilot and navigational aids in essentially simple GA aircraft, of the kind which, though useful, tend to gloss over the need for much more basic handling skills. For that reason, we are likely not to include all singing and dancing gizmos in our C172 project because we want to produce a simulation that rewards good basic handling skills.

 

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.

 

All the best,

 

Rob - RealAir

 

 

I completely agree with this post, spot on.

Me too, great read! It is precisely because of what you say there, Rob, that I decided to stop, or at least greatly reduce my hours flying comemrcial jetliners and focus on small GA aircraft. I always dfelt I knew how to do the complicated stuff without knowing the basics and that worried me. So there I am, flying the RealAir scout around OrbX airfields and I couldn't have beenm happier.

 

Youu bet that when the C172 comes out, I'll jump at it!

Having seen the "light" on bump mapping vis-a-vis the Dukes I am very egar to get my hands on the new RealAir C172. Being one who has integrated the old RealAir 172 files into the FSX model I feel that this is the best I can do pending the new release. I am hoping that it can be used in Prepar3D as well.

 

Rob's comments are spot on. Airliners are an excercise in mamaging complex systems in a complex arena. General Aviation aircraft are about flying. RealAir has the best chance of getting this new C172 right.

Reading this made me wish for some kind of reasonably easy to use way to customize/modify planes. Based on my very limited research and the fact that decent add on planes that don't cost a relative mint seem quite rare, I take it that it's far from a trivial task. But for a second there I had these visions... I want a C172 with either a Lambo or Mercedes engine, preferably painted '96 Ford Mustang Cobra "Mystic" purple. Where do you hang fuzzy dice in a cockpit since there's no rearview mirror?

 

It was a very brief albeit quite lovely fantasy while it lasted. Of course from now on everyone who happened to read this will probably just think of me as "Oh, that redneck" ;)

OK.. I did some research and testing. I can't remember the last time I had a C172 higher than 6000msl, so obviously I never sim a C172 at 8,000msl. I loaded it with 2 occupants, and full fuel.. climbed to 8,000. The climb performance was outstanding - which again suggests a climb-prop (whether or not MS intended that) - as does the cruise speed. Note, that power settings do not equate to throttle position.... 75% power for an IO-360 @ 8,000ft (pressure altitude, standard day), requires full throttle.. and the attatched screen-shot shows exactly what I'd expect... except that RPMs seem a bit low... especially for a climb-prop... IRL you might not be able to get 75%, as RPMs might exceed red-line (good time to point out the advantages of a constant-speed prop) I've done enough normally aspirated model creation (C177RG / C310 / Bonanza P35), for FSX, and FDE editing, to know that simple tweaks don't exist.. but I did it anyway. I changed just the fixed blade-pitch from 20, to 25 (simulating replacing the climb-prop with a cruise-prop). The results at low altitude were predictable, but at 8000ft, all it really did was lower RPMs even more, and reduce airspeed... an obvious flaw in the MSF flight-model, as cruise speed should have gone up a bit. Now.. you could do something like tweak the prop-thrust to get higher cruise speed.. but that would make it climb unrealistically well.. There are prob some tables to manipulate via an airfile editor.. but you're still looking at give-n-take realism... Tweaks to induced/parasitic drag can work too - as I had to do with my models, to find a realistic compromise twixt climb and cruise performance.. Again though.. bottom line.. the screen-shot is just what I'd expect to see, if I climbed into a C172 today, and took it up to 8,000msl with a heavy load. Close enough to not lose sleep over, anyway.. :)

 

On a particularly nice day I flew my Skyhawk (N733CZ) from North Las Vegas Airport to Yellowstone National Park, specifically to overhead El Capitan. I got the plane up to 14,000 feet! I could have gone even higher but I decided that was more than high enough! I actually used my oxygen bottle and canulla!

 

I've never even tried it since then. It is still therefore a "record" altitude for my Skyhawk. But, under the right conditions, it can be done.

 

Unless Caranedo has worked a modification, the 172N I purchased from them does not allow one to put the Reality XP avionics in the radio stack. You can sub in the Reality XP gauges if you have them, but they did the radio stack in a way that did not support plug and switch on the radio stack. I emailed them about that years ago and they replied that they would try to do it differently in the future so this could be done, but that they had no plans at that time to re-work the Skyhawk to allow for it.

 

So, I throw that out only so folks can understand.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

I'm still voting that the default C172 is really close to realistic, performance-wise. It can takeoff and climb, with a full-load almost dead-on, compared to the last N-model I flew (I have well over 2,000 hours in C172s).. which suggests a climb-prop.. and it cruises accordingly. 90KIAS at 8,000MSL is ~ 105KTAS .. and that's darn close for a fully-loaded, 180hp C172, with a climb-prop, at cruise setting. Obviously you can push it up near 115KTAS, if you aren't paying for the fuel, or engine rebuild..lol Now, I've flown a 180hp C172's, with just me, and a light fuel-load, and a cruise-prop, that could probably net 125KTAS at 8,000MSL if you pushed it.

 

C172s are 162hp..