^^ what about the Flight1 T182T if you're into G1000's

^^ what about the Flight1 T182T if you're into G1000's

 

Well, my point is that I'm questioning how effective they are as a substitute for gauges. Right now, I think gauges are more effective, you find many more aircraft with gauges still, and it does have a 'feel' to it that is more enjoyable to fly. I'm for a GPS...but I want the old gauges. BTW, I did download the Flight1 C177 and it was not good at all. Not sure if their T182T is any better for FDE...I sure hope so.

 

Well' date=' my point is that I'm questioning how effective they are as a substitute for gauges. Right now, I think gauges are more effective, you find many more aircraft with gauges still, and it does have a 'feel' to it that is more enjoyable to fly. I'm for a GPS...but I want the old gauges. BTW, I did download the Flight1 C177 and it was not good at all. Not sure if their T182T is any better for FDE...I sure hope so.[/quote']

 

The F1 177 FDE seems pretty good to me. Been flying it a lot lately. Matches the performance charts pretty close and handles well in my opinion.

 

What is so bad about it?

The F1 177 FDE seems pretty good to me. Been flying it a lot lately. Matches the performance charts pretty close and handles well in my opinion.

 

What is so bad about it?

 

Well, there were a few things...and maybe I'm just picky. First, thing I saw was the graphics and it just made me worry. The attention to detail wasn't there. (Things missing from the external model, lights you could see right through metal.) Also, some of the engine gauges were responding instantaneously to input and sat at a value rather than how a plane normally does in real world. That worried me...mostly about how much attention to detail would be in the air. When I took off response was good but then, once I got airborn I noticed I could let go of the controls and it would just sit at any angle without input...10 degrees up, 5 degrees up. Stable, like a Cessna but even too stable. It's like you really didn't need trim. Hmmm. I tried a couple of stalls and after the 'break' I noticed that it wanted to wobble fairly heavily along the longitudinal axis. It's *possible* that a real Cardinal does something like that (I have time in 152s, 172s and 182s), planes can be unpredictable and every plane is different. Anyway, when I put it all together it kind of felt like a freeware aircraft that had been modified to have nice avionics. I like some decent avionics but FDE is the foundation. I didn't try side-slipping or even landing so that may be better. I took the default C172 up afterward and thought "Yeah...more like this." Seems odd to me that payware aircraft aren't doing better than that airplane.

Whilst the graphical model is not exactly "state of the art" its not too shabby either. The functionality there is all that is required for C177. It certainly doesn't have Carenado eye candy but then again Im not too bothered about that.

 

I assume the light issue you refer too is the nav lights showing through the wing metal? If so, this is a common issue on many payware addons, Carenado included.

 

As for the FDE, I dont know about letting go of the controls and not needing to trim. That certainly does NOT happen on my C177. Are you sure you hadn't activated the AP or have lowered realism slider settings?

 

I dont feel its too stable at all and I also have time in 152's and 172's.

 

In fact, I often curse many addons that I feel are too twitchy compared to my real life experience, especially in the approach phase. Certainly in the 172, trimming for a set airpseed on approach usually results in the speed being pretty much constant even as the throttle adjusts for descent rate (within reason). Many FS addons do not behave like this at all and the airspeed starts wildly altering even with very small throttle inputs.

 

I havent really pushed the FDE in terms of stall charcteristics, but then again Im more interested in normal flight conditions. In this respect, the 177 follows the numbers in the manual pretty well. (the manual numbers are straight from Cessna anyway I believe)

 

Each to their own of course, but I think the 177 is a winner, especially for $23.

 

I also have the 182, which I think is equally as good in the FDE department.

 

Now, RA will probably have the FDE on the 172 able to stall and spin correctly and Im sure will be a great addon as well.

 

I will probably end up buying it anyway as I cant seem to stop myself when it comes to high wing Cessna's! - Lord knows why...........

_{I also found this information at http://cardinalflyers.com/keith/text/cardinal.htm}

 

 

"I've found the Cardinal, both RG and 'down and welded' gear, to be very nice flying aircraft, much lighter and better harmony on the controls that any other Cessna (at least the 152, 172, 175, 182 or 210 :-) ). It gets stiffer as you speed up, thus it's light in the pattern but stable at cruise.

 

The correct response to a balloon is to freeze the elevator. The wing will gently settle back into the flare with no action required. If you get too high, a little power will avoid an early stall.

 

Most 177 drivers do a crowhop in one of their first crosswind landings where they have too much speed. When they 'fly it onto the ground' as they used to in a 172 they get the hop. But after I did two that way in my first 30 hours I've never done another in 1200 hours. I just learned to fly the wing until it ran out of lift.

 

This does not keep me out of short fields, but it does make me attend to airspeed on final a little more carefully. Luckily the powerful flying stab is very stable in pitch airspeed, and a well set trim can handle 95% of maintaining +/- 2 knots on final. 62 knots gets you into 2000 foot sod strips very nicely, you can turn off at the half-way point most of the time"

As for the FDE, I dont know about letting go of the controls and not needing to trim. That certainly does NOT happen on my C177. Are you sure you hadn't activated the AP or have lowered realism slider settings?

 

I'm wondering if we have the same C177. They have two, right? I bought the newer one. Yeah, I have since noticed lights coming though metal on some. AP was definitely off. Hmmm...

 

I will probably end up buying it anyway as I cant seem to stop myself when it comes to high wing Cessna's! - Lord knows why...........

 

I'm glad to find a kindred soul in this. Sometimes, I feel a bit surrounded by all the big aircraft simmers. LOL. Where I used to fly we were rich in PA28s and poor in Cessnas so I spent a lot of time in Warriors and Archers but wished I was flying a high wing. First time I flew a C182 I had a woh moment or two. The feeling of acceleration when you pull the prop back at cruise and then the way it swayed and slowed on final. Just woh. I like the Carenado one well enough (despite the 1970s avionics...time to choke up some money on RealityXP) and an occasional rudder bug that forces me to land in a slip in calm wind .

 

I'm wondering if we have the same C177. They have two' date=' right? I bought the newer one. Yeah, I have since noticed lights coming though metal on some. AP was definitely off. Hmmm...

 

I'm glad to find a kindred soul in this. Sometimes, I feel a bit surrounded by all the big aircraft simmers. LOL. Where I used to fly we were rich in PA28s and poor in Cessnas so I spent a lot of time in Warriors and Archers but wished I was flying a high wing. First time I flew a C182 I had a woh moment or two. The feeling of acceleration when you pull the prop back at cruise and then the way it swayed and slowed on final. Just woh. I like the Carenado one well enough (despite the 1970s avionics...time to choke up some money on RealityXP) and an occasional rudder bug that forces me to land in a slip in calm wind .[/quote']

 

Yes, the new 177...released a few months ago.

 

Something doesn't sound right though to me. You should certainly be needing proper trim usage for it.

Sometimes, I feel a bit surrounded by all the big aircraft simmers. LOL. Where I used to fly we were rich in PA28s and poor in Cessnas so I spent a lot of time in Warriors and Archers but wished I was flying a high wing. First time I flew a C182 I had a woh moment or two.

 

There are a lot of us piston GA guys around, though we may not all be Cessna guys.

 

Funny how different we can all be. My first logged hour was in a V35B, but after that heady experience, my PPL training was completed in a variety of C152's. After, I moved up to 172's and did my first retract/constant speed prop time in a 172RG. Through all of this, I held that vision of the V35B and couldn't wait until I got into a low wing.

 

I'll spare you the whole progression, but while I like Cessnas just fine, have flown a lot of them and would be one of the first to buy a good updated 172 with classic analog gauges, I was always more of a Piper and Beech guy.

 

The feeling of acceleration when you pull the prop back at cruise and then the way it swayed and slowed on final. Just woh.

 

Imagine sitting on the runway, advancing the throttle and starting to accelerate and then - the turbo-charger spools up and its boost kicks in. I once told a friend that if I ever lost that feeling of "whoa" when that happened, check for a pulse because I must be dead.

 

Different strokes and all that. :-)

 

Scott

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

 

 

Just a quick note to say thanks for recommending this book. I recently ordered it from amazon and am looking forward to reading it. (once I finish my current read.)

"Stick and Rudder" should be required reading for anyone training for their certifications.

Hmmmph.. honestly - I read it a loooooong time ago, (ok - 1958) but I was never that impressed with some of his theories. I remember one paragraph, wherein he taught that all of the lifting of the aircraft is provided by the pressure on the underside of the wing surface - and that is plain wrong. For the most part - it's an ok book, and has a great teaching style, but it was written - what - 1932, or something like that? I think there are better books around.

No one said it's the ONLY book you should ever read. And if you find some of the ideas to be a little outdated, well, it's possible our knowledge of airflow around a wing has changed a little in the last 80 years.

 

The concept of hands-on flying, however, has not.

so.. the Carenado C172 is not a realistic plane? or what? I'm curious to see what all of you say about this?

I'd wait for the RealAir C172 that is in the works if ultimate realism is what you want.