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.

 

Gregg,

 

I am working on a 'Cessna in the Simulator' review/article for Avsim.com I am thinking about making it part 1 and part 2 because the Citation takes up just about 80% of the last 30 years for Cessna and is a full story in itself.

 

I have support from Flight1 and Carenado for the review and it is coming along nicely. I am going to limit the scope to FSX only and what has been, is, and may be available in the near future. I am also not going to spend a lot of words on the Corvalis line as it is just being accepted as a Cessna and none are available yet in FSX.

 

But all your favorites - C150 - 152 - 172 - 182 - 2xx - will be covered in detail.

 

Ray

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).

 

Totally agree with you there, The real C172 is fairly easy to set up a stable approach, so easy in fact that it sometimes feels like a long wait to the threshold. I gave up fiddling with curves and settings in FSUIPC to realistically simulate this in the Carenado 172. I still like the Caranedo version though.

But all your favorites - C150 - 152 - 172 - 182 - 2xx - will be covered in detail.

 

That's good news. I look forward to reading it. I think the C182 I have now is about as good as it could get in FSX in terms of FDE and realistic in terms of avionics. The remaining less realistic parts are decent enough for practice: cross-wind landings and weather. At this point, the downside of most FSX airplanes is that they are difficult to integrate with more complex hardware, in part, because of choices made by the developers. That is a topic all to itself.

 

Gregg

Gregg,

 

Which C182 do you have?

 

Ray

Gregg,

 

Which C182 do you have?

 

Ray

 

I would like to know also!

It is refreshing to see the strong attention and interest in flight dynamics. If you are collecting model aircraft it is of little importance. However, if you want maximum visual and functional clarity it is a strong component. Using a flawed FDE does not make sense to me. It is the primary item when I make a purchase. To me it is very odd to "fly" and airplane that does not behave like and airplane. I wonder how many users of FSX really do not understand what they are missing by using unreal FDEs.

It is refreshing to see the strong attention and interest in flight dynamics. If you are collecting model aircraft it is of little importance. However, if you want maximum visual and functional clarity it is a strong component. Using a flawed FDE does not make sense to me. It is the primary item when I make a purchase. To me it is very odd to "fly" and airplane that does not behave like and airplane. I wonder how many users of FSX really do not understand what they are missing by using unreal FDEs.

 

Well until I flew a plane for real I had no idea whether the flight dynamics were real or otherwise. As I stated above in my limited experience it's often easier to fly the C172 in real life then it is in the sim world. However, that's not entirely down to flight dynamics, depth perception and "sensations" are sensory feedback factors that you learn to respond to subconsciously and these are obviously lacking on a PC. In FSX we rely entirely on visual cues whereas in the real world you can possibly feel a plane "sink" on approach quicker than the visual cue of the rising runaway can prompt you to adjust the descent.

 

Having said that the Realair Lancair Legacy certainly "feels" more realistic than many other add-on GA planes. So I'm eagerly awaiting the Realair C172.

Which C182 do you have?

 

Hi Ray,

 

Sorry, been away from sim for a while. Life. LOL. I have the Carenado C182 with a modified FDE that Bernt Stolle created. I have to say I do love the FDE. I've also modded the avionics to add a RA GPS and some tweaks to radios. If I could buy and airplane RW, this would be a top contender.

 

Gregg

Where can we find this modified FDE by B. Stolle ?

 

Tero

If anybody PM's me their email I'll send it to them.

 

Where can we find this modified FDE by B. Stolle ?

 

Tero

 

If anyone PMs me their email, I'll send it to them.

Not sure about you guys, but I'm waiting for A2A C172 (in development). Considering their dedication to realism & detail, I already know it will be like sitting in a real Cessna, can't wait!

 

Sent from my U8815 using Tapatalk 2

There is already a Flight 1 Cessna 172 with a 160HP engine which is very good.

 

Not many skyhawk 172... analog.. So looking forward to the Real Air one.

Where can we find this modified FDE by B. Stolle ?

 

Tero

 

I added Bernt's FDE and ran my old 182Q through my local avionics shop and came up with a fresh new look. Instuments are much sharper and the avionics stack has some of the easiest to use stuff available and the Reality XP 530 for RNAVs. This may be one of the most realistic flying models in FSX.

 

Next I am going to attack the black panel and exterior. Thanks for the idea Gregg.

 

Ray

Edited November 5, 201213 yr by raymar
Image removed - exceeds 400KB limit

Nice job, Raymar!

 

 

I added Bernt's FDE and ran my old 182Q through my local avionics shop and came up with a fresh new look. Instuments are much sharper and the avionics stack has some of the easiest to use stuff available and the Reality XP 530 for RNAVs. This may be one of the most realistic flying models in FSX.

 

Next I am going to attack the black panel and exterior. Thanks for the idea Gregg.

 

Ray

 

That's excellent. Would it be possible for us who have the Reality XP suites to get a copy of your panel config? I'd really like to do my 182 up like yours. thanks!

 

Chris