Fellow Simmers,

 

Has anyone been able to successfully megre carenado's 172N with RealAir's 172 airfraft.cfg?

WOW, I am surprised that no-one has nothing to chime in

What RealAir 172?

 

 

David DD

Possibly no one has done this? I've done it with the FSX default 172 and RealAir files, but have had no desire to try it on the Carenado 172.

 

Ernie

Ok thanks...for the heads up.

I too am interested in doing this.. what would have to happen to merge the two?

It would make a difference. Good or bad to be determined by a real pilot. Try it. It is harmless. But unless you really know 172s the differences, if any, may baffle you.

I do think I figured out how to make the Carenado 172 with the RealAir FDE work, if anyone's interested send me a message!

Hi there. There are some options to consider.

Bernt Stolle has made a wonderful FDE (according to comments and Bernt's reputation ) but it is for the default FSX 172. I have Carenado 172 and am interested in a better FDE as well (no complaints to Carenado!! just to have something better). Don't know if it works with Car's.

 

Let's remember that RealAir 172 is for FS9, and Carenado's 172 for FSX (or FS9 as well, watch out). If everyone had made it work on FSX, i would love to hear it from.

 

Here are my US$ 1/50 (2 cents )

 

Cheers and happy flying!

ltnicolas

Hey there.. I managed to merge the RealAir C172 FDE with Carenado's 172. This is how yo can do it, in case you dont know how:

 

Just download the RealAir 172 (it is freeware!) and look for its .air file.

Make a backup of Car's (Carenado...) 172 .air file. rename something like "SingleEngineProp.air.CARENADO". Just in case.

Copy the R.A. .air file to Car's folder, rename it to "SingleEngineProp.air" and your done!

 

As i'm not a Real World Pilot I can't really say which is closer to the real thing, but I had heard lots of good t hings about R.A. FDE

 

Any RW pilots that tries this: I would love to hear your imput.

 

Cheers and happy flying!

Nicolás

Hi Nicolás and others:

 

Sorry to chime in so late but I just found this post.

 

I am a real world pilot with hundreds of hours in 172N, 172R and 172SP models.

I love Carenado aircraft but the 172N has never flown anywhere close to a real aircraft. I tried using the FS9 RealAir 172 .air file. It works perfectly even though I am using it on an FSX plane. What an improvement!

 

The plane not only slips and spins more like a real 172, it also stays in trim much more realistically. I was able to do steep turns more accurately than ever before in a sim. I still can't do accelerated stalls very easily but this may be a limitation in the sim.

It flies straight and level more accurately which made instrument flight a lot nicer in the sim. Before (with Carenado) the plane was real twitchy when trying to trim for straight and level. A real 172 isn't very hard to keep it where you want it even if you turn and change attitude, it will go back to it's trimmed state. Another thing is V-speeds are more accurate. Carenado wants to approach at 55 which is great for short field but try keeping 65 and you'll be adding power to drag it in. Now you can fly a proper stabilized approach at 60-65 and not have a bunch of float in the flare.

 

So YES, a ringing endorsement for others to try this!

 

I must also endorse Bernt Stolle's files for other Carenado planes. He really has made some great improvements. This is nothing negative on Carenado, as they are by far my favorite payware planes.

 

~S

Sorry to necropost in such an old thread, but I just wanted to chime in on using the RealAir FS9 .air file with the Carenado.  

 

I'm currently training in a C172M, and I absolutely love the Carenado 172N and use it daily for training between my weekly lesson flights.  However, I found the default flight performance was very different from the real aircraft.  One example is simply found in flying the pattern.  Not only does ground speed seem to be higher on descent when using the original configuration, but the descent rate with flaps at 10 and 20 is much steeper than on the real aircraft.  after just a few flights I had developed the habit of adding a little power as I turned base.  Naturally, during my next real-world lesson, flying the pattern for my first 2 of 4 touch and go landings my muscle memory kicked in and I added the power on base, and as a result my first two approaches were much too high.  

 

As many have suggested, I tried using the RealAir file with the Carenado, and I couldn't be more pleased with the result.  This aircraft now performs almost exactly like the 172 I'm training in.

 

I also own the A2A Accusim 172R Trainer.  I'm going to do some more flights and maneuvers with the RealAir FDE file, then try the A2A file, performing the same maneuvers.  I'll post my opinion, comparing/contrasting the two once complete.

 

Regardless, I do highly recommend trying the RealAir FDE.  You won't be disappointed!

Sorry to necropost in such an old thread, but I just wanted to chime in on using the RealAir FS9 .air file with the Carenado.  

 

I'm currently training in a C172M, and I absolutely love the Carenado 172N and use it daily for training between my weekly lesson flights.  However, I found the default flight performance was very different from the real aircraft.  One example is simply found in flying the pattern.  Not only does ground speed seem to be higher on descent when using the original configuration, but the descent rate with flaps at 10 and 20 is much steeper than on the real aircraft.  after just a few flights I had developed the habit of adding a little power as I turned base.  Naturally, during my next real-world lesson, flying the pattern for my first 2 of 4 touch and go landings my muscle memory kicked in and I added the power on base, and as a result my first two approaches were much too high.  

 

As many have suggested, I tried using the RealAir file with the Carenado, and I couldn't be more pleased with the result.  This aircraft now performs almost exactly like the 172 I'm training in.

 

I also own the A2A Accusim 172R Trainer.  I'm going to do some more flights and maneuvers with the RealAir FDE file, then try the A2A file, performing the same maneuvers.  I'll post my opinion, comparing/contrasting the two once complete.

 

Regardless, I do highly recommend trying the RealAir FDE.  You won't be disappointed!

 

Very interrested in hearing your opinion on the A2A one.

 

C.