Cessna, they all look alike ;)

[Dominique_K 10,133]

Cessna offers a large variety of small monoprop aircraft, well reflected in the Flight1 and Carenado lines (152,162,172, 182, 185, 210). More 172s are to come from RA and A2A. They kind of all look alike :wink: !

 

I wonder whether there is so much differences, noticeable differences I should say, in flying them in FSX knowing that the maintenance and flying cost parameters are off the board , except that some are a little faster? Assuming of course that the FDE is reasonably accurate. And in real life. ? :Thinking:

[woodhick 504]

Yes, the airplanes will be somewhat different in the sim models as to cruise speeds as well as other speeds. If the models are well done there will be handling differences. You've also got one in there that is a tail dragger (the 185), the rest are tri-cycle gear. Big difference there. Some have auto-pilots, others do not (in both the FSX world and real world). Panels will have visual presentation differences and some will even have glass panels. The big differences--physical size of the cabin, interior construction materials, others--obviously cannot be modeled, unless you move your sim set-up to a cramped closet to fly the 152 and a larger area for the 182 & 210.

 

Yes, most of them look somewhat alike, it's called a family resemblance.

[CoolP 283]

I think the best and most versatile one could be the old C185 and the modern C182 with a T for the turbo. Last one comes with the G1000 for us simmers, so you are also set for good situational awareness.

 

I saw the rw flyers reporting rather big character differences between a C172 and C182, the 182 being more of a van-alike experience. I recall this because I thought they would be very much the same, just from looking so similar. Well, you never stop learning. :smile:

[NikkiA 7]

TBH, the same accusation can really be levelled against all manufacturers, a Piper cherokee looks like an arrow (ok, excepting the IV), looks like an archer, looks like a dakota, looks like a saratoga, with only slight differences in performance... Likewise, a B55 looks like a B58,looks like a B60, looks like a C90, looks like a B200, looks like a B350, etc.

[ZachLW 37]

TBH, the same accusation can really be levelled against all manufacturers, a Piper cherokee looks like an arrow (ok, excepting the IV), looks like an archer, looks like a dakota, looks like a saratoga, with only slight differences in performance... Likewise, a B55 looks like a B58,looks like a B60, looks like a C90, looks like a B200, looks like a B350, etc.

 

If you've ever flown a Saratoga or Lance, you know the differences are not slight compared to the rest of the lower performance Piper single engine models. Same goes for the 210, etc compared to lower performance Cessnas.

 

Compare the below between models and you'll appreciate their differences:

• Useful load
  
• Cruise performance
  
• Takeoff/landing performance
  
• Range
  
• Seating capacity
  
• etc.
  

Each model was built with a mission. Keep that in mind.

 

PS. I realize useful load and seating capacity isn't quite "tangible" within the sim. Perhaps if you're using FSPax or that other cargo add on, the above will have more meaning.

[Dominique_K 10,133]

Well, you never stop learning. :smile:

 

That's the spirit of my slightly provocative question :rolleyes: . Thanks to have shed some light on this issue. You all make extremely interesting points.

 

I didn't know that there was such a difference between the 172 and 182 behaviour either. Is it across all kind of motorization including the turbo version ?

 

My own kind of "missions" would lean me toward the C185 bush variant. Much more fun to takeoff without being able to look straight ahead :P and the big pod below is a statement to its mission !

[woodhick 504]

I didn't know that there was such a difference between the 172 and 182 behaviour either. Is it across all kind of motorization including the turbo version ?

 

In a word--yes.

[lateagain 45]

....when you come up with the best design in the world ....ever ...why alter it? :P

 

Seriously though Cessna were not alone with developing high wing aircraft. Piper more often known for their excellent low wing equivalents made some excellent high wing models too? The Cub is one of THE classic aircraft? Most STOL designs have followed the high wing layout and BUSH pilots have favoured that layout for decades. Perhaps the Ultimate STOL aircraft is the Pilatus PC6 and the idea of fitting a Turbo prop into a high winged aircraft is perhaps best utilised or optimised in the Cessna Caravan? The only thing to touch the Pilatus and Caravan is the absolutely totally brilliant An-2. Two wings must be better than one? ^_^ Don't forget those "stunning old birds" the Beaver and the Otter too.

 

If you like any of that lot? ...get your head round a Cessna or two first?

 

Sadly I'm not sure FSX's weather model replicates the difference in crosswind landings between a high and low winged aircraft accurately enough? If it did you'd see a difference.

 

The fact that many of the new generation of GA aircraft have opted for a low wing design is a shame in my view :( ...but never mind there are still loads of decent Cessna's out there to fly? In FSX you can fly the ones that are becoming rarer too.

 

Geoff

[woodhick 504]

when you come up with the best design in the world ....ever ...why alter it? :P

 

+1

[Dominique_K 10,133]

The only thing to touch the Pilatus and Caravan is the absolutely totally brilliant An-2.

 

Agreed. I very much look forward to Aerosoft announced rendition of the An 2, long overdue... A new rendition of the Porter, accusim like, would be very much welcome too as the FSD model is quite long in the tooth now.

 

Sadly I'm not sure FSX's weather model replicates the difference in crosswind landings between a high and low winged aircraft accurately enough? If it did you'd see a difference.

 

Would you mind elaborate a bit on that ? What is the difference ?

[Ken_Stallings 2]

These Cessna high wing monoplanes don't really look alike but are similar. Once you've been around them, you can ID them fairly consistently. It is size more than anything. The 172 is the smallest of the four-seat versions. The 150 is the baby of the bunch with only two seats. The 182 is significantly larger and heavier and with a larger nacelle for the larger engine. Now the 210 is significantly larger and if you see a 210 next to a 172 you quickly notice the difference.

 

The 162 is way different so no challenge to differentiate because it even has a significantly different wing.

 

Ken

 

Geoff,

 

I totally agree with you on the high wing versus low wing. High wing gives so many advantages. For bush operations it isn't even a contest. With a high wing you have so much less chance of the wing striking some object on the ground. High wing also provides an inherent stability advantage without needing to use wing dihedrial.

 

One other huge advantage for all operations is that with a high wing, getting in and out of the cockpit is vastly easier and you normally have a door on both sides of the airplane, which means you aren't having to crawl over seats. The pilot also can get in last or first and still be able to assist passengers as necessary. And finally, on a rainy day, a high wing allows you to get in and out and stay dry and then open up an umbrella while standing under the wing. It also means you can get in and out on the rainiest of days and your cockpit and instruments stay nice and dry.

 

I own both a 172 and a 310R and truth be told while I love the performance advantages of my 310R, for personally fun flying the Skyhawk is hard to beat!

 

Ken

[LAdamson 240]

I like the fighter like feel & performance of low wings. You don't see many "high wing" fighters either. At least, not since WWI. High wings have their place. They are more suited for bush flying operations.

[Dominique_K 10,133]

Thank you Ken, Larry for enriching the discussion quite a bit...

 

... and bringing a touch of humor. You're the ultimate salesmen. Ken, I love what you say about being able to open our umbrella. under the wing of 172 and Larry, you make of any Cherokee driver, a fighter jock, à la Walter Mitty :biggrin: !

 

Getting back to what Geoff said

Sadly I'm not sure FSX's weather model replicates the difference in crosswind landings between a high and low winged aircraft accurately enough? If it did you'd see a difference.

 

What is the difference (including in slipping into the wind) and do you feel it reflected in FSX ?

[lateagain 45]

Well I trained in low wing aircraft. Then flew mainly (95%) C172. The Slingsby T67C (which for all the Walter Mitty's had a Bubble canopy and was stressed for aerobatics) which flew cross wind crabbed approaches like a 747 and was pretty stable. Once commited in the flare it was easy to kick straight and behaved very well. The 172 was (to my low hours experience) best flown with a wing drooped towards the crosswind. The difference was in the flair. The high wing was, in my limited experience, much more vulnerable to gusts at that point. Maybe I've not got my settings maxed enough but I don't notice that difference in the Sim? In reality I doubt many of us fly circuits in the Sim as you do in real life training so perhaps it's academic really?

 

Geoff.

 

One other factor of course is controls. The T67C had a short stick, very like a gaming stick and the 172 had a yoke and that meant very different control inputs. Like riding a bike once you've "got the feel" you just remember it. The one thing that real life and the sim DO get right ...is that you don't get it right every time B)

[Ken_Stallings 2]

I like the fighter like feel & performance of low wings. You don't see many "high wing" fighters either. At least, not since WWI. High wings have their place. They are more suited for bush flying operations.

 

Would you be surprised to learn that is not true?

 

Take a closer look at modern fighter jets. Let's start with the F-15E. Look where the wings are mounted on the main part of the fuselage. Yep, on the high side! Just because the cockpit rests even higher doesn't mean the wings are mounted at the low portion of the fuselage.

 

The F-16? It is a mid-wing design, more of a blended wing, so a bit difficult to term it either high wing or low wing. But, if you whip out the micrometer, you'll find more fuselage below the wing than above it.

 

The F-14 , F-111 were both high wing jets. Same configuration as the F-15 took. Same for the A-7 and the F-8 -- both very clearly high wing fighters.

 

The F-18? Yep, same story, high wing design.

 

Matter of fact, one is hard pressed to find a jet fighter design that is truly a low wing design. The F-4 is certailny one. But, most are either high wings or mid-wings. If you are curious why the high (or at least mid-wing) design is so prevalent, one of the prime reasons is the inherent advantages of putting the landing gear in the fuselage and then having a lot more space under the wing to mount munitions. Also, you can make the wing straighter (with less dihedrial) because of all the weight that is below the wing serving the same inherent stabilizing force as for a high wing GA airplane.

 

You are certainly right that in World War II most of the airplanes were low wing designs. Lockheed zigged against this trend with their P-38 and some derivatives of that boom design such as the P-61 made by Northrop.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken