I have the F1 Meridian, and love it, but that is a Ferrari!I'm looking to add a single engine, entry level, GA aircraft and am looking at the above FS9 C172 & C177 offerings. I'd really like to get a 182, but can't find one for FS9.I'm looking for eye candy and accurate flight characteristics - IOW everything. I know, get both! The C177 is nice as it is comes with the fixed gear, lower power as well as the retractable turbocharged higher power "classic" Cardinal.I'd also prefer to have a constant speed prop.But the 172 is a brand new release, and may look a little more photoreal, or are they about the same?Can anyone comment on which they might choose of the two above planes.* Orest-~~~~~~~~~Orest SkrypuchUAL1445 DENFOCYFD - Canada

I have the C177 and plan on purchasing the C172 soon. Your guess is probably correct - the C172 is a much newer release and as such looks better where as the Cardinal has the advantage that it comes in two versions. Also, Carenado has a C210 which I have and (IMO) it looks better than the Cardinal. Maybe worth checking out? Frankly the Cardinal package is a little long in the tooth now.

>I have the C177 and plan on purchasing the C172 soon.I'd love to hear your impressions when/if you do get the Skyhawk.I think you're right re the "long on tooth" issue with the Cardinal.* Orest-~~~~~~~~~Orest SkrypuchUAL1445 DENFOCYFD - Canada

Avsim just put up a review of the 172 on the front page. The 172 is a great plane.

I have both.I prefer the Cardinal as far as looks go. The only thing it really doesn't have is dynamic shine, it does have reflective effects though. The VC in the C172 is probably one of the clearest I have ever seen. The flight dynamics are also very good. However, the Cardinal also has a very nice VC and great flight dynamics.I think it really comes down to which aircraft you like better.I'm still on the fence as to whether I'm going to keep the C172 or return it. Really nice aircraft but it really isn't that different then most of my other GA I have. I should have known that before my purchase but I wanted to "go for it" and see what happens.Personally, I'd get the Flight1 441. That aircraft kicks much ####. :)

"I prefer the Cardinal as far as looks go. The only thing it really doesn't have is dynamic shine, it does have reflective effects though." Last time I browsed DreamFleet's forum there was discussion of an update which would add dynamic shine--a screenshot or two appeared in the thread as well. It's been awhile since any news, but I imagine since Dreamfleet keeps constantly busy with new products, the update will be out whenever they get a spare moment.Anyway, both are excellent aircraft. The Cardinal has a slight advantage as its FS2002 compatible, whereas the 172's virtual cockpit is among the best I've ever seen. I also feel the 172 is a tad more fps friendly. Both Flight1 and Dreamfleet have always supported their work 110 pct.-John

I'd go with the Cardinal. I updated the sounds, I didn't care for the door/parking brake sound and also I like hearing a little wind rushing past the windows (so I turned up the wind noise).You get so much more from the DreamFleet model. First off you get two versions (standard/RG), second you get a wealth of liveries for free (downloadable here at Avsim.com), fully interactive VC, etc... The 177 also looks great at night. DreamFleet did a wonderful job on the night lighting... The F1 172 on the other hand is a standard add-on were as the DF Cardinal is a bigger package altogether. Everything about the DF Cardinal works as advertised. The 172 has it's Nav light switches tied to the interior dome light. The landing lights are tied to the VC gauge backlighting. I reported the problem to Flight1 and was basically told to go play with myself...:-roll The 172 has a white dome light which some of us changed to red and dimmed a little. As everyone has said before the 172 has a wonderful VC (the best around), it's just not something out the box I would fly around at night...So in the end if you want a near perfect FS model I'd go with the Cardinal. You get so much for your money. The F1 172 is a much smaller package and despite the problems mentioned above is good as well. I have them both and I'm very happy with my purchases. If I had to choose it would be the Cardinal for sure...

Orest,I have both, and you can't go wrong with either one.The 172 is a little prettier, both outside and inside. But, as noted above, Dreamfleet has updated their model with dynamic shine, etc. According to the Dreamfleet forum, the update has been transmitted to Flight1 to wrap up and release.The 177 has the edge in documentation. It's obvious that Dreamfleet takes a lot of pride in producing great user manuals containing complete simulation instructions, checklists (for both versions), and performance specs.The 172 and 177 both fly well, so take your pick.Ken

Wow, thanks for the GREAT replies!I think at present I'm siding with the Cardinal, if I was only going to get one. Will check to see if that 177 update is out already.* Orest-~~~~~~~~~Orest SkrypuchUAL1445 DENFOCYFD - Canada

:-) Glade we could help...

One thing I have to give F1 great credit for though, this is the FIRST 172 FM for MSFS I've ever gotten to go below 50 KIAS with full flaps and around 1900 RPM without stalling. Still has a tendency to stall out around 40 KIAS, which is a little high, but I can live with that lol.

Maybe you are not aware but each real aircraft is slightly different, you will not always stall right on published numbers for various reasons. The F1 172 is the best Cessna ever made IMO...Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | NEC LCD 1980SXi 19" | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro |

The F1 172 was apparantly a bigger project intended for flight training and was downsized for public consumption. To me it feels this way. The panel graphics are super crisp which is great for training, but that doesn't necessarly translate into giving you the feeling of sitting in the actual aircraft. To me the DF 177 feels more like an actual aircraft that I might rent from my local FBO (in fact all DF products do). This is what I prefer.If you want an aircraft to practice instrument procedures using the virtual cockpit, the F1 172 is the winner. If you would rather have something that feels like it was taken from the real world, that's a lot of fun to fly, and gives you essentially two aircraft for the price of one, the DF 177 is the winner.Someday when I'm studying for my instrument rating and have a TrackIR device I'll probably spend a lot of time with the 172. In the meantime, the DF 177 and Archer are the aircraft I get the most enjoyment out of (at least as far as piston singles go).

Hmm it's possible that since the C172 was originally a flight training product, it's designed to do be a serious "tool" where as the C177 has some things that make it more fun and personal. Most addons have a few things that make them unique and personal - some detail in the VC, some special feature etc. but a flight training product doesn't need opening glove compartments, worn out details in the VC or cargo doors that open.

>The F1 172 was apparantly a bigger project intended for>flight training and was downsized for public consumption. To>me it feels this way. The panel graphics are super crisp which>is great for training, but that doesn't necessarly translate>into giving you the feeling of sitting in the actual aircraft.Hi Wingfat,Thank you for your comments, however I respectfully disagree with the above.... If you get a chance to sit in a "new" 172R, look straight ahead and tell me what you see. Forget about peripheral vision. Look directly in front of you. This is exactly what you see in the F1 172R.I think so many people are used to the typical FS look that encompasses a broader view and it is expected as "realistic" but that