I've been using the default C172 in X-Plane 10, specially after I started using the A2A C172 in FSX and was trying to find some comparison. 

 

This aircraft is probably one of the best in terms of modelling the prop effects in the whole default xp10 hangar. I can operate it all accross the valid speed range and get very credible bahaviour.

 

It's also interesting to see some features reproduced in this model that some fsx users found weird when they started using the A2A model. This includes the very low landing speed and the elevator authority down to real low speeds.

 

Some care has also been taken when modeling the systems and the instrument panel. It is a very good candidate for someone willing to use X-Plane to practice IFR procedures.

 

If a good / plausible GPS becomes available for X-Plane 10, I think that adding it to this aircraft will make it an even better trainer :-)

 

I would like to know how to tweak some minor details of the simulation, namely the EGT gauge which reads too low ( any suggestions ? )

The default C172 gets even better in the Wide Screen Panel Project:

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=18737

 

The panel is just 2D, but it is extremly good looking and perfect for 1920x1080. Plus working circuit breakers, fire extinguisher and some comfort features like checklists and changing weather from the cockpit.

 

 

And GPS: For now, and with RealityXP obviously evaded into dust, the KLN90B is simply and without a doubt the best and fully simulated GPS available for X-Plane.

 

I know that many people don't like it, because the real KLN90B is old, it's not colorful, and maybe people are too lazy to adjust to the KLN's user interface or read the manual, but in the end it does not work much different than a Garmin GNS (it has a similar group/page concept), and the split-screen feature is very useful.

 

And, what people maybe also forget, is that the KLN IS still used in reality by many pilots.

 

For now, it is also the only plausible way in X-Plane for a Cessna, Bonanza etc. to fly SIDs and STARs.

 

 

Except, of course, one uses the FlyThisSim products, but these play in a different league and are more for really serious training (where eye candy / outside visuals don't matter).

If he could develop a VC of the same quality I'd fly nothing but the C172.

The default C172 gets even better in the Wide Screen Panel Project:

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=18737

 

The panel is just 2D, but it is extremly good looking and perfect for 1920x1080. Plus working circuit breakers, fire extinguisher and some comfort features like checklists and changing weather from the cockpit.

 

 

And GPS: For now, and with RealityXP obviously evaded into dust, the KLN90B is simply and without a doubt the best and fully simulated GPS available for X-Plane.

 

I know that many people don't like it, because the real KLN90B is old, it's not colorful, and maybe people are too lazy to adjust to the KLN's user interface or read the manual, but in the end it does not work much different than a Garmin GNS (it has a similar group/page concept), and the split-screen feature is very useful.

 

And, what people maybe also forget, is that the KLN IS still used in reality by many pilots.

 

For now, it is also the only plausible way in X-Plane for a Cessna, Bonanza etc. to fly SIDs and STARs.

 

 

Except, of course, one uses the FlyThisSim products, but these play in a different league and are more for really serious training (where eye candy / outside visuals don't matter).

Re:gps

It is not about colorful or lazy. For a rw pilot using a sim for training it is about getting simulated aircraft/instruments as close to one uses rw to stay proficient on them-and it isn't confined only to gps. Only when this happens does a sim become a useful trainer.

 

Although I personally never have come across a kln90b I did fly with a kln 94 for 10 years-which is also ancient at the time. There was never a sim version of it for any sim ( elite was going to have one but lawsuits stopped it). I tried using the kln90 sim version at the time-but it just was not useful enough because of the large difference of features, user input.

 

I did fly a lot of planes with garmin 430's and despite the fact that they have now gone " ancient" are found on a large majority of aircraft now-at least in the US.

 

For someone who wants to " game" a detail like this may not be important- but for someone who wants to "train" hugely important. Why I have even invested in 430 hardware for the sim. How beautiful to be able to learn the intricacies of your machine on the ground when you have time to pause and experiment. A heck of a lot of pilots only know how to direct to on their boxes because of a lack of this. I still remember flying Vfr in complex airspace when my pilot friend accidentally hit the declutter button on the Garmin-losing all airspace info on the screen and went into a panic as he didn't know how to get it back. Luckily my Reality xp sim experience allowed me to simply push the button and get it back.

 

I look greatly forward to the mentioned new and improved gps coming, or any add in that will fill this need. I suspect for flight schools who also have similar hardware/ training needs this is also paramount and why someone has been hired to do so.

It looks like there is a new one relacing the reality xp for the FSX world-I look eagerly for the same to manifest here.

I agree with you when it comes to training. But in this case, there is FlyThisSim, with very detailed simulations of G1000, GNS430/530, Avidyne and Aspen avionics. It just comes with a higher price tag.

Yes-I bought that right when xplane 10 came out as I was at the time flying a diamond da 40 with a g1000.

Trouble is it really is set up for a multi monitor approach which I don't have, and I was not able to find a realistic da 40 so I didn't use it much.

 

Again, ability to customize a sim for what the end user need-be it game, or rw trainer is the key to market share. I hope more and more comes out for xplane that allows this.

 

I should add I was perfectly happy with Reality xp in 32 bit ( other than not being able to put it in a panel) but 32 bit since about a year ago is unstable and crashes almost immediately on my machine.

I too, think the default XP 172 is a decent plane. I don't have any experience with the A2A 172..........but I'd hope it has a tendency to float, and not run out of elevator. My RV6, and the Piper Arrows that I flew, would run out of elevator, if you didn't watch it. Either a steeper approach to keep enough required airspeed, or use a bit of power. I usually went with the power, because some passengers don't like the elevator descents.

Cessnas should be almost a nothing event to land.

 

 

Without looking them up...........is it the Stinson, a high wing default taildragger, that's included too? It's a decent plane also. Can always find faults, as with anything. But they're quite believable.

 

 

And.............I sure don't care for the KLN90B either. As a long time user of real life aviation GPS........I'd feel like I was going back into a time warp. Today's larger screen, color GPSs show you all of the required information at a quick glance. You have much more time to keep your head out of the cockpit. Restricted airspace, terrain, obstacles, weather, and track.......can be seen in an instant, with no need to interpret what's on a small green screen. And if you don't see a problem, "audio" will warn you. Newer GPSs also have much better resolution, than the older 430's, in addition to a much faster processing speed.

 

 

Without looking them up...........is it the Stinson, a high wing default taildragger, that's included too?

 

Yes Larry, the Stinson L5 - a nice one too!

 

I have the A2A C172, but I prefer the default one in XPX. But, then again, I only got my hands a couple of times on a real SkyHawk ...

I've got the Carenado C172, and it is a sweet little plane.  It looks more like my experience in a 172 in that the panel is very sparse. Great engine sound.

 

I find the default to be very dark - inside and through the windshield.  Maybe when I have my cataract removed!!!!

 

John

For whatever it's worth...I am a student pilot close to my checkride.  I had been using A2A's excellent C172SP on FSX with Saitek's Cessna Pro Flight (yoke, throttle quadrant, trim wheel, rudders -- all are very important!  The Cessna rudder pedals in particular are amazing, helping me learn to slip, taxi, brake - can't imagine landing without rudder pedals).  A few days ago, I purchased X-Plane 10 after intermittently using the demo version, because I was curious to know if I am missing something - maybe the demo doesn't represent the software well.  People seem to be happy with X-Plane.

 

I tried both the default X-Plane C172 and Fletcher's Wide Screen Panel Project C172.  Fletcher's seems well done, but not having 3-D cockpit makes the view very limiting.  It flies okay but I haven't had much time in it, as It doesn't work well with Saitek's throttle quadrant, a known issue; and I can't really see much outside the plane.  No good for a VFR pilot.

 

X-Plane's default C172 flies like a toy.

 

In contrast, A2A's C172 flies like the real thing.  The dimensions feels right, left turning tendencies feel right, the inclinometer looks right.  I can also see out and the sight picture looks right.  Slow flight, stalls, everything behaves and feels right.  It even performs like the real thing during landings.  I've used it to train and it has helped tremendously.  I haven't even mentioned that the spark plugs foul like the real thing, and you can pre-flight the aircraft!  I wish the pitch of the engine sound corresponds even more closely to the real thing.  There may be some things A2A can still improve, but it's incredible how closely A2A's C172 flies like the real C172.

 

I haven't tried Carenado's C172.  That may be next if I continue using X-Plane, since I wanted to get a C172 with a carburetor for practice.  I understand Carenado's is also not quite in the same league as A2A, unfortunately.

Hmm damn don't tell me I should go back to FSx and purchase A2A trainer ahhhhhh.  

 

 X plane 10 172 does not have the Amp jump when you switch ON the landing lights nor does the Wide Panel. But all this could be done with PlaneMaker I guess. 

In contrast, A2A's C172 flies like the real thing.  The dimensions feels right, left turning tendencies feel right, the inclinometer looks right.

 

Not by far saying the default C172 in XP10 is great, because it surely isn't, although the OP, posted long ago :-) referred to the comparison between this model and other default GA models, and among all I really still find the C172 the more plausible.

 

Regarding A2A's C172, I am an A2A fan, although I no longer use FSX other than for visuals, but... since you pointed the inclinometer, I can't but comment on how innacurate it actually is when it comes to the "ball".

 

1) It doesn't model the asymmetric behavior between left and right turns, at high power settings, when on a left turn you can actually be forced to use cross-controls in a C172, and most other GA single props ( using out of turn rudder to coordinate ) (*)

 

Then, in a coordinated turn, if you try to perform it, you'll be forced to continuously add rudder and rudder... and rudder and you will eventually run out of opposite aileron... because as you try to coordinate by "stepping on the ball" she keeps slipping away from you...

 

2) Have you noticed that, probably due to the fancy prop effects on the tail surfaces, the C172 exhibits neutral pitch stability?  It reminds me, when pitched up or down more abruptly but within maneuvering limits, of a p51 when pitched up... or of a FBW airbus....

 

There's actually only one way of using FSX - as a procedure trainer for IFR or VFR training. There are no miracles :-/  And, as far as I know, it's not different with X-Plane 10 after all, although overall fluidity, more effective modeling of winds and turbulence ( sometimes overdone, but well....) and some additional features the flight dynamics model may allow to model specially as of 10.30, X-Plane 10 can give best results when an aircraft is carefully designed - IMHO...

 

 

(*) for my frustration, you find the best flight dynamics in combat flight simulators, like DCS World and IL2 CoD with the TF Patches, or even IL2 BOS. And, ELITE flight simulator, not being a great visual sim - not at all it's aim - is the only sim I know to model all of these details, peculiar to the rw counterparts of each of the GAs included in it's fleet. Want to train IFR seriously? Go ELITE!  I no longer have ELITE ( an offer to a great friend ) but am totally devoted to combat flightsims, just for flying circuits, bad weather approaches, and all sorts of things you're really not supposed to be doing with them... Are they perfect? Certainly not, but overall, these three I mentioned, a LOT more plausible when it comes to flight dynamics modeling than ANY of their civil game counterparts...

Actually no one has realised that this is a very sad comparison between a pay ware and a default class.  I would rather compare it with the default P3d 172 or Fsx 172.

 

For fs9 there is a good one from RealAir. I like flying it.

 

 I only fly the XP9 172 in XPX. 

Regarding No. 1, are you saying A2A/FSX doesn't model left turn correctly, not asymmetrical enough? My experience has been the opposite...I think A2A/FSX makes it too pronounced. I have to use right aileron with left rudder or use just a little left rudder, since there is often too much left turning tendencies, especially in slow flight or a left climbing turn.

 

Not sure I understand the second point....

Regarding No. 1, are you saying A2A/FSX doesn't model left turn correctly

 

Yes, that's what I am saying... RealAir "cheats" by displacing the ball to the right by default ( look at it while on ground, parked... ). The turn coordinator is a long time problem with FSX.... 

 

 

 

 

Not sure I understand the second point....

 

Try to perform a coordinated level , descending or ascending turn.  You step on the ball to coordinate, right?  Then she slips a bit more away from you, then you step further... she slips further... ad nauseam....

 

Aviator, if you can, please download a demo of ELITE flight simulator. You'll fall apart when you see the Genview scenery, compared to what we have in FSX or X-Plane.... Take some time to configure your controller, and try, in the rather irritating short demo time to place your SkyHawk airborne... Then test turns, coordinated turns, rate 2 turns, etc... with it... it's another World, if you're really up to IFR training!