This is so correct.

 

I bought the A2A C172 the day it came out.... and I literally never fly it. Why? .... Not because there's anything wrong with it, just that it was a very poor purchase choice on my behalf. I bought it because it's a A2A product and I love everything else they've done. But as good as it is as a rendition - it is still a C172! .... and in my opinion, not an 'interesting' C172 like a vintage, or a brand new latest model with GFC700 ...... it's a middle of the road, very typical, late 90s style C172, just as you'd find in most flying schools. And that is what they were aiming for, so again they got it spot on. But it doesn't change the fact that it sends me to sleep! :lol: .... I will definately buy their Cherokee though, as I've always preferred the Piper alternatives to trainers.

 

So in summary, brilliant quality product - but it is a C172 and it is a similar model to the default FSX C172, so just bear that in mind. The VC isn't a million miles way from the default FSX C172 VC in my opinion; why would it be, when it's almost the same aircraft.

On the opposite end of this, I fly my GA aircraft like the A2A C172 way more then my tube liners.

 

WHY? Because I like the slow going nature sometimes, and the fact that I can enjoy a nice realistic flight in 30 minutes. Also the fact that I don't have to spend 30 minutes just preparing the plane and fms. Pop open a VFR chart, adf for your airports, and off you go in the C172!

 

With good scenery and ASN, I can have a lot of fun just hopping from one small airport, over a mountain range, and to the next small airport. There is a lot of details you get to notice.

 

And while I am not a pilot, I like the fact that I am getting a tad of the experience that most real pilots have had. (I.e, most pilots have not flown a 737, but almost all of them have flown a C172 at some point)

 

If you want real slow going, try the A2A Cub! Slow slow and slow LOL! But luv it!

B.

On the opposite end of this, I fly my GA aircraft like the A2A C172 way more then my tube liners.

 

WHY? Because I like the slow going nature sometimes, and the fact that I can enjoy a nice realistic flight in 30 minutes. Also the fact that I don't have to spend 30 minutes just preparing the plane and fms. Pop open a VFR chart, adf for your airports, and off you go in the C172!

 

With good scenery and ASN, I can have a lot of fun just hopping from one small airport, over a mountain range, and to the next small airport. There is a lot of details you get to notice.

 

And while I am not a pilot, I like the fact that I am getting a tad of the experience that most real pilots have had. (I.e, most pilots have not flown a 737, but almost all of them have flown a C172 at some point)

 

If you want real slow going, try the A2A Cub! Slow slow and slow LOL! But luv it!

B.

 

All good points.

 

But actually what I meant wasn't that the C172 was dull against a backdrop of complex airliners.   I too am flying exclusively the same way as you are these days;  GA, charts, ADFs, low and slow.   But for me personally, there are far more fun aircraft to do it in, than a C172R.

 

For example:-      Iris Jabiru J160, Ants Airplanes P92 and Tecnam Sierra, KC Flight Store Evektor, Just Flight Sportstar, Flight 1 C162, etc, etc.

 

All of those aircraft are actually more basic than the C172R, so it's not about complexity.   Just that they are different.

 

But of course, it's entirely subjective, personal choice.   Hence no criticism of the A2A C172;  it's beautiful; just (IMHO!) a rendition of a rather dull trainer.

Why?

 

The a2a 172 is IFR capable, especially with the rxp 430 fitted.

I find strange to use a C172 for IFR, there are country where victor airway are at minimum of FL110.

I am not saying that you can't fly IFR you can always convert from VFR/IFR.

I think the beauty of flying the C172 is to learn to fly, that's why it's called the trainer.

I find more difficult to fly the Cessna in VFR instead of the 737 in IFR.

 

I find more difficult to fly the Cessna in VFR instead of the 737 in IFR.

 

I agree.

 

Certainly, if you do VFR properly.     That's how I did it in FS;  started by learning IFR airliner ops, doing exactly as I was instructed and programming and monitoring complex systems ........ then transitioning to VFR flight, adhering to zones and charts, mainly hand flying, paying more attention to weather, etc.   

 

VFR in a small GA aircraft can certainly be as (or more) challenging than airliner IFR flying.  :smile:

I agree.

 

Certainly, if you do VFR properly.     That's how I did it in FS;  started by learning IFR airliner ops, doing exactly as I was instructed and programming and monitoring complex systems ........ then transitioning to VFR flight, adhering to zones and charts, mainly hand flying, paying more attention to weather, etc.   

 

VFR in a small GA aircraft can certainly be as (or more) challenging than airliner IFR flying.   :smile:

That's the same path I follow but know start learning VFR, I am doing a school in Vatsim to get the P3 and the instructor are quite finicky and is all free. LoL

But if the C172 as become internationally the dull trainer, there is a meaning not only for cost but mostly for the wing on top of the airframe that gives a lot of visual.

I find strange to use a C172 for IFR, there are country where victor airway are at minimum of FL110.

Nothing strange about it. You just don't bother with airways. When I fly IFR for real I never follow airways because it's a waste of time and the planes I fly don't really like it up there anyway. For very short flights I often file altitude rather than flight level.

There's another reason to go with the C172.  If you hang around the local airport and make friends with the pilots, eventually someone's gonna offer you a ride (you may or may not have to pay expenses, about $120/hr in my case), and it's likely they'll let you have the controls.  This will likely be in a 172.  I did this a couple of times before I got the A2A 172, and the main reason I bought it was to get in some practice so I could compare to the real aircraft.

 

Hook

Nothing strange about it. You just don't bother with airways. When I fly IFR for real I never follow airways because it's a waste of time and the planes I fly don't really like it up there anyway. For very short flights I often file altitude rather than flight level.

I am sorry but my fault we are getting out f topic maybe we should follow by PM if you want to.

 

I am not I pilot, but what you are saying it doesn't make too much sense to me as I always know that an IFR is on the route along the airways system.

I would be more then happy to hear what you fill for an IFR in your country from A to B  and if it's referred only for your local zone or also for Europe.

Of course if you are saying the destination airport are less then 20nm, it would rather impossible to even follow a sid and a star.

Guys... Tbh you just convinceD me to get it over pmdg 777 thanks for this great discussion

I am not I pilot, but what you are saying it doesn't make too much sense to me as I always know that an IFR is on the route along the airways system.

I would be more then happy to hear what you fill for an IFR in your country from A to B and if it's referred only for your local zone or also for Europe.

Of course if you are saying the destination airport are less then 20nm, it would rather impossible to even follow a sid and a star.

As an example I often take the club planes to and from a service workshop at an airfield 42 nm north from here. It doesn't have any VOR, only two NDB serving as fixes for instrument approaches and because the flight is less than 30 minutes all I put in the flight plan is "DCT SS" (SS being the nearest beacon when coming from the south).

 

Another route I often fly is ESGJ to ESSV. At ESGJ we have a VOR called JON and at ESSV there is one called VSB. The route is 138 nm and magnetic track is almost exactly 90 degrees. Because ATC requires you to have at least one waypoint every 30 minutes of flight in your flight plan my filed route is "DCT JON090045 DCT VSB270045 DCT VSB". The waypoints indicate radial and distance from the stated VORs.

 

SIDs and STARs are things you don't really want to use as it's a waste of time and fuel but if the ATC demands it you have no choice but to follow them. Usually you'll just get vectors to final but it depends on airport size and traffic density of course.

In my garage here, there are two cars.  A Toyota Corolla and a Mazda Miata.  The Corolla is like the 172, the Miata is like the RV-7.  They each have their roles.

 

The Skyhawk is a Skyhawk...sometimes jokingly called 'Slowhawk' or 'Chickenhawk'.  It is a trainer and light personal airplane.  Like, Toyota Corolla of airplanes, the 172 is safe, reliable, without handling vices, and yes, a little boring.

 

A2A's rendition of the 172 is as good as it gets.  Personally I am really looking forward to A2A's Cherokee 235.  The last I heard, the 235 was still on the table, possibly to follow the base Cherokee release in a separate package.  

 

On the airplane 'scale'  The 172 and Cub are on the one end for simple slow planes, while the P-51 and other warbirds are on the other end for fast complex planes.  I think a big A2A seller will be something in the middle.

 

Cheers

TJ

 

As an example

tack så mycket, hope to fly over there one day, I love Sweden.

I am still hesitating. Bought myself real air duke v2.0 and still spending 90% of time in Airbus and Boeing... Maybe jets fit me more. Still will try to rethink this. Is the learning curve that dramatic as its sometimes described?

Try some of ORBX FTX scenery and you might migrate to general aviation.  Since I've purchased and installed many of the PNW scenery and airports, I've been flying a lot of GA  flights with the Realair Beech Duke 2.0, several Carenado A/C and A2A's 172. The beauty and realism of the scenery makes those low altitude flights just as enjoyable as the high altitude long distance PMDG Boeing flights for me.  Flight simulation has come such a long way.  So many flights I'd like to make, so little time.