Most Accurate General Aviation Aircraft in P3D V2.4?

[nudata 10]

Again, I never piloted an airplane except for 15 minutes in the air with a C152 and taxiing which was easier than with P3D and my plastic pedals. However, I am surprised that a 172N does the same thing my A2A virtual aircraft does in relation to the trim setting. Why would Cessna do that? If you trained in an older Cessna and then tried to fly the N you could easily be killed with a neutral trim setting. 

[Lewis B 14]

Use the aircraft in sim as you would in reality would be the first place to start, keep the pressure on the yoke and react as you would in reality to the aircrafts movement. One of the biggest issues is people flying sim aircraft different to how they fly in reality. This is often no fault of the sim pilot as often what you will see yourself do, on video for example, is stuff you would never do in sim because its just one of those subconscious things.

 

During development during the test flight phase with the C172 we found that memory of even 10mins after flight often did NOT match up to the video footage of actions and what the aircraft/gauges where doing at a given time. Once this happened more than twice we realized that we cannot trust ourselves exclusively and so used (And the emphasis changed to) the video footage from the test flight program we developed.

 

If you wish to discuss this further with real life high hour CFI's and more then please feel free to post questions on our A2A forums. We often get these kind of questions and the development team and community are happy to help explain how to get the best out of your sim time and how to use real world techniques correctly in the sim, not to mention why aircraft do this and that and some  with some basic and even advanced physics thrown in for good measure.

 

Heres a video that RL pilot, CFI etc and community member Great Ozzie made to help with a landing question on our forums;

 

thanks,

Lewis

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

Again, I never piloted an airplane except for 15 minutes in the air with a C152 and taxiing which was easier than with P3D and my plastic pedals. However, I am surprised that a 172N does the same thing my A2A virtual aircraft does in relation to the trim setting. Why would Cessna do that? If you trained in an older Cessna and then tried to fly the N you could easily be killed with a neutral trim setting.

 

In one sense, you're right...an airplane, in general, is expected to be flyable.  Cessnas and, particularly, Pipers excel at that.  Still, however, every airplane is different.  (Like I mentioned, out of the 5 or so C152s we had at my school, one would nose over on a power on stall.  I really didn't like that plane!)  In any case, you have to fly the numbers, not the trim.  If you want to climb at Vy, at climb power set the nose at the right place on the horizon and/or AI with your hand on the yoke and hold it there.  If your speed is too low, lower the nose some more...too high, raise it.  After that, trim until you have to hold no pressure on the yoke.  Once you get the right speed, memorize where the nose is in relationship to the horizon (if VMC) or AI (if IMC) for future reference. 

 

When you want to level off, push the nose down until it's level (altitude is steady), let your speed build to close to cruise, then back off your power to cruise and, finally, trim.  Trim last.

 

I'll put the old air file on later this afternoon and see how it does.

[Oracle427 45]

However, I am surprised that a 172N does the same thing my A2A virtual aircraft does in relation to the trim setting. Why would Cessna do that? If you trained in an older Cessna and then tried to fly the N you could easily be killed with a neutral trim setting.

That's a great question and one I can't answer for Cessna engineers. I've asked myself the same question.

 

What I can say is that no pilot would be overwhelmed by that because they are flying the airplane with the yoke and not the trim. The pilot is flying the airplane, not yet other way around.

 

The yoke is used to position the airplane in the desired attitude and the trim is moved as desired to relieve the workload.

 

Both are moved in coordination to keep the attitude fixed in place while the forces are trimmed out.

 

Gregg,

 

You should install the latest update, there have been a number of changes.

[vesalius 153]

 

Setting in a field at full throttle the aircraft does not move. RPM at a max of 2300. Shutting down and doing an overhaul does not help.

 

 

Hello Dick,

 

What do you mean with "does not move"?

Is it as if she was glued or does she moves but does not gain speed?

 

And maybe this is a stupid question from my side... but did you check if the "Tie Downs" have been removed? So in other words, did you follow the pre-start checklist?

 

All the best.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

You should install the latest update, there have been a number of changes.

 

Okay, I only have the A2A for FSX so I did install the latest update there and ran a test flight.  The slow flight was substantially better (though, at full flaps it was stalling below the green arc still well in the white arc but not a big deal).  The important thing was the nose-low behavior was pretty much gone.  Also, when I took off I left the evevator trim centered.  Takeoff was simple, requiring almost zero pullback on the yoke and it climbed nicely.  I did not have to trim down at all...I had to apply just a little back-pressure to keep Vy (finger pressure) but not very much.  It flies just as I would expect a RW Cessna to fly.  I'd think it would fly the same in P3D but, dunno...

 

The two issues I saw:

• The annunciator test switch wouldn't move.  I had the click spot...it just wouldn't move.  I assigned it to a button and it worked.
• This one's interesting and only a comparison to the RealAir .air file.  In a RW Cessna, the blasted RPM lags.  (I say blasted because it always annoyed me.)  If you pull back power to 2100 and look away 30 seconds or so it'll be down at 19.  The 'other' (RealAir) air file actually models that.  (Yes, it annoys me but I know the real one does it.)  The A2A one doesn't seem to...you set it at 21 and it stays there.  It'd be really nice (and annoying) if it lagged!

But the air file was just fine and certainly in the realm of what I'd deem realistic.

 

So, getting back on topic, if it were me, I'd do a reinstall to see if that fixes what's going on with the airplane.  It doesn't appear to be modelled to be nose up on takeoff.  Also, check your weight and balance.  Do you have passengers in the back?  Something's not the same.

 

Gregg

 

Edit:  I put passengers in the back and loaded it up near Max Gross Takeoff Weight and, still, it was fine...no nose up.  Also loaded the airport at a grass strip and it taxiied fine, differential braking worked well. 

[tttocs 301]

In a RW Cessna, the blasted RPM lags. (I say blasted because it always annoyed me.) If you pull back power to 2100 and look away 30 seconds or so it'll be down at 19. The 'other' (RealAir) air file actually models that. (Yes, it annoys me but I know the real one does it.) The A2A one doesn't seem to...you set it at 21 and it stays there. It'd be really nice (and annoying) if it lagged!

 

Gregg, I wouldn't extrapolate too much from the 152's and 182 you've flown as far as engine characteristics are concerned.  Keep in mind that this is modeled on a much newer plane which, in addition to other things, is fuel injected, not carburated as the 152/182 stuff you've flown would have been.

 

Scott

 

Edit:  I also meant to note that there will be substantial differences depending on prop pitch on the planes you've flown.  For example, amongst the 152 fleet I used when I did my primary training, we had a 152 Aerobat with a very steep pitched prop.  It was like flying a completely different plane as compared to all of the cruise props on the rest of the 152s.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

Gregg, I wouldn't extrapolate too much from the 152's and 182 you've flown as far as engine characteristics are concerned. Keep in mind that this is modeled on a much newer plane which, in addition to other things, is fuel injected, not carburated as the 152/182 stuff you've flown would have been.



Scott

 

LOL...let me get my cane.  Very true...nothing I flew, sadly, had fuel injection.

[Oracle427 45]

I was up flying a 172S with an IO-360 this weekend and can definitely confirm that the throttle response is instantaneous, but the RPM does not remain at that RPM unless the airspeed has also stabilized. So to Gregg's point, the RPM will not remain steady if you make a throttle change until the airspeed has also stabilized. a 100-200 RPM deviation isn't out of the question if you throttle from cruise at 2400 RPM to 2100 RPM. After a few seconds, it isn't unsual to find the RPMs sitting at 1900 or 2000. I never paid attention to this on the N, so I'm not sure how that one behaves. The A2A is settling about 50-100 RPMs.

 

When you find that the aircraft stalls within the white arc in a landing configuration. Is it the stall warning going off or the nose dropping? If I wait for the nose drop it does happen around 2-3 knots above the end of the white arc.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

When you find that the aircraft stalls within the white arc in a landing configuration. Is it the stall warning going off or the nose dropping? If I wait for the nose drop it does happen around 2-3 knots above the end of the white arc.

 

That sounds about right.  Like I said, it's not bad.  Stalls are impacted by LOTS of things (load, turn, etc.). 

 

Gregg

[Nick M 106]

at full flaps it was stalling below the green arc still well in the white arc

 

I've looked at a few photographs of real C172Rs and noticed that for the majority of examples, the ASI white arc starts at 40 kias. The white arc in the A2A C172 starts at a significantly slower airspeed - 33 kias according to the POH. However, other real examples of C172's do also feature this ASI.

 

I'm curious as to why there's such a variation in the ASI's of real C172R's?

 

For what it worth, at gross weight of 1100kg in the A2A C172, with full flaps I do have trouble maintaining controlled flight down to 40 kias, let alone 33 kias. There's a strong tendency to drop a wing at around the 40 kias mark, and trying to hold the nose up will result in a spin before I can get down to 33 kias. (Perhaps I should qualify this remark by stating that I'm not a real pilot. However, I don't know that I'm a particularly ham-fisted sim one either!)  :wink:

 

Cheers,

Nick

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

I went up and did some more maneuvers in the latest updated FDE.  Even with my non-fuel injector mind :rolleyes: It's really good.  Power On and Off Stalls were good.  Slow flight is good.  Reasonable in every respect.  I have to say, flying a plane that remembers where all the switches and settings were set on your last flight is a bigger breath of fresh air than you'd think.  It reminds me of flying RW when you hop in the airplane and all the radios and VOR are set to whatever the last pilot set. 

 

Now...how about a faster touring GA :Praying: .

 

Gregg

[raymar 969]

Now...how about a faster touring GA :Praying: .

 

Gregg

It is called a RealAir Legacy.

 

Ray

[tttocs 301]

 

 

I have to say, flying a plane that remembers where all the switches and settings were set on your last flight is a bigger breath of fresh air than you'd think. It reminds me of flying RW when you hop in the airplane and all the radios and VOR are set to whatever the last pilot set.



Now...how about a faster touring GA :Praying: .

 

The persistent model thing is genuinely fun, isn't it? 

 

But yes, I'm with you.  While I fully recognize and appreciate what a fine job A2A have done in modeling the 172, at the end of the day it's... a 172 and I just don't fly it that much.  When I want to do basic IFR procedures practice, I use it or the Carenado 337, but it otherwise sits idle.  IRL, I went from the 152, to the 172 - which was basically the same thing but with room for my (then) young family - to, well, planes that were simply more fun to fly.  I flew a lot of hours in the 172 and still like and appreciate the plane (and you'll never catch me using the word "boring", as I think the word says more about the person saying it than the thing it's intended to describe), but the fact of the matter is I enjoy flying more complex models just as I did IRL.  For me, it's not about faster, per se, it's about more complexity and a higher workload and level of interest.

 

I want what A2A brought to the 172, but I want it in a complex single or twin!  I've flown their 172 and loved it, but I now want them to do my next step up plane so I can continue on just as I did IRL.  Please? 

 

Scott

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

It is called a RealAir Legacy.

Ray

 

Kinda the opposite end of the spectrum.  Amiright?  Kinda wishing for a Mooney or a Baron.

 

 

I want what A2A brought to the 172, but I want it in a complex single or twin! I've flown their 172 and loved it, but I now want them to do my next step up plane so I can continue on just as I did IRL. Please?

 

On a separate note...the MU2 is coming along.