Aerofoillabs Cessna 172 SP!

[propsfan 52]

Thanks for the tip, I think I'll take a punt on this one.

[LAdamson 240]

To LAdamson,

 

The Skyraider was a great airplane, but was not the most powerful single engine piston machine.  Look up the Martin Mauler sometime.  It had 3000HP.  The Skyraider replaced it.

 

jetjerry

Looked it up. An interesting read.

[Murmur 3,944]

To LAdamson,

 

The Skyraider was a great airplane, but was not the most powerful single engine piston machine.  Look up the Martin Mauler sometime.  It had 3000HP.  The Skyraider replaced it.

 

jetjerry

 

What a beast. From Wikipedia: "the engine mount was canted two degrees to the right to offset the engine's tremendous torque"

 

From my calculations, this means that in a low weight, full power takeoff, the aircraft needed to fly banked to the left more than 1.5 degrees to compensate for the sideforces due to the canted propeller and the vertical stabilizer.

[Joonas 3]

Lol this video made me not to buy this plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRztwUiFt9E

[LAdamson 240]

What a beast. From Wikipedia: "the engine mount was canted two degrees to the right to offset the engine's tremendous torque"

 

From my calculations, this means that in a low weight, full power takeoff, the aircraft needed to fly banked to the left more than 1.5 degrees to compensate for the sideforces due to the canted propeller and the vertical stabilizer.

Towards the end of WWII, engine cant became a normal way of doing things. My RV6 was 2 or 3 degrees. I no longer remember exactly.  More than not, the engine offset aids in the plane not flying sideways all the time. Since it offsets the forces that are stronger with higher power settings, it's an automatic deal.  It's worst effect is when flying inverted. The Pitts has no offset, the Extra 300 does. 

[Longranger 148]

Lol this video made me not to buy this plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRztwUiFt9E

Yep, it was one of several bugs, but due to the harsh reactions it is probably one of the bugs quitw high on their list to fix. It would be to early to really judge about this project. They have a lot of bells and whistles in place, but also some bugs. But this is nothing new. The C172 f5rom A2A received some harsh reactions in the beginning, till they fixed several of their issues.

 

The SImCoders Reality Plug-in from SimCoders also didn't work as smoothly in the first version. Since thy already released their first update and indicated several more, i would say lets wait and see, what they will acomplish.

 

Their new video (

) and several of their comments look quite promising.

[tonywob 4,770]

The latest update fixes the framerate issues for me. It's still heavy on the frames, but it's now flyable. 

 

It's a very impressive addon. It takes the experience to an entire new level. Some of the highlights for me are:

 

- The camera and head movements add so much to the experience that I'm wanting this same thing in all other planes now.

- The walkaround mode is brilliant, and I've actually used it to walk around some airports I'm developing and fix issues.

- The sounds

- The fact that it remembers how you last left the plane, including the trim wheel, buttons, even the altimeter setting. These survive across restarts.

- It feels much more like flying.

 

Bad things (Just for balance ;-)

 

- Very heavy on frames. Even with the lowest setting, it's still heavier than most of Carenado's HD planes. I average about 20fps with this plane.

- Deviation from standard X-Plane. I've noticed I can't use the arrow keys to adjust the height in the cockpit, so I can't see out the left window (i.e. The pilot is too high up). It's flyable, but I have to turn off most of the pretty scenery as it uses lots of video RAM.

- Certain key assignments on the joystick don't work with this plane. e.g. Braking causes the parking brake to come on, whilst on other planes it taps the brakes.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

Some of the highlights for me are:

 

Thanks for the good/bad points.

 

I'm on the fence about this myself.  I like some of the good things mentioned, but the frame rates are a concern - at 20fps, I find the wonderful, silky smooth feeling you get goes away, and that's one of the highlights of the platform for me.

 

It sounds very much as if the release is 'maturing' with those updates; I think I'll hold back for a bit and see how what it looks like when they get the engine service update done.

[ohsirus 241]

Not sure why some are getting bad FPS, I'm at my normal 30 on a i7 3ghz laptop with a Nvidia 670M WIn7. Not that complex of a VC.

 

First Look Video:

 

Youtube Video

Edited August 5, 2015 by tonywob
Edit: Video changed to link as video author has disabled embedded viewing

[jcomm 5,939]

Looks GOOD!

[rdb 44]

How does it compare to Carenado 210 + REP combo?

[Comanche 417]

I'm getting very good FPS with this plane and I love the camera system.Its like the headshake pluggin, but better.

I really hope someone could make something like this as a stand alone plugin for x-plane or modify the head shake plugin to work as good as this does.

 

However, the flight model of this plane needs a lot of work. Playing around with it last night, I was able to come in at a speed of 35 knots, (no wind) touch down on the runway threshold and stop in less than 10 feet. I cant even do that with a helicopter in x-plane.

 

The only way I can get it to stall is to pitch the nose straight up and cut the power.  In normal flight, it feels pretty good, but as soon as you try and do something a little out of the normal flight characteristics, it shows its warts.

 

I am confident they will fix it. 

 

Rob

How does it compare to Carenado 210 + REP combo?

 

 Since the engine maintainance stuff is not working yet in the 172, Its not a fair comparison.

Right now, the 172 offers a cool camera system, A neat walk around pre flight mode, but other than that, its a nice looking 172. Not much else.

 

The 210 with REP is much more of a challenge and simulates a lot more of what i am interested it.  Accompany it with the Head Shake plugin, and its one of the best (if not they best) GA planes in X-plane. (imo.) 

This could change once they finish the 172 and patch up the flight model.

[ohsirus 241]

The 172 is always the most flight dynamic debated plane, I remember when A2A released theirs everyone had an input..lol..Have to brace for heavy  rolls when you release a plane everyone has some experience in.

[rdb 44]

Right now, the 172 offers a cool camera system, A neat walk around pre flight mode, but other than that, its a nice looking 172. Not much else.

 

Thanks Rob. Camera system is not an advantage for me since i'm using TrackIR anyway. For the time being i think i'll go with REP.

[turner112 52]

 

 

2. A 3d pilot model. I know a lot of older X-plane models did not have pilots, but it just looks strange especially on such a highly detailed plane like this. Carenado does this very well, even though it always the same 2 guys (lol).

 

That's a big plus for me. I don't want to see pilot/passenger models.... ever. IMO every aircraft that comes with them should have the option to eliminate them.