Sign in to follow this  
neil0311

Flight1 Cessna 172 Skyhawk - Great, but underpowered ?

Recommended Posts

I've had this baby for about a year and love her dearly. Thing is, she seems underpowered on takeoff compared with the default Cessna. I cannot achieve takeoff speed and lift off safely and clear obstacles on shorter runways even at lighter weights. This is the only area of flight where I am having a bit of problem with her. Is there a simple way to increase the power of this a/c without unbalancing all the other parameters in the cfg file, etc?Appreciate any guidance, thanks!JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

That is kind of what you would expect, with a lower power engine together with a fixed pitch prop, can be a bear to get off the ground at higher density altitudes.The F1 C172 seems real-life to me.If you are looking for a litte more capable plane, the Carenado C182 is a great example, very nice VC as well.For a lot more capable plane, and full of spiffy electronics, the DreamFleet Bonanza A36.* Orest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, well if the F1 C172 is fairly accurate to real-life, maybe I shouldn't mess with it. I had just wondered if there was some error with the cfg file. I just installed a turbocharge cfg file for the default Baron 58 and now she flies like I hoped she would.I might check out the C182 as you suggest. Thanks.JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the Flight 1 172 is the R model where as the default in is the SP model. The difference? An extra 20 horsies under the hood of the SP. Even the 172SP isn't exactly what I'd call nimble fully loaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, the F1 172R feel a bit under-powered to me as well. I loaded up the plane (in the sim) at the same point on the runway, and used real weather via AV6. I can't get to Vr until passing the first 1000' mark line. Then it takes me about 2mins longer to reach a typical ToC...and i'm flying in "normal" temps and alt. In real life (also 172R, starting at the same point on the runway), i can get to Vr even before reaching the 1000' marker. And it only takes about 7min to reach ToC, instead of 9-10min in the sim. Over-all, i can definitely feel the lack of power during climbs. I've pretty much memorized all the numbers when doing traffic patterns in real life, and all the numbers fall short when i try the same thing in the sim.i've also noticed the plane would not move at 1000 RPM for taxiing in the sim. I need to push it to about 12-1500 RPM to taxi. 1000 RPM is plenty in real life....almost too much at times... All in all, the F1 172 is still pretty accurate....i love it-fz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Flight 1 C172R is a very good model of the real thing and much closer to the reality of the "R" model than the default Skyhawk is to the "SP". I have a few hundred hours in Skyhawks from M to S models, so I feel I know what I'm saying. I fly a 1984 "P" model quite a bit, and although it's conventionally aspirated and not fuel injected like the "R" model, they both have the 160 HP Lycoming and handle very similarly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this