I hope to begin flight training in the fall, so i have temporarily left the Barons, B200s, and other twins behind to put in some time on a trainer. I own the Flight1 172 and recently downloaded the RealAir 172R from AVSIM. I've outfitted it with a sparkly new panel--swapping the difficult to read original gauges with Reality XP T gauges for smoother operation, etc, and decluttering the main panel by creating pop up switch and fuel panels for placement on a second monitor. Added a Reality XP 530 as an indulgence. I've now flown the plane about 6 times, alternating the same route with the Flight1 version. I bought the F1 172 because posters here raved about its realism. But I find I prefer the flight handling of the RealAir. The F1 version seems stiffer, especially in medium bank turns. Although I can make coordinated turns in the RA version without much effort, I have even more time in the Flight1 version but still can't make smooth ones there. Patterns in the RA version are easier, more stable and I prefer the visibility in 2D. The RA version is supposed to be turbocharged, but I don't find much different in the climb behavior of the two under identical circumstances. BUT I'd ike input from people who have flown the 172R in real life. If the Flight1 version is more true to life, I will stick with it. Thanks

No aircraft in a flight sim is true to real life since you lack sensory input of flying. What they are good for is training in procedures, learning the panel, etc. One caveat to that is it often promotes a head down attitude in a student pilot, who should be looking outside and not at the panel. So, in answer to your question, neither is really true to life.

> So, in answer to your question, neither is really true to>life.IMO, once you've actually flown the "full size" 172's and other planes enough, to get a good mental picture of what it looks like through the front wind screen, and peripheral vision from the side; then it's much easier to adjust the sim model, for a more realistic view.In fact, I might use several zoom view sizes for the V/C; sometines no panel at all, or variations of the 2D. Just depends on what I'm doing at the moment.The same applies to hardware controls. Once you've flown the real thing for a while, the brain will fill in some "feeling" gaps.Personally, for small aircraft such as the Flight1 Cessna, the RealAir Cessna, and RealAir SF260, I prefer the VC's most of the time.A full depth 2D panel on the landing approach is usually NOT realistic, as it covers too much of the runway. Use the landing view panel if available. I also use shift enter to raise the seat in VC mode if needed.L.Adamson

Hardware upgrades can also add more to the experience.I highly recommend the CH Rudders (so you can get used to taxiing and doing coordinated turns by using your feet). Another great addon is the TrackIR4. I can't fly without it now. This little device will allow you to look around in the VC freely, and that'll greatly enhance the realism of flying. For example, now you can quickly glance at the runway during downwind, and back at your instruments..all within a second. The TrackIR4 also trains you to look out the window more. Since you'll be learning VFR first, looking out the window is very important. However, FS9 tends to lead people to constantly stair at the flight instruments. For example, i had a hard time doing 360 steep turns in real life...because i always looked at my instruments during the turn...making sure my angle/speed/alt/rpm were on the mark. However, i always go out of sync at the half way point. Then my instructor told me to just use the horizon outside the window to judge my turn. Man, it was so much easier...you'll be hitting your own wake in no time.Like others have said, neither plane is very realistic, however, they can be a great learning tool (especially for VOR navigation and familiarizing yourself with flight routes before you do them for real).Have fun flying...you'll be addicted for sure. -feng

>>Like others have said, neither plane is very realistic,>however, they can be a great learning tool (especially for VOR>navigation and familiarizing yourself with flight routes>before you do them for real).>I should add; that there have been times, such as slipping a simulated aircraft into a landing; where it just all seems right. A sense of feel, the near perfect peripheral vision, and so forth.Certainly doesn't happen all the time, but when it does, it makes it worth it! L.Adamsonedit: and yes, you really need to have those rudder pedals for the "feel". I have an older set of Thrustmaster Elites, that still do a good job.

Little two cents from me now.When I started my flight training 20 years ago there were no flight sims available, so it was all that much harder.I have flown with numerous students who declare to have been using FS for some time and I can tell you that they are way ahead of the game.Of course, they need to learn to read the sensory reactions of the aircraft in the air, but they have already gotten hold of the panel layout and instrument readouts. This is critical during the initial phase of learning when you not only learn to fly by the seat of your pants and placing the cowling on the horizon, but you also learn to coordinate your altitude, speed, VS, etc using your instruments. They can interpret them instruments intuitively having learnt it in the sim.So, yes, this can help a lot for someone looking to start learning to fly for real.On the other hand, once mastered flying the real thing, flying the sim can be of great help in numerous ways.One of them being getting acquainted with your destination airport and its surroundings prior to the flight. I often fly the charted approach to an airport prior to flying for real just to get the glimpse of what to expect when breaking out of undersact, or indeed getting around the taxiway network at the airport itself.There are many more ways to enhance your real world flying with a sim.In my opinion, however, the toughest part is to fly a simple traffic pattern in a sim. When flying it in RW you have your head on a swivel all the time. With sim's limited visibility and awkwardness of changing views I find flying a patter unrealistic.ThanksDom

Thanks all. I have taken a couple of intro flights at schools I was evaluating, so some of the things you mentioned had jumped out to me also. I found it easy to make my way around the cockpit. Already second nature. I was also impressed at how much more intuitive flying is in the real thing. I used to fly hang gliders long ago, and much of the intuition of that started coming back to me. Since taking these flights, I have begun closing the panels in the similator from time to time and just flying 720s, s-turns, 360s, or just snaking along rivers and "scud running". And finally, I definitely noticed that I need to learn to get my head out of the cockpit. I figure I wll breeze my three required of hours of IFR training, since I currently have no trouble trusting my instruments. It is the other 50 or so hours that will be the learning experience!My question was a little less about the transition to real world than about the reality of the performance specs of the F1 and RealAir 172s. Does either have an edge in terms of the being more realistic surrounding things like climbs, spins, stalls, pitch at specific v-speeds, and handling medium turns (for example, I read that, if not held, the ac should roll back slowly to level slowly in mild turns but hold a bank in med turns, but I find that only the RA version comes close to this). Also ground handling: The RA version turns on a dime but the radius for the F1 is very large. I can turn around the RA version in a parking spot with ac on either side without difficulty, but it is dicey in the F1. Is the RA just too easy or more realitic? Things like that. Thanks!

>My question was a little less about the transition to real>world than about the reality of the performance specs of the>F1 and RealAir 172s. Does either have an edge in terms of the>being more realistic surrounding things like climbs, spins,>stalls, pitch at specific v-speeds, and handling medium turns>(for example, I read that, if not held, the ac should roll>back slowly to level slowly in mild turns but hold a bank in>med turns, but I find that only the RA version comes close to>this). Also ground handling: The RA version turns on a dime>but the radius for the F1 is very large. I can turn around>the RA version in a parking spot with ac on either side>without difficulty, but it is dicey in the F1. Is the RA just>too easy or more realitic? Things like that. Thanks!Here is my opinion. I want performance to be in the ball park. It will vary somewhat between the SP & R versions because of the 20 horsepower difference. Handeling will be similar.My philosophy, is to DO what it takes to fly it. And this means NOT counting on a certain bank angle holding or not holding when applying and releasing aileron. Once you start flying various airplanes, you'll notice that none of this "exactness" holds true between one model and another.I can fly either of these models with ease. I feel that both represent the average underpowered real life 172's rather well. :D If you feel that you need some spin training for memory purposes, then the RealAir will work better at the moment. But then I like the Flight1 panel better! Guess I'd just have to switch back & forth, depending on the purpose of the moment.Just remember to pull back slightly on the yoke, to maintain alitude during some of your turns depending on bank angle. And then you're going to jump into some other plane, where pulling back from habit, is going to cause an imidiate climb! This is why I say, DO what it takes to fly it. The same is going to happen with rudder. Some need more, and some hardly use it in turns.:-hah L.Adamson

If I were you, I would seriously look at Dreamfleets Piper Archer. Its a 180 HP engine and its a low wing..so performance wise its closer to a 172S than to a 172R.But guess what.. for slow flight and stalls etc.. I loved DF Piper archer. It was dead on right, to the 172S. I loved it. When I was learning to fly in the 172S.. I had the choice between realair 172 and the DF Archer. I didn;t have F1's Cessna 172 then.Manny

Thanks you guys! Great ideas. I like the panel of the F1 a great deal as well, but my new spruced up RA has grown on me as well.

I think having a good sim plane to backup your training is a real advantage. I used Dreamfleet's Piper Archer. As has been stated, so much of training is about learning procedures...and that has little to do with flight dynamics. Things like taxing with the controls positioned for the wind...or instrument checks while taxing....and of course all those checklists. Consider airspace awareness...and pilotage. And emergency procedures. Theses are all things that you want to be second nature and all things the sim is really good for. I used CH hardware and a home made trim wheel (taken from an old sewing machine) I also repainted the archer to match the one I flew. With some discipline simulator work can really payoff. BTW I found the Archer flies a great circuit.. Speeds and power settings climbs and descents where accurate enough that I could revisit what I was learning in the air. DannyCZBB

Great. I spottd the Archer some time ago but something left me with the impression that it was not written natively for FS2004. I had the impression it was a legacy app needed a patch or retrofitte to be compatible. I thought "better stay away , too bad" I generally try to stay away from things that are not built from scratch for FS2004, since I am finicky about look and performance (of the application as well as the fit with my pc). I'll give it another look.

>However, FS9 tends to lead people to>constantly stair at the flight instruments. I've been using FS since the earliest versions in the 80's and have never had this problem.>For example, i had>a hard time doing 360 steep turns in real life...because i>always looked at my instruments during the turn...making sure>my angle/speed/alt/rpm were on the mark.Was this before or after using the FS?>However, i always go>out of sync at the half way point. Then my instructor told me>to just use the horizon outside the window to judge my turn.Though I'm not a pilot, Ive always used the Horizon in the FS to judge my turns, because it seemed so much easier. But, then, I have flown in Cessna's for many years, with licensed pilots. When taking "tours" of vacation spots, and when with friends who had a license. They let me take the controls, and right from the first experience had no problems. It might be a good idea for anyone interested in a license, to go on such flights to see what it "looks" like from the cockpit. Because of these flights, I tend to adjust my FS to look more like it really does.>Like others have said, neither plane is very realistic,>however, they can be a great learning tool (especially for VOR>navigation and familiarizing yourself with flight routes>before you do them for real).What I enjoy best is IFR flights at low levels. If I had it to do all over again, I'd have learned to fly and earned a license before getting married. With five children, could not afford to do so, and by the time they grew up, could not pass the medical. So have been limited to sharing the cost with friends, who let me fly with them. Flying with the FS, has been almost satisfactory as a substitute... At least it means I can afford to do so a few hours every day. My wife is even in favor of all the time I spend with the FS... She says, "I always know where my husband is, and what he is doing. I feel much better than my friends, whose husbands are out in the bars."

>>>However, FS9 tends to lead people to>>constantly stair at the flight instruments. >>I've been using FS since the earliest versions in the 80's and>have never had this problem.>That's why they should "ban" the 2D panel! Alway's in your face! ,and covering up half the outside world. :-hah L.Adamson --- usually prefer the V/C's for the small stuff

I know what u mean. I wanted to learn how to fly but kept putting it. First college, then grad school, then became a professor, then kids, there was always something. NOW I'm tired of waiting!