FSX-MS A2A C172 or JustFlight C152?

[swnelson 0]

Hi all - new member here so sorry if this is in the wrong place etc.

I was wondering - as someone learning on a C152, would you guys recommend I install the A2A or the Justflight?  From what I've heard, the A2A is significantly morea accurate but the JF seems pretty good too (and it's the right aircraft...). Then again  the C152 is similar to the 172...

Just wanted your opinions re his matter.

Thanks!

[MaDDogz 242]

A2A's has a maintainance hanger, with simulated wear and tear on the aircraft / Engine.you can break things if not treated correctly, like dropping the flaps at too a high speed ect..brake wear, tire wear...oil burnt in engine...the list goes on, and better flight dynamics.

Its called Accu-sim - check it out

 

 

[Chock 17,769]

If I were you, I'd download the free demo of the JF Cessna and see if it suits you. The demo is limited to flights of ten minutes' duration and maximum altitude of 1,500 feet, but that should be enough to see if it suits you, if not, you could then give the A2A Cessna a whirl. If you are learning on a 152, you'd be better off with something of a similar layout to your aircraft. A 152 flies quite a bit differently from the 172 in spite of their broad similarities.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Chock

[scianoir 610]

A2A is arguably the best developer of GA aircraft out there but, to be fair, the Just Flight aircraft developed by their in-house team have an excellent reputation. The 152 is one of these and although I don’t have it, I do have the JF Arrow which was also developed by their in-house team and that is an excellent product. 

Something else you might like to keep in mind is that you get both FSX and P3Dv4 versions with the Just Flight 152, which is a definite bonus if you migrate to P3D in the future, whereas with the A2A 172, as with all the A2A aircraft, you would have to purchase it again at the full price if you ever need the P3Dv4 version.

Bill

[ckyliu 1,749]

A2A even differentiate price and licences between Academic and Professional P3D with no upgrade path between them. 

A2A is slightly better than JF with the maintenance hangar and walkaround, although both will simulate stuff like vapour lock, flat batteries etc. The latest JF GA are sound purchases. And as others have said, there's a demo to try! Just need then to make a 177 Cardinal now...

Edited June 10, 2018 by ckyliu

[swnelson 0]

Thanks for your help guys, I’ll check out the trial.

[Chock 17,769]

If it turns out that neither of them float your boat, you might also want to consider an alternative, this being the Alabeo/Carenado Piper PA38 Tomahawk. Of course the PA28 is not your Cessna 152 in which you are learning, but the PA28 does have a little special relationship with the Cessna 152 specifically related to training which is worth knowing about...

When Piper wanted to produce a rival two-seat training aircraft to the Cessna 152, they asked a lot of ab-initio PPL flying instructors what they'd like to see in a two-seat trainer, two things were listed more than anything else by those instructors - they wanted a bit more elbow room (obviously!), and they wanted an aircraft which was more easy to spin, and which required control inputs to recover from that spin. The Cessna 150 and 152 were designed to fly out of a spin, which is a great safety feature, but it's not a great feature for a training aeroplane when you want to teach pupils how to recover from a spin. As a result, the PA28 has a Whitcombe (GA(W)-1) wing aerofoil cross section, which is one that requires control inputs from the pilot in order to come out of a spin.

Many PPL syllabus these days teach 'spin avoidance' rather than spin recovery technique (this is something I've long been a very vocal critic of). Of course it is best to try to avoid spins in normal flight operations, but failing to teach pilots what to do if they fail to avoid a spin, is lunacy in my opinion. Every pilot should not only know how to get out of a spin, but should also have done so several times when learning in order to drill it into them. You may not have to do spin recoveries in your pilot training syllabus, but there is nothing stopping you from playing around with them them in your flight sim (with the caveat that you should never apply stuff you've tried in a sim to a real aeroplane unless you know it to be the correct technique and understand it fully of course, and if you ever do any spins in a real aeroplane, don't forget a clearing turn and your H.A.S.S.L.E. check). You will find the Alabeao/Carenado PA28 does actually do a pretty good replication of a spin, since that was kind of the point of that aeroplane, and it's a very inexpensive add-on too, can usually be found for about ten quid.

Another thing...

It's worth bearing in mind much of the time that whilst stuff like A2A's aeroplanes might seem a bit pricey compared to other offerings, most of the time you do tend to get what you pay for in the way they handle. For example, the A2A Piper Commanche 250 is indeed a bit pricey for an add-on GA aeroplane, but that price becomes worth it when you find out that it does a better emulation of a sideslip in P3D and FSX than any other aeroplane I've ever tried out in any flight sim ever. This matters to me because I tend to like sideslipping aeroplanes on approach to lose a bit of the spare altitude I like to keep as a safety margin, this is a habit of mine from having flown gliders a lot; a bit of spare altitude is no bad thing in an aeroplane with no ability to go around or add a bit of throttle on short finals lol.

This is the kind of 'not quite so obvious' things you are paying for with A2A's add ons. Personally, I think A2A is hands-down the premier flight sim add-on maker there is by a country mile. So if you are looking for subtle realism in the add-on you do choose, that is A2A's strong point.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Chock

[jon b 2,041]

Although it has to be said you can’t beat an A2A aircraft, if you’re learning on the 152 that’s the one you want. You’ll be able to practice your drills and the power ,pitch  and speeds should all be correct for your actual training aircraft, that’s much better than practicing  on something not quite the same.

I’ve got the justflight 152 and it’s a very stable accurate flight model great for learning on and the cockpit is a very accurate rendition of an actual 152, you’ll feel right at home in it.

Ive been using it to teach my 9 year old the PPL syllabus, it’s a cracking little plane.

Jon

[JonP01 104]

Hi all, sorry to bring this topic back out of a half-year slumber, but I am in a similar position. I have tried the demo Just flight C152 and really like it but I can't help wondering if the A2A C172 takes the sheer enjoyment level up a notch. Cost is not an issue as they are both premium priced in any case. And unlike the OP, I don't fly in real life so don't need to concern myself with that aspect.

But I guess my two fundamental questions are:

1. If the C152 performs extremely well on my old system in terms of frame rates (which it does), will the A2A C172 perform similarly? Without a demo I have no way to know.

2. Which of the two is more fun to fly if you are into raw stick and rudder stuff? I actually like the C152 perhaps because it is so small and light that it gets tossed around a bit more and can make landings more fun. The fact that it is so underpowered in relative terms makes one pay more attention since there is less performance in reserve and a smaller overall performance "envelope". In any event, I guess like most of us, landing these things is the most fun, so I would love a comparison of the two if anyone owns both.

I do like the idea that the A2A stuff seems to be the ants pants so to speak but I was impressed with the JF C152 regardless.

By the way, I am also curious whether the A2A degradation / wearing characteristics can be toggled on or off. I appreciate that it adds depth to the simulation, but I am flat out maintaining my car and lawnmower as it is! 😵

Thanks

[sloppysmusic 169]

45 minutes ago, JonP01 said:

Hi all, sorry to bring this topic back out of a half-year slumber, but I am in a similar position. I have tried the demo Just flight C152 and really like it but I can't help wondering if the A2A C172 takes the sheer enjoyment level up a notch. Cost is not an issue as they are both premium priced in any case. And unlike the OP, I don't fly in real life so don't need to concern myself with that aspect.

But I guess my two fundamental questions are:

1. If the C152 performs extremely well on my old system in terms of frame rates (which it does), will the A2A C172 perform similarly? Without a demo I have no way to know.

2. Which of the two is more fun to fly if you are into raw stick and rudder stuff? I actually like the C152 perhaps because it is so small and light that it gets tossed around a bit more and can make landings more fun. The fact that it is so underpowered in relative terms makes one pay more attention since there is less performance in reserve and a smaller overall performance "envelope". In any event, I guess like most of us, landing these things is the most fun, so I would love a comparison of the two if anyone owns both.

I do like the idea that the A2A stuff seems to be the ants pants so to speak but I was impressed with the JF C152 regardless.

By the way, I am also curious whether the A2A degradation / wearing characteristics can be toggled on or off. I appreciate that it adds depth to the simulation, but I am flat out maintaining my car and lawnmower as it is! 😵

Thanks

I don't own the A2A 172 but I do own 5 other a2a Accusim aircraft. You can indeed dial the maintenance down. There is a control panel option to turn ACCUSIM off. You could also not install it at all as in some of their planes, the older ones, you install it separately as an add-on. 

I won't be buying any more A2A planes due to the P3D licensing situation. I use FSX and refuse to buy the same aircraft twice. Something I will say very much in the A2A favor is that with all their planes you can download the full manuals BEFORE purchase. Not as good as a demo for sure but still a great way to check out what the planes can do and how well the performance figures stack up as there are detailed tables to work with in each manual. 

[TextRich 88]

I have used the C152 demo and I own the A2A 172.  My system barely qualifies for Fly-Inside FSX's virtual reality and I was able to fly in the A2A smoothly.  So you should be OK JonP01.  You can turn off the A2A's aircraft wear feature and skip the walk around if you do not need the extra realism.  I do find the ability to exchange different parts in the hangar fun.

[JonP01 104]

Thanks very much for the two replies - much appreciated. Yes, it is a tougher call when you can freely test out the JF aircraft but not the A2A one. I would almost default to the JF aircraft simply because they offer customers a trial - something that I think is very important (how many flight simmers buy payware and have regrets - we have all done so in the past).

But I am glad you've given me a de facto benchmark so to speak regarding the JF C152 and A2A C172. I actually demoed the Piper Warrior from JF and prefer it to the C152 - nicer to fly and there are no power issues that the C152 can have (especially in hot weather at altitude where it is arguably too under-powered to be nearly as useful as the much better performing Warrior).

Good to know all the maintenance stuff can be dialed down too, so thank you guys for confirming that. Perhaps if flight simming were my entire life I would get a kick out of it - but the notion that the plane ages even when the PC is turned off and not being used cuts a little to close to the bones of a dogged existence in reality! 😏

But unfortunately too for me, performance (in terms of FPS) has to be a very big consideration. I had hoped to upgrade my now 9-year old first generation Core i7 in the next 15 months, however I think real life has got in the way of that, so I might be stuck with my prehistoric machine for quite some time yet.

Oh, and just a final question regarding the A2A 172 if I may. When you deploy the flaps, does it push the aircraft into a nose-down stance? The panels on these Cessnas seem to be higher than the panels in the Pipers and with the short field work I am wanting to do, good forward visibility is very important if I am flaring on landing and still want to see where I am going. I have no problem with the JF Warrior in this respect but am curious how the C172 handles it. I don't really like having different positions and camera angles for cruise versus landing, etc so prefer just to find one position that suits me in all phases of flight (something the default position in the JF Warrior does very well).

Edited March 18, 2019 by JonP01

[ckyliu 1,749]

As others have said, if you are thinking of upgrading I would give A2A a wide berth because they force  a full value repurchase if/when you move across to P3D, whereas JustFlight is free.

[JonP01 104]

I won't be moving to P3D - I will be sticking with FSX for the foreseeable future, even if and when I do build a new machine.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

8 hours ago, JonP01 said:

I won't be moving to P3D - I will be sticking with FSX for the foreseeable future, even if and when I do build a new machine.

There is also the freeware Just Flight 152 that they put out some time ago and made free for FS Insider. The link is still active and you just add it for free to your cart and download.

I picked it up years ago when it was first made freeware and it was not bad. I also learned on a 152 and used it a few times.

https://www.simshack.net/products/free-cessna-152-fsx-707

I'm not sure what the difference is between it and the JustFlight payware version.