A couple weeks ago I had a ride in a real 152. I didn't realize before how crowded that little plane is with two people. Also, our simulator cannot reproduce the ride because it rode like a car does on a road full of potholes. I enjoyed the ride but it surprised me as to how rough it rode. The pilot said it was because it was a sunny day and the air currents were rising above the woods. Anyway it was great. The club was celebrating with a get together and the ride was only $5 bucks!! Does a 172 ride rough like that? I thought because it is larger it might not.Don

Yes the 172s have a smoother ride.I once delivered a 152 from Columbia SC to Orlando Fla one summer with thunderstorms everywhere the entire route. When I got out I could hardly walk and felt like I had been on a small boat during a hurricaine for a few hours.Its worth the extra $$ to rent a 172 for added elbow room.

I've heard the same thing about 172 vs 152, and 182 vs 172, and I gotta say - I ain't buyin' it. :) I had quite a nauseating experience flying under the hood for 2+ hours prepping for the instrument checkride in a 172 a couple of years ago. The winds were just brutal the whole time, and it's just not possible for a 2500 or even 3000 pound vehicle to absorb that kind of energy shift. One thing I hope for in FSX is much more realistic turbulence... I find it's either too light or too heavy in FS9, no real good middle ground where you get the occasional severe beating followed by relative quiet or light chop.

The best it has been simulated yet, IMO, is by RealAir.All third party modelers should take note of what they have accomplished.Fully realistic compared to the real deal? No, but much better than anything I have experienced yet.

please explain, .. what has RealAir done to simulate turb. better? im very curiousi have active camera and the head latency on, is that what you mean?and yes, i too feel that the turb. just isnt modelled very well, its just to smooth most of the time.ciao!Brian S

It's something they developed called 'RealView'. Not only in turbulance, but also by small g-forces on you through turns, etc., the eye-point dips and sways in the VC. In turbulance, you actually get the feeling of the 'bumps' and sways in turbulance, as again, your eye-point (head) 'dips and sways' with outside forces on the aircraft/you.You have to experiance it to understand.I've flown for real, and this isn't *totally realistic*, that is almost impossible within the framework of FS, but it does add quite a bit to the in-cokpit experiance. If Ron at Eaglsoft sees this, I would highly recommend that ES considers this feature :DAll I can tell'ya is buy one of their aircraft and see for yourself.

I started my PPL training in the 172, but had to switch later in the training to the 152 a few times, because the 172 was unavailable. The 152 is certainly a lot more responsive and more 'bumpy'. I had also to fight a few times with nausea while flying x-country with the 152 after being rocked around in turbulence. It's still a great plane to learn on, but the 172 is certainly a huge improvement when it comes to stability and comfort. I also had a chance to fly a 182 Skyhawk and, boy, it feels like a BMW compared to the 152.Pat

They all bounce like a model 'T' on a rocky road in sufficient turbulence. On many of these summer days in Florida I can't catch the radio knob to change frequencies in my C206. Many of you know the drill - grab the panel eyebrow and crawl your fingers down the stack until you get to the bouncing knob. That said though, even a 152 rides like an easy chair in calm air. Early morning or late evening/night air (or even winter mid-day) can be very smooth and enjoyable.Regards,Leon

>They all bounce like a model 'T' on a rocky road in>sufficient turbulence. On many of these summer days in>Florida I can't catch the radio knob to change frequencies in>my C206. Many of you know the drill - grab the panel eyebrow>and crawl your fingers down the stack until you get to the>bouncing knob. >>That said though, even a 152 rides like an easy chair in calm>air. Early morning or late evening/night air (or even winter>mid-day) can be very smooth and enjoyable.>>Regards,>LeonI've been there. Flown many XC trips that took me 10 or 20 seconds to change the frequency. I used to hate the bumps, until one day I had a 60 year old lady on a charter. It was wicked weather, post frontal passge, with winds up around 25 knots sustained gusting to 35. She had to get where she was going so we went. Ten minutes into the flight the airplane felt like it fell down an elevator shaft. A split second later, it hit the bottom and both of our heads hit the headliner. She was 5'1", which means she had a long way to go to the ceiling, and she was strapped down tight. I looked over expecting to see a white face staring back with the "can we land now" look, but instead she had a big old grin on her face and said "that was awesome". I kid you not.Since that day, I love the bumps. I think of it as that mechanical bull at the country bar. Call me sick if you will.

Hehe. A little off-topic, but the first time I felt a bump was in the traffic pattern at my airport and I am sure that I was about to die. It felt like I would hit a 20' ditch in my car. My instructor just looked at me and grinned. I don't even remember what told me, but I do know that the next landing was terrible and my facial expression must have been priceless. After a while you kinda get used to it, but it's still always exciting. At least in a car you can see a pothole. ;)

In May I took a couple of weeks from work and went to get my glider rating.I have flown many hours with my brother who is an experienced pilot and never minded turbulence too much but it somehow made a difference when I became the PIC. Everytime the glider would drop (negative g's) I instinctively wanted to grab onto something even though I already had a death grip on the stick and was strapped in well.After a few flights however, I managed to tune it out and just fly the glider. I now look very forward to turbulence. It's a good thing for soaring!Steve

Brian, Rob Young of Real Air does our FDE work but we have never asked him to include "RealView". We may discuss it at some point:-)

>I started my PPL training in the 172, but had to switch later>in the training to the 152 a few times, because the 172 was>unavailable. The 152 is certainly a lot more responsive and>more 'bumpy'. I had also to fight a few times with nausea>while flying x-country with the 152 after being rocked around>in turbulence. It's still a great plane to learn on, but the>172 is certainly a huge improvement when it comes to stability>and comfort. I also had a chance to fly a 182 Skyhawk and,>boy, it feels like a BMW compared to the 152.>>PatPat, same here...long solo cross country in our club 150 in late June that started smooth as silk earlier in the day but left EVV about noon with temps around 90 F and got beat up badly for about 55 miles to the next stop. Hadn't really eaten and almost nauseous by the time I got back.Nothing like flying right seat pipeline patrol with my charter pilot buddy in August with steep turns at 300 ft AGL and some of the worst turbulance I've experienced. The route covers 2 states and lasts about 3.5 hours....whew, gets to me just writing about it :-lol :-lol :-lol

Ron,(and I'll use a youthfull term here ;) ) that would be 'awesome man' :DI'm sure you have had a chance to check it out, and after flying the Scout, I would really enjoy the Cirrus and Liberty with the same effect it brings.

If you really want to experience crowded try a 152 with an instructor who is somewhere around 6'11" and 260 lbs. Oh and I'm not a "small" person either. We had to coordinate our movements when we wanted to scratch our noses. :)