I'd say their very close to the comfort levels when flying through choppy air, I actually prefer the feel of the 150 to the 172, but it can be a little crowded.http://www.kthxdone.com/images/kw_ft.jpgKen Weik [link:maam.org|MAAM-SIM][link:library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=root&SearchTerm=kenneth+weik&Sort=Added&ScanMode=0&Go=Change+View]My AFCADs

<>Oh, but you should. Everything is relative, of course and unless you are flying in both aircraft at the same time in the same place the comparisons are difficult. But ON AVERAGE, in comparable conditions, the 152 is subject to more pronounced excursions from straight and level flight than a 172 and ditto with the Skylane vs. the Skyhawk.I have quite a few hours in all three and owned a 172. However, I sort of like getting bumped around...up to a point but have never been airborne in a 152 in 25 gusting to 35...and never will be!!:-)Best,Jim

The day I went up they asked how much I weighed so I told him 200. He didn't say anything else so I never found out how much the max is.I know we were packed in pretty good and I had to ask permission to change my mind!!Don

LOL. 570lbs is the max load - without fuel. You were close ;-)

Hey Guy, flyin with those foggles in some consistent turbulence is pretty rough isn't it? I'm about halfway through my instrument now. There are some days when I need to just flip up the foggles, turn to my CFI, and say "we need to go back...NOW" haha I get through a little over an hour on a rough day, thats about it. I tend not to go up on rough days anymore though.

Brian, in addition to what I have already said, I had to smile a bit reading some posts further down. The comments about having a hard time grabing te frequancy knobs while getting knocked around is another 'feature; RealView provides. There are times when I have a hard time 'grabing the knobs' with my mouse as the movement inside the cockpit provides that sensation as well. You actually have to wait a second if the turbulance is bad, go back, and try again.Neat stuff.

Many just dont realize we dont have the "springs" to absorb the shocks from air currents or rough runways in small aircraft. And many runways can be very rough, lots of cracks, etc... Ive seen descriptions of some where it warned of rocks on the runway, etc... taxiways can be even worse.But, Ive never had a "rough" ride in a 172 or 182, and it probably just depends on the weather. (I dont fly when the winds are "brutal") S.CA weather can mean for days or weeks, there is very little wind. On Days we went up, the windsock was hanging straight down, seldom winds of 5 knots. Even flying over the mountains from KFUL to Salton Sea or to Big Bear City, and Palm Springs, had a very smooth flights. Hardly felt any different than sitting in my chair, with the Flight Sim.

BrianAlthough I haven't tried 'realview' I have Active Camera's head latency on all the time and in my view it nicely simulates the experience of what it's like flying a in a light aircraft such a the little C152 in turbulence, minus the nausea of course, but you could easily simulate this by drinking half a glass of salt solution (don't try this at home:-) x( ) before you start up FS. As those above have mentioned it's hard to 'grab' the knobs with the mouse as in reali life and monitor the guages easily with haed latency on. To those who still argue for the 2D cockpit, head latency is another and powerful reason for discarding the 2D cockpit at least in light aircraft. 2D just doesn't capture the essence of the real thing and makes it far too easy to look at the guages and turn the knobs. . kills the 'as real as I can get it' vibe stone dead. Get real and fly 3D with head latency or realview I say. . . OK hope this helps Brian.

Hi Ismet,Good to know. I know I installed the program months ago, but took it off for 'whatever reason'. I'll have to give it another look, as I did not know it had that feature.

thanks thats good to know - ive allways wondered how realistic that was, good to know even about grabbing the knobsciao!Brian S

I flew in a Beech 18 last summer with lots of convection around and she was one bumpy ride.

Brian, based on 'Tin's' recommendation, I reinstalled Active Camera and tried this out. Not too bad, not bad at all. I may have to tweak with it a bit, but it basically provides the same effect at RealAir's 'RealView'.Tried it in my ES Cirrus and Liberty, and decided I had to have it after trying it out. For this feature alone, it will be worth the $15.As I have been using F1 View that has some similar features, I never kept it prior, but was unaware that Active Camera had this particular feature. Highly recommended.

Glad you like the head latency in Active Camera guys. It's easy to miss the fact that Active Camera has it as there are so many other features in it to play with. Incidentally, just in case you haven't noticed, AS allows you to adjust the amount of head latency and ground and overspeed turbulence and buffeing rate as well to match the mass of the aircraft you are flying.

Yep, thanks Ismet....just got my key registration today, so I'll be checking it out much more extensively now.Perhaps not quite as smooth as RealAir's 'RealView', but I have yet to find anyone who has made such an overall smooth running package as these guy's, especially when you 'throw in' their gauges.Regardless, a great product which I would not have seen much use for had it not been for your post.Thanks again.

Glad to have given assistance bkeske. Further back in the thread I erooneously said that i hadn't got 'Realview' but in fact I have as part of the Real Air's Marchetti SF260, an utterly beautiful aircraft creation by Real Air with breathtakingly good flight dynamics, smooth VC gauges to die for and of course as you point out, a very smooth form of head latency which they term 'RealView'. I guess it slipped my mind as I was just keen to let you and others know that head latency is possible with all aircraft using Active Camera. Enjoy your flying!