I want just to know other opinions about that: I mainly tested these two aircraft on MSFS and on both I had the feeling they lack power. What do you think?

 

 

Edited August 22, 20205 yr by Jeeeno

no, the default loadup is a bit too much, just get in only the pilot and try again?

I don't think 172 is underexposed. In fact it about right. I have several POH for older model and performance charts are pretty much with par with sim modeling. I can't tell for DV-40 I haven't flown it in real life 

The C172 in Msfs 2020 is about the same as FSX 

On 8/22/2020 at 11:37 AM, sd_flyer said:

I don't think 172 is underexposed. In fact it about right.

I hadn’t seen this before. Does your judgement still stand after several months with the sim?

I’m using the 172 G1000 mod which claims to correct the power issue, but the less mods the better in my book.

This is the mod:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/cessna-172-skyhawk-g1-000-perfomance-mod/297966/2

Wondering if I can go without this one.

I have no real world flying experience and rely on those that do.  

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

36 minutes ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

I hadn’t seen this before. Does your judgement still stand after several months with the sim?

I’m using the 172 G1000 mod which claims to correct the power issue, but the less mods the better in my book.

This is the mod:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/cessna-172-skyhawk-g1-000-perfomance-mod/297966/2

Wondering if I can go without this one.

I have no real world flying experience and rely on those that do.  

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

I have mixed feeling about that kind of modes. In some cases like CJ4, Longitude, Baron 58 mods are welcome and justified because performance of those  airplanes are way off with a huge margin! Now, regarding 172. 172 is OK flight model as is. Based on my real world experience flying 172 ranging from model B to latest S, I can tell you that performance wary somewhat from aircraft to aircraft. Installing climb/cruise prop, removing wheel fairing, low/high cylinder compression, rigging  and etc everything will affect 172 performance. So tweaking 172 performance one way or another doesn't significantly  change realism at this point. It just a way to believe that certain "realism" make user to feel better. I personally rather see comprehensive add on like Simcoders cold/flooded/hot starts, tear and wear. Like  oleo strut seal blown or simmy wheel during had landing and etc. Now those mod would make more sense to me. I hope it make sense!

46 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I hope it make sense!

It does thanks so much for your feedback!

You’re one of the trusted voices on the forum and value your input.

I’m going to go on ahead and remove it, thanks.

Edited December 12, 20205 yr by Cmcollazo71

1 hour ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

It does thanks so much for your feedback!

You’re one of the trusted voices on the forum and value your input.

I’m going to go on ahead and remove it, thanks.

Please don't get me wrong, you can install whatever mod you want or feel is good, and don't need to seek any approval for that . I just express my opinion regarding moding in general and and 172 in particular. I'm just a small  "potato"! 🙂 There are plenty of people on this forum who fly for living and may have different opinion! And  this is perfectly fine!

2 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Please don't get me wrong, you can install whatever mod you want or feel is good, and don't need to seek any approval for that . I just express my opinion regarding moding in general and and 172 in particular. I'm just a small  "potato"! 🙂 There are plenty of people on this forum who fly for living and may have different opinion! And  this is perfectly fine!

Of course, like I said the fewer mods for me the better, if the 172 is fine as it is I can live with it as is. I do use Roberts G36 turbo normalized mod for instance, but compared to default G36 that's a must too...

5 hours ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

I hadn’t seen this before. Does your judgement still stand after several months with the sim?

I’m using the 172 G1000 mod which claims to correct the power issue, but the less mods the better in my book.

This is the mod:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/cessna-172-skyhawk-g1-000-perfomance-mod/297966/2

Wondering if I can go without this one.

I have no real world flying experience and rely on those that do.  

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Originally all of the planes had some issues due to the workings of the mixture control. It looks like they have greatly improved that issue. I instruct mainly in 172s. The default MSFS 172 is very well done from a performance standpoint.

1 hour ago, snglecoil said:

Originally all of the planes had some issues due to the workings of the mixture control. It looks like they have greatly improved that issue. I instruct mainly in 172s. The default MSFS 172 is very well done from a performance standpoint.

This is one SUPER NECRO thread revival 😄

I agree, the default Cessna seem pretty close. Chug a bit compared to the new crop of Rotax lightweights that can really get up to circuit height fast, but not underpowered for a Lycoming Cessna

There are still some issues with mixtures, like for example you need to lean to maybe 70-80% even at a low altitude like 4000' and I suspect the weight versus density altitude effects on performance may need tweaking and stall/spin/spiral dive behaviour who knows -  but overall in normal flight they behave the way I remember.

Edited December 13, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

1 hour ago, snglecoil said:

The default MSFS 172 is very well done from a performance standpoint.

Thanks for seconding @sd_flyer it’s nice when opinions match!

I had already removed the mod, thanks!

31 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

This is one SUPER NECRO thread revival 😄

How can a thread less than 4 months old be SUPER Necro? I mean slightly necro, sure...It just so happens that this thread here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. 😉

Have fun storming the castle!

23 minutes ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

Thanks for seconding @sd_flyer it’s nice when opinions match!

I had already removed the mod, thanks!

It is worth remembering that a fully loaded and fully fuelled 172 has a ramp weight up around 2500 lbs (over a ton) though you may not be able to take-off with that weight, it will depend on your density altitude calculations.

A lot of the lightweight 2 seater "Sports" aircraft weigh in at about half that and in some cases also have more power than the Lycoming in an older Cessna.

Also, in game, you need to look at where you are flying from. For example the performance of any aircraft in the New Guinea highlands at 6000' on a 35 degree Celsius day is going to be substantially less than if the same aircraft is taking off at sea level on a cool Autumn morning.  For a real world example, I have friends who ran off the end of the runway in a 172 in New Guinea because they fuelled up and loaded for a take-off  based on density altitude calculations for a 7.00 am start  but were delayed several hours by weather and the temperature had gone up substantially. In retrospect they should have redone the TOW calculations after such a long delay but everything is easy in hindsight. Fortunately they had room to stop which is not always the case in New Guinea.

 

 

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

it will depend on your density altitude calculations.

Yeah, this I understood from FlightChops video on mountain flying on YouTube.

However, I do do most of my flying in Florida so...

I did take a trek from El Paso (KELP) up to Telluride (KTEX) flying along the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico stopping every 60 to 70 nautical miles and could feel the difference in performance and that was in Robert Young’s turbo normalized modded G36!