Cessna 172

[andyjohnston.net 617]

2 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Are you hand flying?  Or are you using the AP?

On AP

[fppilot 4,367]

28 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

On AP

How familiar are you with the G1000 and it's integrated AP?  The only G1000 I flew in FSX was in the Carenado Diamond DA62, and shortly after snagging it I used some mods from other members here to instead integrate a much more familiar RXP GTN 750.  So I came into MSFS still needing to work through a G1000 learning curve.  I have a good number of hours riding along with friends in their GNS and GTN equipped aircraft and am much more familiar, if not proficient with those, and the separate autopilots in those aircraft.  Thus my need to work through the G1000 experience in my sim flying.

I had trouble at first with climbing to and maintaining a desired altitude.  I had much better success descending to and maintaining a desired altitude.  Perhaps write a post here where you detail what you are attempting, how you are executing, and when you are executing, and we will be better able to understand and help.  I sounds from your posts that you are experiencing issues with more than one aspect of climbing, descending, or maintaining.  The G1000 was a new experience for me so I understand.

Edited October 4, 2020 by fppilot

[andyjohnston.net 617]

It was some flights ago, so I'll have to see if I can duplicate the situation.  I've been taking some passengers around small fields in Manitoba, including one guy who was terrified of flying.  Relax dude, I've only crashed in various versions of flightsim more times than I could ever count, what could go wrong?

[fppilot 4,367]

42 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

It was some flights ago, so I'll have to see if I can duplicate the situation.  I've been taking some passengers around small fields in Manitoba, including one guy who was terrified of flying.  Relax dude, I've only crashed in various versions of flightsim more times than I could ever count, what could go wrong?

My first advice with desired altitude and the G1000 is preset your desired altitude, then once off the runway, activate AP but totally ignore the ALT key.  It is not needed to achieve a preset altitude.  Engage the FLC function and use the Up/Down keys to set your climb speed ( KIAS).  Do the same when descending, but instead engage the VS mode, adjust power for descent to control forward speed, and use the Up/Down keys to set your descent rate (FPM).  See what that does for you.

[BusheFlyer 87]

Can speak as a former owner of a real C172, I almost never used the autopilot in all the years I owned it.  When I did briefly use it it was just the basics like following a heading bug. I certainly wouldn't ever use VS mode on an aircraft like a cessna, it flies low and slow in mostly bumpy air, with a mixture control, VS mode would just be asking the aircraft to constantly trim chase. It is an easy aircraft to trim.

[fppilot 4,367]

8 minutes ago, BusheFlyer said:

Can speak as a former owner of a real C172, I almost never used the autopilot in all the years I owned it.  When I did briefly use it it was just the basics like following a heading bug. I certainly wouldn't ever use VS mode on an aircraft like a cessna, it flies low and slow in mostly bumpy air, with a mixture control, VS mode would just be asking the aircraft to constantly trim chase. It is an easy aircraft to trim.

Understand. How was your 172 equipped?  My ride along experience  in recent years has been in C310's and Barons, with a couple of stints in a 337.

[BusheFlyer 87]

Well mine was a Cessna 172H from I believe 1974 (if memory serves me right), it really had very few panel upgrades aside from a c mode transponder and KTX radios, it had an RNAV unit. The autopilot unit was not much more than a wing leveller with basic features like altitude hold and could follow a VOR. The ASI was also in MPH. 

The nice things about it was it had the super smooth 6cyl continental as opposed to the much more common 4cyl lycoming. It also had 40degree flaps, which were both good and bad.. 40degrees could drop you into some tight fields. The problem with them, and why they removed them, was you simply could not climb or in many cases even hold altitude with them all the way down. So an unexpected go-around could catch you out if not careful.

It was a solid touring aircraft, and was decent for IFR, just a bit on the slow side.

[snglecoil 1,828]

47 minutes ago, BusheFlyer said:

Well mine was a Cessna 172H from I believe 1974

The H model was manufactured in 1967, last of the Continental O-300 hawks. If yours was a 1974, it would have been the M model. I think the M model was one of the first to have the standard 6 pack layout. Before that, I really think the designers just threw instruments against the panel and wherever they hit is where they stuck them 🤪 Yeah, way too much info, I know. I’ve been shopping for a M model or later all year...but somebody keeps jacking the prices way up!

[JustanotherPilot 221]

50 hours on Cessna 172, no problems at all - a nice aircraft to engage the autopilot and do some cross country flying.

[BusheFlyer 87]

10 hours ago, snglecoil said:

The H model was manufactured in 1967, last of the Continental O-300 hawks. If yours was a 1974, it would have been the M model. I think the M model was one of the first to have the standard 6 pack layout. Before that, I really think the designers just threw instruments against the panel and wherever they hit is where they stuck them 🤪 Yeah, way too much info, I know. I’ve been shopping for a M model or later all year...but somebody keeps jacking the prices way up!

Yeah I am a bit hazy on the date of it's manufacture, was many years ago that I owned it. It was definitely a H model. The O-300 was lovely sounding although a bit underpowered in a 172, not vastly so, just you had to think of it as a 3+1 aircraft rather than a true 4 seater. Anyway, many happy memories in that old girl. 

[Ixoye 1,821]

I fly both versions of 172 all the time, I have no issues with them at all, with or without AP.

[garydpoole 183]

I'm finding that I need a severe amount of rudder to counter, I'm assuming, the prop torque on both takeoff and landing.

Having never flown a 172 irl, could anyone confirm that it does require a lot of rudder in these situations, or do I need to tweak my rudder settings some more ?

Regards

[FlyingInACessna 656]

18 minutes ago, garydpoole said:

I'm finding that I need a severe amount of rudder to counter, I'm assuming, the prop torque on both takeoff and landing.

Having never flown a 172 irl, could anyone confirm that it does require a lot of rudder in these situations, or do I need to tweak my rudder settings some more ?

Regards

It’s hard to gauge honestly. I would say the rudder needed in the sim on the ground is a bit extreme, but it also seems like it could be more the fault of the pedals that I’m using. IRL on takeoff roll the rudder is mushy and easy to push, and it doesn’t really spring back like rudder pedals for a sim do. So you would probably add a little right rudder to steer straight on the ground, but it’s less noticeable than on sim because there’s less resistance. That’s my take at least.