Recommend a light trainer please

[Guest TheAmbler]

Hi Can anyone recommend a very good free or pay C152/C172 or something similar. I want a decent single-engine to practice basic PPL stuff in. Ideally I want something with a flight model as good as the excellent SF260.I bought the Just Flight Flying Club C152 and wasn't impressed. Impossible to trim quickly, constantly nosing up or down. Putting flaps down doesn't lead to the nose coming up etc. The day I downloaded it I'd flown a real 152 -- so I had the experience to compare, and it didn't compare. Even I, with my little experience, didn't have to constantly retrim while flying the real thing. The Marchetti is fantastic but just a bit too fast to practice really accurate circuit flying.Any suggestions?

[zfehr 1]

I do believe Flight1 will be doing a FSX version of their excellent Cessna 152... the FS9 version wouldn't directly port over to FSX so it will be a new version. Flight1's Cessna 172R is available for FSX and will work in FS9 or FSX. You might want to give it a try, the flight dynamics are very realistic.

[Guest Xiderpunk]

Hi, can I make an observation briefly. I mostly fly a C172 in real life amoung others (AA5-A, AA5-B, DV20's, Piper Warriors) and have kind of learnt not to fly those same aeroplanes in FS.The reason is largely because I have real world experience of those aeroplanes I tend to notice all the minor differences in the FS versions, which breaks the immersion factor as such. So I tend to try and stick to airplanes I havn't flown because I am more inclined to perceive it to be more realistic.Anyway the above is my own personal findings and I am sure doesn't apply to everyone, I am probably just a fussy old ####. Geofa is one such pilot who I would like to hear his view on the above, if your reading? :-)Having said all the above, I would like to recommend the RealAir Scout/Citabria.. it's a tail dragger but is an absolute joy to fly and also will behave realistically in it's behaviour. It stalls very well and would be a good machine to run through PPL material to reinforce your real world lessons.Anyway, the very best of luck with your PPL!Regards,Chris Norris

[DunRingill 21]

Hi!I really like the default Cessna 172 in FSX, the VC is very good and the fps are great. But I never liked the default flightmodel, always felt to jumpy and twitchy, didn't feel like a trainer at all. But then I read on a forum somewhere (probably here) that you can use the air-file from the freeware RealAir Cessna 172 for FS2004. It's available here on Avsim, search for "ras172_fs9.zip". Just copy the air-file into ...SimObjectsAirplanesC172. Make a backup of the original first and then rename to Cessna172SP.air. I think it makes an enormous difference! Now it feels like a trainer and not a fighter :-). I don't know how accurate this acctually is, but to my limited experience in flying a real Cessna it feels so much better!/Magnus

[Guest JimC1702]

I agree with Chris on the RealAir Scout package. It's a lot of bang for the buck. You get the Scout, Decathlon, and Citabria, all in several liveries, and the Scout also has regular tires, tundra tires, and amphibious floats.I also have the Flight 1 C172. Between the two, they account for the majority of my FSX flying. I have several more complex planes, including biz jets and airliners, but for low and slow flying you can't beat these two.Jim

[Guest]

If the SF260 is too fast I would certainly go with the RealAir Citabria/Decathlon if I were looking for a trainer.

[Manny 1,293]

Whats wrong with the default 172?Its very good.If you are so sophisticated that you think its junk, then you should be flying something more than a 172?:)Manny

[Mountain Man 142]

>Whats wrong with the default 172?That's what I'm wondering.

[DunRingill 21]

Hi!Are you referring to my post? Well, I hardly said the def 172 was junk, did I? :-) I actually said I liked it very much. But, I feel it's to light on the controls compared to the 172 I have flown in real life. So thats why I posted my sollution to my problem (perhaps imagined). Maybe it's my control setup ( CH Yoke, pedals and saitek throttle) that needs to be tweaked. Anyway, I like it very much with the different air-file. :-)/Magnus

[Guest TheAmbler]

Thanks for some v. useful responses.I think the over-pitching/trim problem is fairly universal to FSX aircraft, partly caused by whatever controller you use (even my CH Yoke 'sticks' making small movements difficult -- and I've stuck a load of WD40 on it!)Thanks for the C172 air file suggestion, will try that.But the SF260 has something different about its feel so I suppose going for RealAir's other light aircraft is the best option -- taildraggers here we go.

[Geofa 108]

I have felt that more than half the flight model is in the controls-and you are right-the ch yoke-while great for its time gives very little realistic feel-especially in pitch. I just upgraded to the saitek pro-and my flight model got much better! :-) Also getting the go flight lgt that has a trim wheel-and whamo-even more realism.For training-I'd suggest investing in some good controls. I resisted for years and nickel and dimed myself on other fs add ins. Compared to what you will spend for your rw flying-this cost will be minimal and I know from personal experience will save you money in the long run. My setup below cost around $1000 (the biggest expense being the elite 2000 panel)-but not having to touch a mouse again, let alone gear lights, trim wheel, and hardware buttons have increased the reality/utility of the sim 10 fold. And yes-even the default c172 suddenly feels much more real! $1000 sounds like a lot-until you start counting up all your fs add ins that only cost $30 each. I'll still nickel and dime there-but this hardware investment will last me longer than this version of fs, my computer system-and has made just as big an improvement.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/181806.jpg

[Geofa 108]

It just shows how we all use the sim in different ways. I tend to fly only planes I have flown for real in the sim. Yes I get irritated at minor differences-and crusade to fix them (in fs2002 thanks to Jean Luc above we created my plane at the time-a Beech Debonair in about 98% exactness-now I am crusading for a B55 Baron!). I find though my imagination can usually fill in the holes-but if I take up a plane I am not familiar with then I feel like I am gaming rather than simming. I have the Level D/md-80 but have yet to really fly them-too much learning and button pushing so far for me.I agree with the Real Air series-the Marchetti has some of the most realistic flying and smoothest gauges which make it a great trainer-I use it often for practicing instrument approaches for this reason.In twins so far I am partial to the Eaglesoft Commanche-for the same reasons.I am also eagerly awaiting Dreamfleet's future fsx releases!...and of course your product goes a huge way in improving the immersion factor! :-)http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[DunRingill 21]

Nice setup! Is the Saitek yoke prepared for mounting underneath the table straight from the box or have you modified anything?/Magnus

[Geofa 108]

There are 6 screws in the top of the unit. I simply removed them-then got the same a little longer so I could mount it underneath the table-much less rickety imho and the right height for a yoke this way.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[DunRingill 21]

Ok, thanks! It would fit perfect underneath my table. And that radiostack would fit perfect on my table :-)!/Magnus