For those of you who are real-world C172 pilots and are flying one regularly in MSFS 2024, what do you think about the flight characteristics of the sim aircraft versus the real aircraft? I'm asking because my airspeeds seem lower than expected with typical throttle settings. Specifically, in the pattern, with flaps, and at reduced RPM settings. My final approach airspeeds consistently lag lower than the targeted 65 KIAS, even with typical winds and lower fuel landing weights. Has anyone else experienced this?

I'm not sure from your description - are you a real-world 172 pilot too?

The power settings I would typically use in the pattern seem to give me the expected results. I can't recall any issues with approach speeds either. If your approach speed is low, can't you achieve the desired speed by pushing the nose down, adding power if needed, and trimming?

5 hours ago, N562Z said:

For those of you who are real-world C172 pilots and are flying one regularly in MSFS 2024, what do you think about the flight characteristics of the sim aircraft versus the real aircraft? I'm asking because my airspeeds seem lower than expected with typical throttle settings. Specifically, in the pattern, with flaps, and at reduced RPM settings. My final approach airspeeds consistently lag lower than the targeted 65 KIAS, even with typical winds and lower fuel landing weights. Has anyone else experienced this?

There are a lot of modification of 172 B/M/N/P/R/S come to mind first. "B" model outfitted with  6 cylinder continental while M/N/P/R/S with 4 cylinder Lycoming. M, N and Ps feature carburetor version Lycoming and 160HP. Starting with R model Cessna started to use fuel injector version of Lycomig but still derated to 160 hp . Finaly 172 S model proudly featured in MSFS is 180 hp . So when you ask how 172 fly typical "throttle settings" could be different 😉 slightly 

IRL we don't call "throttle setting" we don't care about throttles unless full open throttle or close (meaning full forward or idle). Instead of "throttle setting" we call for "power setting" . in 172 world it predominately RPM. gauge .

Typically in the pattern you want to be at 80kts which will be in ball park of 2000-2300 RPM depending on your engine HP and cylinder compressions - "beat up" engines likely to underperform a bit .

As you pass abeam the numbers you drop RPM to 1700-1500. If you stick with 80kts it should be enough to drop 10 degrees flaps "nose down flaps down" and turn carb heat on if you fly model P and older, while maintaining nice 500 fpm descent rate. Note if you don't manage power correctly you may have to bleed airspeed while level until Vfe so you can drop first notch of flap. This in turn can easily make standard pattern  appear to be not so standard and on final you ended much higher that anticipated.

As you reach 45 degrees from the end runway  (assuming that maintain 500 fpm and 10 degrees flaps) you should start you base turn. As wings get level you drop another notch of flaps to 20 your speed at this point should be 70-75 kts no more.

Finally when you make your last turn to final,  stabilize you descent rate and drop flaps to 30  (full) above 500 AGL. At this point you speed should be at 65 unless there us gust factor and downdraft you need slightly higher airspeed . If you lucky enough to fly M/N model that feature 40 degrees flaps stick to 30. If yank it to 40 degrees  "oppsy daisy" are quickly find out that flaps 40 designed are meant steeper shorter approaches. So if you drop them by accident you approach at 500 fpm will likely look like partial go around LOL Though out you final approach phase you should aim for number. Unless of course you flying instrument approach where target aim markers instead.

Over threshold you stat reducing power, round up and touch wheel at second centerline. If you don't cut power timely you under up floating and prerpas bouncing (porpoised landing) in this case you should go around or experince extremely shimmy front wheel with blown out seals LOL

Here is approach that works IRL as well in the sim. Since you know what numbers your should expect you have to find which power setting give desired airspeed and descent rate. Then stick to those number. As mention above some 172 engine could be extremely beat up and higher than usual power setting should be used instead. All Cessna feature rudder trim but not many some inside cockpit but majority and twistable tab on vertical fin. If you buddy pilot decided to bend it to the wrong direction or too much you up to surprised application of rudder in cruise unless  of course you prefer to fly sideway. But no worries Asobo didn't implement that LOL

Excellent post @sd_flyer🙏

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

Excellent post @sd_flyer🙏

Thank you for kind words. Owning and teaching in verity of 172 over years bring a lot of memories. I know it is far from perfect aircraft, but in my time it was most affordable reliable, and relatively easy airplane to learn to fly, that can take solid beating and stand the line. I sincerely wish if some developer like A2a would implement study level "N" variant is it stand as most affordable line training bird of my time. 

This is a silly grainy video I made 20 years ago featuring 172 N. 3WT still fly today but in different panel outfit today LOL

 

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

if some developer like A2a would implement study level "N" variant

Their version for P3D was the R model. They’ll probably bring that one forward since they have the most data for it. 

Just now, UrgentSiesta said:

Their version for P3D was the R model. They’ll probably bring that one forward since they have the most data for it. 

Yes I stand corrected. R is fun model to fly with derated 180hp to 160hp. There are some aftermarket modes that bring it back to 180hp. Those mode also available to older model

https://www.airplains.com/cessna172-180hp

Although 180hp upgrades are popular they also may presents some  maintenance issue. I just did my annual for 172P with hefty price tag around $4000 😞

46 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Yes I stand corrected. R is fun model to fly with derated 180hp to 160hp. There are some aftermarket modes that bring it back to 180hp. Those mode also available to older model

https://www.airplains.com/cessna172-180hp

Although 180hp upgrades are popular they also may presents some  maintenance issue. I just did my annual for 172P with hefty price tag around $4000 😞

😁to be clear, I wasn’t trying to correct you, but rather to clarify the specific 172 that A2A is likely to bring us. 🤙

Theres a GREAT history write up at the beginning of most A2A manuals, and it aligns perfectly with your real world experience!

Also thanks for your detailed post above - always great to hear such authoritative information. 👍

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

😁to be clear, I wasn’t trying to correct you, but rather to clarify the specific 172 that A2A is likely to bring us. 🤙

Theres a GREAT history write up at the beginning of most A2A manuals, and it aligns perfectly with your real world experience!

Also thanks for your detailed post above - always great to hear such authoritative information. 👍

No you were right A2A model was not "S" model as I stated previously ! 🙂

Here is an example how panels get upgraded over time (N model)

Before

After

Funny how they used the old gyro driven artificial horizon as a backup. I'd say it is way more likely that the backup fails before the main  unit fails. 😉

for me the C172 was always described as 'a dull & insensitive airplane for dull & insensitive pilots''- 😉- yes & I have flown them in R/L - always found the C152 was far more fun

Not sure if others would agree, but from my own experiences with flying a 172 in RL, I feel like setting the cruise power in the sim is always higher than what I’m doing in RL when I’m trying to lean it out. In the sim, I feel like I need a lot more power during cruise than what I should need.

With that said, really looking forward to th me A2A 172!

For those of you with hands on experience on the real thing, how do you find the aerodynamic characteristics modelled in the ASOBO 172? Are the prop effects acceptably modelled? Is the amount of rudder input required for instance during takeoff and high power climbs plausible?

On 4/3/2026 at 2:32 AM, N562Z said:

Has anyone else experienced this?

Yeah.

Need some addtional 100-150 RPM in order to match the performance of the 172SP I fly.

My reference: Approach in F20 @ 1450 RPM, I can easily maintain 70-74KIAS. But in the sim, airspeed is slowly bleeding off despite being far from heavily loaded.

Not a big deal, but I concur with your experience.

5 hours ago, Farlis said:

Funny how they used the old gyro driven artificial horizon as a backup. I'd say it is way more likely that the backup fails before the main  unit fails. 😉

Redundancy in IFR is really not about which system is more likely to fail . It’s about making sure primary + stand AI by don’t fail for the same reason.