47 minutes ago, jcomm said:

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?

Here is interesting question! When I bought my 172 I was already instructor, so I thought I have a solid knowledge about airplanes and systems. Boy was I wrong! LOL 

Everyone who flown my  newly purchased airplane was complemented my 172 for a great climb characteristics. They said "No 172 we ever flown climb so great! I thought it must be great design of my 172 P model (silly me)?!

Later  I found out that my airplane was retrofitted with climb prop (when I purchased it). While climb prop is great for clearing obstacle it easily can absolute curse in cruise. Many people would who flew my airplane  were constantly "overreving" RPM. Meaning it pushing it to 2700 - a red zone. It short time I start seeing metal in oil samples during oil change, and became suspicious about what is going on.

During engine overhaul a mechanic pull me aside and notified me that I have climb prop and that most likely why he sees signs of stress on the engine. He recommended to change prop since primary goal of my 172 ownership was to teach in it. 

So my choices were  to stick to climb prop or switch to cruise prop. Obviously first choice would call for experience pilot who appreciate climb and handle cruise with care. This is not the case for student pilot. Cruise prop sounded good but it would demise the great climb my 172 was known for. So I decided to go half half - half cruise and half climb. In this case mechanic need to adjust pitch on my existing prop.

The problem with my existing prop that it was already tempered with and there is no way to readjust it unless I can get another propeller. Fortunately 172 fleet has tons of spare parts, and shortly I found one used propeller that can be bent to my liking. So ever since my prop is half cruise and half climb - kind of trade off between great climb and cruise. But in any case I  was protected from hight rpm jumps.

 

Sorry for a long story now back to your question. While my 172 was outfitted with climb prop it required little more rudder in climb. So I had to manually adjust rudder trim tab (as I mentioned in prior posts) because for some people it was too excessive. Normal 172 would require some right rudder but not much. WhenI  I first got beta Asobo 2020 version I really liked how they modeled 172 . 2024 version made it even better. In 2024 version  I can use same taxi techniques like I do IRL, like bring controls aft to make swift turn or go over hump (in order to unload front strut). I can roll in chandelles and perform lazy eight just like I would do IRL. That is very impressive. Some stall/slow flight characteristic little bit off, but that it's in par with real aircraft as well.

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

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?

IMO P-factor is barely noticeable in the default 172 (and other default single pistons) I don’t know, maybe it’s my settings?

It has been 3 years since I touched a 172, but having instructed in various models, it seems that the approach profile at flaps 20 in the sim is more similar to flaps 30 in the real plane, but again it’s been a while. Close enough for government work.

 

6 hours ago, Rattso said:

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

152 are great but two big guys with full tanks and we are over max gross. Also cross country could be a pain . I really like 150 aerobat, I practiced a lot of spins in that LOL

On 4/4/2026 at 4:36 PM, jcomm said:

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?

I would echo @snglecoil's comments.

I just did a takeoff with calm wind. I actually needed a bit of left rudder to stay straight on the runway. In reality, you would need a significant amount of right rudder.

After takeoff, I climbed at Vx. I was actually able to take my feet off the rudder pedals, and the "ball" (slip indicator on the G1000) remained centered. This is definitely not realistic. You would need a lot of right rudder in such a low-speed, high-power climb.

So, unfortunately, the left-turning tendencies are not well modeled in the 172.

Edited April 6Apr 6 by weaklink

Excellent contributions so far guys! 

Thank you!

I have never flown prop aircraft IRL as a certified pilot, although I did handfly a TMG, a Robin 400 and a Rallye Commodore as well as a C152, and was able to notice, inflight, the turning tendencies, specially at higher power and AoA, like during glider tug services, requiring right foot to coordinate and level wings.

I do notice prop effects in MSFS 2024, but just like in the latest versions of Xp12 they're too "faint", throttled, ...

The Baron 58 and the C90 in the present version of Xp12 and the default Kingair and Baron58 in MSFS 2024 suffer from an even stranger ( to me ) effect that manifests as a right rolling tendency. That one is really puzzling for me.

Pick the default Baron 58 and even worst the default Kingair 350 in MSFS 2024 Standard Edition and start climbing at higher power settings, or even cruise at, say, 6000 ft. You'll notice the model starts to bank right, which is counter intuitive being the props both rotatin CW as seen from the cockpit.

I was asking to those of you who fly or have flown prop aircraft, with non-counter rotating props like some trainers, just to find out if for instance you ever noticed such an effect on a real twin or single, and it wasn't due to fuel imbalance or improper rigging ?

Edited April 6Apr 6 by jcomm

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

 

Pick the default Baron 58 and even worst the default Kingair 350 in MSFS 2024 Standard Edition and start climbing at higher power settings, or even cruise at, say, 6000 ft. You'll notice the model starts to bank right, which is counter intuitive being the props both rotatin CW as seen from the cockpit.

 

I noticed that too with some  aircraft including BS Baron. This is not right and I couldn't get explanation from developers either.  

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

I noticed that too with some  aircraft including BS Baron. This is not right and I couldn't get explanation from developers either.  

I'm on that same boat regarding props, ans particularly twin props in X-Plane 12, since at least December 2024...

LR has fine tuned it, but it's not 100% solved yet...

Thank you for your feedback @sd_flyer🙏

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Excellent contributions so far guys! 

Thank you!

I have never flown prop aircraft IRL as a certified pilot, although I did handfly a TMG, a Robin 400 and a Rallye Commodore as well as a C152, and was able to notice, inflight, the turning tendencies, specially at higher power and AoA, like during glider tug services, requiring right foot to coordinate and level wings.

I do notice prop effects in MSFS 2024, but just like in the latest versions of Xp12 they're too "faint", throttled, ...

The Baron 58 and the C90 in the present version of Xp12 and the default Kingair and Baron58 in MSFS 2024 suffer from an even stranger ( to me ) effect that manifests as a right rolling tendency. That one is really puzzling for me.

Pick the default Baron 58 and even worst the default Kingair 350 in MSFS 2024 Standard Edition and start climbing at higher power settings, or even cruise at, say, 6000 ft. You'll notice the model starts to bank right, which is counter intuitive being the props both rotatin CW as seen from the cockpit.

I was asking to those of you who fly or have flown prop aircraft, with non-counter rotating props like some trainers, just to find out if for instance you ever noticed such an effect on a real twin or single, and it wasn't due to fuel imbalance or improper rigging ?

I’m gonna add both the A2A Comanche and Aerostar into the mix here. 

I just got the Aerostar yesterday, and it requires almost zero rudder /steering during take off. 

I thought it was due to counter rotating engines, but it seems like the 600 was commonly fitted with same rotation engines. 

Same concern with the Comanche: little, if any, rudder necessary. 

It’s also remarkable in that the A2A’s don’t use MSFS aerodynamics…