Realistic 172?

[Walter]

Does anybody know of a very realistic Cessna 172? I think it'll help me with my flight lessons.

Thank you,

Walter

[Cirrus N210MS]

Try The One from Carenado Its Great

[Walter]

Thanks! I had been looking on their page, but I missed the "next" button, so I didn't see the 172.

Thank you!

[Naki]

or wait for A2As or Realair's 172

[Chunk]

or wait for A2As or Realair's 172

+1

I like Carenado's stuff, but they don't hold a candle to A2A or RealAir.

[RyanJames170]

+1

I like Carenado's stuff, but they don't hold a candle to A2A or RealAir.

there newer stuff dose but there older stuff like before the 185 dosent anymore... but personly i would wait on the A2A bird or the Real Air one

[bstolle]

Due to numerous requests, I'll make a brand new FDE for the default and the Carenado 172 based on my Carenado CT182T.
Don't expect a 100% perfect 172, but at least she will handle and 'feel' more realistic than the default one.
Should be ready within the next few days.

[Dimus]

That sounds great Bernt!

Could that FDE be adjusted to apply to the Carenado 172 too?

[Daube]

Due to numerous requests, I'll make a brand new FDE for the default and the Carenado 172 based on my Carenado CT182T.
Don't expect a 100% perfect 172, but at least she will handle and 'feel' more realistic than the default one.
Should be ready within the next few days.

That sounds cool. With your FDE and the actual damage mod, the default C172 might become quite a nice addon

[Firekitten]

I'd agree that some of carenado's older birds don't hold up anymore... but I wouldn't ever include the 185 in that bracket... its one of the older ones that really holds its own still.

Mind you, less said about their pipers the better... Still need to finish the new Arrow to go with the 235 and saratoga.

[Chunk]

Well Bernt's FDE will make the default and Carenado 172's MUCH better. Thanks!

I have the 185, and also enjoy the Bonanza/V-Tail as well. For the price, they are fantastic, but I'd still rather have an A2A or RealAir model.

As an aside, all I've flown in the past three weeks has been the Baytower RV-7.

[pilottj]

Agreed with the above, wait for the RealAir or A2A 172. The Carenado 172 will be greatly improved with Bernt's FDE update. However the nightlighting in it is waaaaay to bright. They could have just used the default pink lighting which would have been much more realistic. The bright white dome light is the light you turn on AFTER the night flight to find all the pencils and things you dropped on the floor during the flight.

As far as Carenado's early works, I still like the Archer II...certianly as an alternative to the 172. I don't know that the FDE in it is 100% realistic, but it is a very stable hand flyer...with decent night lighting. The Archer II is great for working on basic IFR. I didn't like the 185's flight model before Bernt fixed it. After adding his FDE, the 185 was very enjoyable.

With all that said tho, agree with Chunk...can't go wrong with the RV-7. It does everything right.

To the original poster. Unless you are just going to use FSX for proceedure training and memorizing checklists, I would highly discourage using FSX for working on private pilot lessons. Do not learn bad habits picked up on a 2D screen when your head should be looking outside and building good habits in a 3D peripheral world. Good peripheral vision is very important, as well as your butt being in the airplane seat, 'feeling' slips and skids as they relate to your control inputs. Unlearning bad habits from FSX will cost you more $$$ in the long run. If you decide to go for your instrument ticket, then by all means, use FSX. It is an excellent training tool for IFR flight.

Cheers
TJ

PS...Chunk...how about those GIANTS

[Chunk]

PS...Chunk...how about those GIANTS

I'm pretty stoked about Timmy's start last night!

I've only got a couple hours of flight training so far, but I'm in total agreement with TJ. There is no replacement for the "feel" of the airplane. FSX is a sim, but it can only simulate so much.

Back on topic, I don't have the Carenado 172, and I don't use the default planes at all anymore, but I think I'll end up with both the A2A and RealAir versions. I truly believe they'll model two totally different types of planes.

[fsafranek]

No one mentioned it but there is also 1958 Cessna 172 by SimFlight3D. It is an older model with the square tail but it matches within a year one a friend owns they we go up in once in a while. The panel was modeled after a specific aircraft though. And it has wheel panels. But that's the only drawback I've found.
:ernae:

[Walter]

To the original poster. Unless you are just going to use FSX for proceedure training and memorizing checklists, I would highly discourage using FSX for working on private pilot lessons. Do not learn bad habits picked up on a 2D screen when your head should be looking outside and building good habits in a 3D peripheral world. Good peripheral vision is very important, as well as your butt being in the airplane seat, 'feeling' slips and skids as they relate to your control inputs. Unlearning bad habits from FSX will cost you more $$$ in the long run. If you decide to go for your instrument ticket, then by all means, use FSX. It is an excellent training tool for IFR flight.

I'm only going to use it for checklist memorization and maybe try to see if it'll help me taxi better... I tend to stay to the side of the line. Thank you all for your suggestions. Now I have to decide which I should go for. :salute:

Many thanks!

Walter

[pilottj]

My instructor always said, put that line between your legs and you will be on the centerline Your brain wants to put it where you think the center of the plane is, which will put you off to the side.


Cheers
TJ

[ryanbatc]

It will be good for the flows and checklist/memorization stuff. Try not to focus on the instruments so much when doing VFR maneuvers in FSX. Think more about the relationship of the horizon to your cowl, and the wings to the horizon...

[Walter]

My next flight is Saturday, so I will use this advice then! Thank you! I felt accomplished last flight because I had to straddle a chunk of metal that was in the way. The last time I ran it over because I was getting tired after landing 4 times and I accidentally taxied too fast. We were practicing working in the pattern and performing full stop landings. That gets tiring after an hour! (I'm excited because I didn't crash).

Thank you for your advice!

[flaminghotsauce]

Flight simming is not good for VFR, I agree. But when you start working on your VOR, ADF, etc, and cross-country flying, it's most excellent. I was completely NOOB when I went into flight lessons, so I bought MS flight sim 2000 PRO which came with the printed book. I learned about radio navigation and did the approaches before I ever started flight training. It wasn't really a detriment to my VFR flying. It took only one reminder to look out the windows, and I was good.

When the flight sim was really REALLY good was when I was practicing for my Instrument checkride. I flew every approach in FS2004 at the airport I was testing at, and every nearby airport in case we went over that way. I did hard IFR, hard IFR with big winds, Hard IFR with big wind partial panel, and basically WORE IT OUT. When I got to the airport to do my actual check ride, I was so overprepared it was dead simple. It felt like just another flight. Easier than my first driving license.

[beana51]

I like the REALAIR C-172SP...I use it in both FS9 and FSX.With a repaint it looks good!..I like it because you can "SLIP" it ..it does this maneuver with a greater degree of accurately than most....this I feel is more realistically in practicing X-WIND landings on the Sim.

[flyingip]

FS is not really good to fly VFR using only landmarks, because they are pretty hard to see. I usually fly my routes I plotted on my charts in FSX before I use them in real life, it is really useful to practice tracking and timing and wind corrections Believe it or not but I've never been in a C172 though! It's a good thing I can fly a realistic one in FSX soon ... However I wished there were some more realistic Piper Cherokee 180's available too

[Dimus]

My instructor always said, put that line between your legs and you will be on the centerline Your brain wants to put it where you think the center of the plane is, which will put you off to the side.


Cheers
TJ

Mine was telling me to put the line between two certain identical parts of a man's anatomy...

Don't know what he said to female students...

[Chunk]

... However I wished there were some more realistic Piper Cherokee 180's available too

You're in luck then. A2A is making an Accu-Sim Cherokee along with their 172.

[aeronca1]

You're in luck then. A2A is making an Accu-Sim Cherokee along with their 172.

Hmmm, time to start polishing up the credit card again!

[Victory103]

Wow, really didn't think the stock C172 was that popular! 100% about using FS for "chair" flying prior to any checkride and especially instruments. Agree about VFR flight, but you can still go over the PTS maneuvers in the sim, just don't pay attention to the flight dynamics. As a renter (for now) with access to a 172P and PA-28 Warrior, it's hard to come back to the sim and and expect anything remotely on par. I did use the sim when first learning the Garmin 430, the freeware mod helped with finding some pages.