Best C172 for FSX?

[Hawk777th 0]

I am a real world pilot and wondered what the best FSX 172 was? The stock one is a joke performance wise. Just wouldn't mind having a good one for FSX. I have tim in S,P,N,Q (yes the gutless cutlass lol). Any help would be appreciated!

[Guest comma]

Hi,Might help, I someday had the same question and ended using the RealAir free Cessna 172 air file in combination with default FSX 172 model.http://www.realairsimulations.com/list_box.php?page=downloads∼=fs9&product=c172&fileType=allfiltered&submit=GoJust replace the air file from RealAir in the default C172.I don't care about the visual and VC (i use Project Magenta external gauges) but i do think the default one are pretty cool and the only problem remain the air file. Plus framerate is top notch.As a stundent pilot i tried Carenado C150 and all i can say is that it is well rendered visually but almost unflyable (really to sensible on every manoeuver), the above combination gives much smoother results.Have funComma

[AlphaInfinity 13]

Can this air file be used in FSX?

[ryanbatc 12,821]

Either that or Metzger's fde update (he's done a lot of payware, Dreamfleet, Digital Aviation, etc):http://www.metzgergva.de/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=39〈=en

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

I am a real world pilot and wondered what the best FSX 172 was? The stock one is a joke performance wise. Just wouldn't mind having a good one for FSX. I have tim in S,P,N,Q (yes the gutless cutlass lol). Any help would be appreciated!

If you are looking for realism, I would also replace the gauges by the Reality XP FLT set.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

The RealAir C172 flight-model is better, in some ways, than the default C172 (you need to replace the air-file AND the 'aircraft.cfg' file ).. but overall, the default C172 is a pretty good representaion of the real-world C172 within the obvious limitations in a desktop simulator..

[pcpilot2011 0]

Hi, Might help, I someday had the same question and ended using the RealAir free Cessna 172 air file in combination with default FSX 172 model.http://www.realairsi...tered&submit=GoJust replace the air file from RealAir in the default C172. I don't care about the visual and VC (i use Project Magenta external gauges) but i do think the default one are pretty cool and the only problem remain the air file. Plus framerate is top notch. As a stundent pilot i tried Carenado C150 and all i can say is that it is well rendered visually but almost unflyable (really to sensible on every manoeuver), the above combination gives much smoother results. Have fun Comma

Hi ! I encountered your post by accident, while searching for reviews on the Flight1 Cessna 170r (payware). The behavior of the default FSX Cessna 170SP has been way too irrational (though I do not have any real flying experience, yet, to comment authoritatively) that I had been pretty dejected. I tried your suggestion with a mild level of faith at best, especially since this seemed to be configured for FS9 (per the instructions at the site). But it has been such a pleasant surprise ever since. Not only that the elevator, aileron and rudder responses are the way I (intuitively) feel they should be, even the ground steering is far more sensible now (I guess that is a side effect of the desensitization of the rudder axis). My Cessna flies beautifully now. And I cannot thank you with any number of words !!! Ravi

Can this air file be used in FSX?

Yes, absolutely ! I just tried it, and it is fantastic. See my response to the original poster. Ravi

[GHarrall 494]

Either that or Metzger's fde update (he's done a lot of payware, Dreamfleet, Digital Aviation, etc): http://www.metzgergv...emid=39〈=en

This is what I did......seems pretty good to me and I have a fair few hours on a C172.

[Kronzky 34]

Am I interpreting something incorrectly, or are pretty much all the available 172s way too slow?I tried every model I could get my hands on, and a typical speed at 8,000ft, with 75% throttle is about 90 knots (no wind). But when I look at the real life manuals the information on the very first page tells me to expect about 120 knots when cruising at that altitude, with the same throttle setting. Are ALL the configurations that far off, or what am I missing here???I also came across this discussion by RL pilots, and their experiences don't really match what I see in FSX, either.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

I'm still voting that the default C172 is really close to realistic, performance-wise. It can takeoff and climb, with a full-load almost dead-on, compared to the last N-model I flew (I have well over 2,000 hours in C172s).. which suggests a climb-prop.. and it cruises accordingly. 90KIAS at 8,000MSL is ~ 105KTAS .. and that's darn close for a fully-loaded, 180hp C172, with a climb-prop, at cruise setting. Obviously you can push it up near 115KTAS, if you aren't paying for the fuel, or engine rebuild..lol Now, I've flown a 180hp C172's, with just me, and a light fuel-load, and a cruise-prop, that could probably net 125KTAS at 8,000MSL if you pushed it.

[Chock 17,769]

Agreed, I think you can do a lot worse than the default FSX Cessna. If I was that bothered about having a really good one, I'd be tempted to use a Caranado model for the visuals, stick some reality XP stuff in it, and use the default FSX flight model for it. Most of the stock FSX aircraft are not that great, but the FS Cessnas have usually been alright, certainly good enough for bashing out circuits in a reasonably realistic manner, even without any tweaks. I don't think you'd gain that much of value in tarting around with it, as it is never going to be like the one you've flown in real life, because like every other real life aircraft, they all fly a little differently even when they are the 'same' model, unless you get two brand new ones to compare, otherwise, some trim easily, others don't and make you think a wing is bent, some are sluggish, others aren't, some creak and squeak and vibrate, some don't; fly a few of the same plane and you find they are often a little bit different in those kind of ways. Al

[Kronzky 34]

90KIAS at 8,000MSL is ~ 105KTAS .. and that's darn close for a fully-loaded, 180hp C172, with a climb-prop, at cruise setting.

I guess I should've made it clear in my post - but I was talking about KTAS (as do the manuals).So... I'm seeing about 90 KTAS in FSX where, according to the manual (and RL reports) I should be seeing over 120.

Obviously you can push it up near 115KTAS, if you aren't paying for the fuel, or engine rebuild..lol Now, I've flown a 180hp C172's, with just me, and a light fuel-load, and a cruise-prop, that could probably net 125KTAS at 8,000MSL if you pushed it.

But the point is - these speeds are supposed to be reachable at *cruising* power, i.e. 75% throttle. I have a digital gauge that tells me the exact throttle setting, and I'm using a Saitek TPM panel, so my test setup is pretty steady and accurate, but I'm not getting even close to the values I'm supposed to reach.I tried the FSX model, the RealAir, the Metzger and the FlightOne, and none of them come close.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

OK.. I did some research and testing. I can't remember the last time I had a C172 higher than 6000msl, so obviously I never sim a C172 at 8,000msl. I loaded it with 2 occupants, and full fuel.. climbed to 8,000. The climb performance was outstanding - which again suggests a climb-prop (whether or not MS intended that) - as does the cruise speed. Note, that power settings do not equate to throttle position.... 75% power for an IO-360 @ 8,000ft (pressure altitude, standard day), requires full throttle.. and the attatched screen-shot shows exactly what I'd expect... except that RPMs seem a bit low... especially for a climb-prop... IRL you might not be able to get 75%, as RPMs might exceed red-line (good time to point out the advantages of a constant-speed prop) I've done enough normally aspirated model creation (C177RG / C310 / Bonanza P35), for FSX, and FDE editing, to know that simple tweaks don't exist.. but I did it anyway. I changed just the fixed blade-pitch from 20, to 25 (simulating replacing the climb-prop with a cruise-prop). The results at low altitude were predictable, but at 8000ft, all it really did was lower RPMs even more, and reduce airspeed... an obvious flaw in the MSF flight-model, as cruise speed should have gone up a bit. Now.. you could do something like tweak the prop-thrust to get higher cruise speed.. but that would make it climb unrealistically well.. There are prob some tables to manipulate via an airfile editor.. but you're still looking at give-n-take realism... Tweaks to induced/parasitic drag can work too - as I had to do with my models, to find a realistic compromise twixt climb and cruise performance.. Again though.. bottom line.. the screen-shot is just what I'd expect to see, if I climbed into a C172 today, and took it up to 8,000msl with a heavy load. Close enough to not lose sleep over, anyway.. :)

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

We use the the Real Air SImulations 172 for basic training on our club PC trainer. It works well in FSX and has an accurate flight model with spinning and side-slipping programmed as well http://www.realairsimulations.com/list_box.php?page=downloads

[Kronzky 34]

Note, that power settings do not equate to throttle position.... 75% power for an IO-360 @ 8,000ft (pressure altitude, standard day), requires full throttle..

So... if 75% power requires 100% throttle, then how do I ever get 100% power?That sure is confusing - and sounds more like marketing logic... ;)But it does clear up things a bit (probably the first time ever for me that something confusing made something clear!) I searched through the manuals I got once more for an explanation of that discrepancy between throttle position and power output, but couldn't really find it mentioned anywhere. They all seem to use power and throttle interchangeable.Here's one quote from a 182T manual (one of the few I have that allow searching and cutting/pasting):"Horsepower Rating and Engine Speed: 235 rated BHP at 32 in.hg. and 2400 RPM" (which would let me to believe that this is the maximum)and then, a bit later:"At full throttle, the turbocharger has the capability of maintaining the maximum continuous manifold pressure of 32 in.hg. to 20,000 feet[...]"So now I would assume further that full throttle would give me those maximum HP.But you're saying this isn't necessarily so?