Is the Cessna real?

[jrpilot]

Hello, being that I have no real hours in the actually Cessna 172, but as of next yr. I will be getting 200+ hours in one,I thought I would ask is the aircraft "real", when doing an approach the aircraft sems to float in the wind and actually when ther is a gust of wind go in a flip motion but of course not actually flipping.

Thanks

[Moach]

they say it's as "real as it gets"....

but i woldn't rely on it being all that close to the real thing, FS  is a great tool for learners of flight because it gives you the opportunity of being familiarized with the flight controls and instruments before ever setting foot in a real plane

the drawback is:
FS doesn't really simulate flight, it uses a bunch of mathematical mambo-jumbo to calculate variables such as lift, drag, speed, wind, etc...
but it doents simulate the flow of air trough the surfaces of the aircraft, so in a way, it's not really flying

FS also does not calculate micro-weather variations such as turbulence caused by trees and terrain, or bubbles of accending hot air, FS turbulence seems to be random thrashing of the aircraft in areas where it's set to happen

i'm not sure how the FS cessna compares to it's real-life counterpart, but it must be at least close enough to give some notion of how it behaves but not to be taken as 100% accurate


FS is not all perfect, but it gives you a good advantage when you get your hands on the real stuff (at least in thoery)

c ya

Moach

[beefhole]

Yes, a gust will knock you around and make ya baloon.  It is entirely possible to fly sideways in this aircraft (I've done so).  As for the flipping, you're very careful in gusty conditions.  You limit all your banks to 20 degrees, and you only use 20 flaps on approach (you also increase the approach speed).

[TacitBlue]

I havnt flown a cessna since I was very young, and I dont think that counts as I dont remember anything about how the plane handled. That said, I think the RealAir Simulations Cessna 172 is much better than the one that comes with the sim. http://www.realairsimulations.com/ click on MSFS aircraft, and youll find it at the bottom of the page.

PS. its not your average 3rd party aircraft install. But it comes with very clear directions.

[jknight8907]

IMO, it isn't real close. Of course the last time I flew a Cessna it was "right at max gross", so that's not a great indicator. The RealAir Cessna is much much better as far as flight dynamics.

[Brett_Henderson]

All things considered (I mean, after all, this is a less than $100 simulator) it's pretty darn close. I've got 350+ hours flying light singles.. prob 250 of it in 172s of one variation or another. If I'm not mistaken.. the FS9 172 is supposed to be along the lines of a 172P, 180hp, fuel injected (our club has one), but it performs, climbs and cruises much more like a 172N 160hp.. especially when you pull the throttle back to 1500rpm setting up an approach. On approach is where the realism falls apart. On a standard 1000agl pattern you cannot go past 10 degrees of flaps (in the sim) without having to add power on final. In a real 172 you can pull to 1500rpm on downwind, abeam the numbers and HAVE to add full flaps (depending on wind of course) by the time you're on short final. Other than that.. it's close to "As real as it gets".. for

[beaky]

Ditto about the RealAir 172... still not quite the same as some of the older, carbeurated, much-used 172s I've flown in real life, but better than the default FS9 example. Best things about it, for me,are:  that I can actually trim it out properly, and it will slip (and release from a slip) much more like the real thing.
Back to jr's original query: A C172 weighs less than a ton, and its power-to-weight ratio also makes it a little vulnerable to changing air. But it's also more maneuverable than a big, powerful airplane, which helps. Get used to it in the sim, and you should be better prepared for the feeling of making an approach in a C172!!
 ;D

[Brett_Henderson]

OK.. I just tried the Realair 172. It's the best modification for realism I've come across yet. As advertised (and mentioned here) the slip is right on and so are the other performance characteristics.

If you plan to train in a 172 (get pedals and a yoke).. this add-on is a MUST !

Five laps around a pattern and a short, cross-country flight and it was quite realistic. All aspects: rotate, climb, trim, cruise, descent (power-off and cruise), approach, ground-effect alignment (slipping) in a crosswind. Hats off to the guys at Realair

[beaky]

Cool, innit?
It's about as hard to spin as the real thing, but very realistic in MCA.
even sounds better- esp. the slipstream and the creaking and rattling while on the ground.
all it needs now is a decent repaint!!

[TacitBlue]

I found that the default and default AI repaints work on it. Just have to do some .cfg editing to get them to work.

[beaky]

I found that the default and default AI repaints work on it. Just have to do some .cfg editing to get them to work.

That's very good news. I hate purple.

[commoner]

[img]URL[/img]

Cool, innit?
It's about as hard to spin as the real thing, but very realistic in MCA.
even sounds better- esp. the slipstream and the creaking and rattling while on the ground.
all it needs now is a decent repaint!!

LOL...yes.........I put my favourite beat up rusty old Avalon skin on it......matches the creaks and rattles eh?..........commoner

[Fozzer]

I would be very surprised that a first-time, trainee GA pilot would be using a Cessna 172... ...!
Most trainer aeroplanes are Cessna 150's or 152's.
Much easier to handle with the centre of gravity being in the right place....the Cessna 172 is a different animal altogether... ...!

Try downloading a good '150/'152 from the various Sim sites...!
They are lots of fun, safe, stable, secure, and make excellent trainers with simple radio navigation... ...!

Paul.

[beefhole]

150/152 is too damn small.  I'm cramped enough in the 172-and I don't have good orginisation in cramped spaces (has been a problem on cross-countries).

[Brett_Henderson]

I can't even fit in a 152 and I'm only 6'3" ...

I've flown quite a bit in a Piper Tomamhawk, but geez, any gust factor at all with 1/2 tanks and you're a leaf in the wind and you have to fly the bearings out of the engine to cruise anything near 100kias.

I think the C172 or PA-28 are ideal trainers because you'll never fly anywhere with anybody in a 152 or Tomahawk.  You can't even top off the tanks with you and an instructor (unless you both weigh 150 or less) in them without going over gross take-off weight.