Flight1 Skyhawk 172R

[Guest moonkey]

To the people who have this aircraft do you think the $24.95 price is reasonable? It seems a bit on the high side for a single engine training aircraft [when you can get a twin turboprop for the same price] so is it otherwise recommended for the overall quality and flight model? How does it rate with the free RealAir download?Thanks for any views on this.Ryan

[Guest davidvoogd]

Personally I absolutely love this plane. I blows the default and real air FD's away IMO. The panel is perfectly clear and easy to read, the avionics are far better looking than the default FS Radios and they function just like their real world counterparts, the external model is far better, and overall it's a great plane.I enjoy flying low and slow though, so it may not be for those who prefer to fly the jets. As far as compared to other payware, I think it is worth it, there are very few who's flight model is as realistic as the Flight1 172R is.It really comes down to how much you would use it. I use it a lot, especially lately. I don't mind going slow, I just fly shorter hops instead (1-2 hours). The part I enjoy is that I can fly the aircraft without it being on autopilot, whereas with a 737 though I can fly it by hand, I can't fly it very well.So basically if you use the default 172 quite a bit, I think it is worth getting, but if you used the default 172 and kept thinking you were going waaaay too slow, then take some more time to consider it. Either way it's an outstanding product in my opinion.

[Sonar5 3]

You said:" blows the default and real air FD's away IMO"General Statements like yours are somewhat confusing, IMHO, without a direct comparison. Do you have any actual data to support your statement. I have been using the Real Air 172 Aircraft for quite some time and find the flight dynamics are very well done, and the Air File for the Real Air 172 is Top Notch too, IMHO.So perhaps you can create a scenario I can fly in the Real Air, because my experience is that it performs very much like the real one I fly.Care to elaborate?I agree the default is junk, but as I am concerned also about frame rates, I am of the opinion that the Real Air 172 is very accurate. And also you said:"and they function just like their real world counterparts"What part of the Real Air does not function like the real world counterparts, where the payware one does? Please be specific.After all this time, I have yet to see a compelling reason other than graphically it may appear to look more appealing. But I say for Freeware, the Real Air is heads above the default, and would serve very well as a replacement for the default 172.The Real Air 172 is Freeware and is in the library here:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...04ac&DLID=37254And a New Mainpanel is available as well here:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...4pan&DLID=60581Regards,Joe

[JimmiG 244]

The default with the RealAir mods flies well - some prefer the Flight1 flight dynamics others prefer RealAir but their quite similar.The default C172 quickly becomes boring though because it looks like shite. The Fligh1 C172 looks much better and comes with much better sounds as well. If you value eye candy and panel and VC accuracy the Flight1 offering is definitely worth it. It's right up there with other GA addons in the same price range like the Aerosoft Katana and RealAir Scout.

[crvm 0]

They are both nice but you get a nicer complete package from flight 1. Just look at their panel, the VC is good enough to never even use the 2D. It's a wonderful plane and I recommend it and yes it is well worth the price tag, trust me you won't be disapointed.[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]

[Guest Alphahawk3]

I just bought this plane. I am not an expert but the 172R by Flight1 is a quality product. There was a problem though. The panel, which looked great, had no MKR lights. In my mail to them they first said they had no problems with that and then another post telling me they left the old panel in the download and sent me the config specs to plug in. I now have MKR lights but in the VC the audio panel does not look right. It is far better than the FS9 default 172. I will buy from Flight1 again but I think if the product is missing something one should not have to go messing around in the config files. I just downloaded the Real Air after reading this post so I can compare. I know one thing. A guy can go broke with all the payware addons one would like to have.

[jrhoads 6]

>I just bought this plane. I am not an expert but the 172R by>Flight1 is a quality product. There was a problem though. The>panel, which looked great, had no MKR lights. In my mail to>them they first said they had no problems with that and then>another post telling me they left the old panel in the>download and sent me the config specs to plug in. I now have>MKR lights but in the VC the audio panel does not look right.>It is far better than the FS9 default 172. I will buy from>Flight1 again but I think if the product is missing something>one should not have to go messing around in the config files.>I just downloaded the Real Air after reading this post so I>can compare. I know one thing. A guy can go broke with all the>payware addons one would like to have.I need to clarify this from our position.You are referring to an alternate audio panel. There was an alternate audio panel that had marker lights on it that was developed prior in the gauge pack but was not intended for the delivery in the F1 172 package. It was left in by mistake. I simply referred you to this as an "option" and as a courtesy to allow you to achieve what you wanted. Nothing was missing from our standpoint and as per your last post; we assumed you had it working in both the VC and the 2D panel. The great thing is that by mistakenly leaving it in the gauge pack, you are able to have an option, but it was not a supported or intended item. I hope that makes sense. :-) P.S. The Real Air air file and repaint pack for the default 172 is a splendid upgrade for the default. We in no way are trying to or consider the RA set as a competition to what we or they are doing.Best Regards,Jim Rhoads

[Guest Alphahawk3]

Mr. Rhoads, I hope you did not think I was bad mouthing your product. I am not. It is a great product. In a couple of the reviews I saw, they had a different audio panel than the one that came with my package. I just assumed that is what I would get. I am learning fast about simming. I assume many people like to add and or remove certian items from a plane, and yes what you said makes perfect sense. In time I will probably do the same. Thank you for great product support. I wish I had the same support for some other things I purchased elsewhere.

[Rudi 0]

I can't seem to spin the F1 172.

[jrhoads 6]

>Mr. Rhoads,> I hope you did not think I was bad mouthing your product. I>am not. No problem. I didnt think so, just trying to clarify it.But thanks for your concern. If there is anything else I can do to assist you don't hesitate to ask and thank you for the vote of confidence.Best,Jim

[Guest Sabadin]

>I can't seem to spin the F1 172.Did you set it to the spinnable FM in the config tool?And as an aside for others asking about the F1 172R, as I've stated in other threads it is the only FS9 172 I've ever been able to fly stable at 50 KIAS. Any other 172 FM I've tried normally gives out around 55-60 KIAS

[Sonar5 3]

>>I can't seem to spin the F1 172.>>Did you set it to the spinnable FM in the config tool?>>And as an aside for others asking about the F1 172R, as I've>stated in other threads it is the only FS9 172 I've ever been>able to fly stable at 50 KIAS. Any other 172 FM I've tried>normally gives out around 55-60 KIASWell, I suspect operator error on your part then, IMHO ;-)I can fly the Real Air 172 Stable at as low as 48-49 right above stall with no flaps. You may want to consider it may be you and not the flight model that cannot fly it stable at 50.I'll be happy to demonstrate this on multiplayer for you as well if you like, or I can make a small video demonstrating it.I have 170 lb Pilot, and 50.2% fuel in each Tank. No problem at all, with flaps even lower, which matches the numbers pretty close IMHO.Here is a Shot of the Real Air, NO STALL, flying stable. Like I said, come on Bush Net and I will be happy to demonstrate it for you as well. Now if you run the aircraft with Full weight, baggage and fuel, I suspect you will not only stall higher but be outside the CG Envelope as well. Of course, you've considered that huh?Regards,JoeStable RealAir 172, slightly above stall with NO FLAPS..http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/105570.jpgJOIN The AVSIM RTW RACE FLIGHT TEAM****************Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

[Sonar5 3]

Hi, Sabadin,I made a video demonstrating that yes the RealAir 172 can fly at 50 knots, no flaps, without stalling. Add some flaps, and go lower if you want. You will notice that as the aircraft approaches stall, you will hear the horn intermittantly without the aircraft actually stalling. Can't get any more real than that, IMHO. Also, If you drop to 47-48 in this configuration, it will stall, it will start a spin, and you can add some power, and recover just like I do when I practice real stalls.I uploaded a video to my site demonstrating me in the Real Air doing what you asked. I hope this ends your quest. ;-)To Download, Please Right Click File, and save it to your computer. It's about 5.6 mb in size and runs about 1 minute, 4 seconds in length. Enjoy. :-)http://aboutpolitics.net/screenshots/realair.wmvThe panel in the Video is the new one I linked to above. 2D panel, plus a couple extra things like Radar Altimeter and Winds readout. Everything else including the Air File is RealAir. Also, it is probably the most boring video you will see. ;-)Regards,JoeJOIN The AVSIM RTW RACE FLIGHT TEAM****************Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

[Guest moonkey]

Thanks everyone for their views, still making my mind up on this one.Ryan

[Guest Sabadin]

>>Well, I suspect operator error on your part then, IMHO ;-)>>I can fly the Real Air 172 Stable at as low as 48-49 right>above stall with no flaps. You may want to consider it may be>you and not the flight model that cannot fly it stable at 50.>JoeWell I don't think I've ever tried it at quite the same configuration as you, may just be my joystick settings as well. I normally test it with one pilot at 130lb, 10lb baggage, and full tanks on takeoff. Pretty much the same thing I've used in a real 172S and those things went down to 50KIAS without so much as a peep from the horn.Also noticed in your video that you were sinking at around 200 FPM the entire time, whereas you should be able to maintain altitude through even a gentle turn at that speed.