Flight1 Skyhawk 172R

[Sonar5 3]

I wasn't trying that hard, but I can produce such a video if you think it really matters. But hey, if you are going to list paramaters, maybe you should have listed them when you made those questionable comments.Pretty easy to drum up configurations after the fact. ;-)Note the horn activates BEFORE a stall, not when one is occurring. It is a warning to take action before it stalls, and it does go off when it should.And if you think a horn not going off at 49 or 48 before the 172 stalls like mine shows is not a good thing, then I don't know what else to say.And the sink rate is not relevant, for if I added a little power, and kept it at 0 vsi, it would still perform stable at 50. Also, The horn did NOT go off at 50, it went off at 49 in certain attitudes, and 48, not 50.Also keep in mind that different model numbers, with different weights, etc, will stall at different points for the CG.SO if you want a video at 50 in a gentle turn, I will make one, but it will do it, and you have yet to produce any evidence to support your point of view.I read another post of yours from way back when where you complained about 50 with full flaps.You said in that one:From:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=search"One thing I have to give F1 great credit for though, this is the FIRST 172 FM for MSFS I've ever gotten to go below 50 KIAS with full flaps and around 1900 RPM without stalling. Still has a tendency to stall out around 40 KIAS, which is a little high, but I can live with that."So I guarantee you I can do that all day long with full flaps, turns climbs descents, at 50 etc...And one more thing about the stall horn, Cessna states in my POH, for the 1975 172, that the "stall warning horn which sounds between 5 and 10 MPH ABOVE the stall in all configurations" (you can do the math to convert to knots if you like)In other words, I am glad & happy to hear that horn, and in my Video, it is doing what it is supposed to do. ;-)Maybe I'll do one with full flaps, and do some turns, climbs, an descents at 50, but I'm kind of busy right now.Maybe you can show us how it's done. ;-)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 lamont]

I find this thread very interesting and would like a bit of feedback on one issue. I find that with the Flight 1 cessna, if I load real world weights (i.e. 220 lbs for me and 105 lbs for my wife along with 75 lbs of baggage, mostly hers) the a/c continuously pulls to the left. Now this may be in fact a real world fact but it requires a lot of concentration and effort to keep her on a straight line. I would guess that if available you would apply some airleron trim to counteract this but it's not.My question is this how it really works and if so to what degree?

[Guest Sabadin]

>And if you think a horn not going off at 49 or 48 before the>172 stalls like mine shows is not a good thing, then I don't>know what else to say. Nope, if you read carefully I commented on the fact that if I heard the stall horn kicking in at 50 with the power up around 2000 RPM I'd be fairly concerned as that is quite on the high side to be hearing that>Maybe you can show us how it's done. ;-) Firstly, having had a chance to test drive both with my new X-45 I can say this, the MS Sidewinder Precision Pro 2 is a peice of junk from a precision standpoint lol. Now with the X-45 I can get the Real Air down to about 45 before she stalls out on me, but on the flip side I can now get the F1 172 down to 37, so it still wins out there ;). Big issue with both of them, at those speeds you get nothing from the horn, 1-2 KIAS below those speeds and your going straight into a spin. Secondly, while I'm not sure how my initial comments came across I felt your comments towards me were fairly condescending in the way you went after my piloting skills before considering it may have been a configuration issue.

[Manny 1,293]

I like flight1 and almost all their aircrafts... I buy F1 products without thinking.. they are that good.But I have some issues with the F1's Cessna 172R.It is very eyecandy good. But I do not think its flight dynamics... is really great Because I fly the real 172S so much..that I am expecting far more. The biggest annoyance for me are 1. The Trim. There is something wrong with it but they don't want to even admit its messed up. 2. The attitude indicator does not line up properly with the artifical plane in the cage. You have to adjust it to the max every time you take it out. and even then ...its not right.Its a simple aircraft with no sophesticated avionics... so I expect more from it. I fly the Dreamfleets Archer.. now..thats something.BTW.. if they had a Bendix King GPS on it... then all these issues I pointed out may have been overlooked. ;)

[ejoiner 21]

I enjoy this airplane a lot. I fly it, and my DF C177 as my default Cessna single engine birds for GA. My only complain however is the view out the side windows. I think its too high a view point. In most Cessnas I've flown in, and in several of the models in FS, you can see the underside of the wing from the inside. (Real life and virtual). In this airplane, you see the top of the door and below, not the wing underside. If you "lower the seat" you can get the proper view, but that raises the panel perspective up too high. Minor irritant, but doesnt look correct to me IMHO.Eric

[JimmiG 244]

I agree about the trim. It's extremely sensetive making it very hard to make fine adjustments and making it necessary to use the autopilot to fly straight and level.Visiblity isn't great (which is why my favorite 'slow VFR' type aircraft is still the Aerosoft Katana, can't believe how many missed that one) but if you have the Carenado C210 you'll find that visiblity of the Flight1 offering is not so bad when compared to that :-lol

[Guest JimC1702]

Eric, did you download the update for the 172 from Flight 1? It changes the 2D view so you see the underside of the wings, almost identical to the DF 177.Jim

[ejoiner 21]

Jim, thanks. I didnt know this patch was available...downloading now!Eric

[Guest havoc69]

After being a hard core user of the Flight1 Cessna 172R and hearing about the RealAir Cessna 172, I couldn't help to give the RealAir a chance. These are just my views / opinions:=======================================================================Flight1 Cessna 172R:- Stall speed around 45 - 48 knots (ideal). - Easy to maintain slow flight.- Easily spins in stalls - when you don't want it too, or don't try to spin.- Trim is absolutely too sensitive- Great model, great panel and flies really nice- Feels kind of "Heavy" for a Cessna. The controls have a slightly delayed input as noticed by myself and a few other pilots that come fly my simulator regularly.- Still no keys in the ignition! (I got bashed up pretty bad on Flight1 forums for mentioning this).=======================================================================RealAir Cessna 172SP:- Will not spin out of controll on stalls- Has a tendency to get "behind the power curve" on power on stalls. What I mean by this is when your enter into a power on stall, and the plane starts to break, when you push the nose over and shove the power all the way up, then pull back you won't gain any altitude at all. The plane is in an uncontrollable sink and the only thing you can do to break it is nose dive towards the earth the pull up once you break that stall. I find this interesting, and I'm not sure if I like it too much :) I did about 10 stalls and every time, I noticed this behavior.- Stalls at 55 knots! Yes, I adjusted the pilot and co-pilot weights. I removed the passengers and the baggage. Total crew weight was around 380 pounds: (190 for each pilot).- Forget about slow flight, unless you want to do it at 60 - 65 knots.- Very responsive to control inputs - which I definately like.- Environmental sounds are interesting. As you start increasing speed you can definately hear the wind noises and they change with airspeed. I had to turn down my environmental sound level because it was too overpowering.- Lands very nice.- Max RPM is around 2200 RPM? I even calibrated my throttles to be sure. - Can practially fly sideways in the sideslip, a little too much if you ask me! However, airspeed and altitude bleed of rather quickly as that is the desired effect of the sideslip.- Overall very very nicely done - regardless if it's freeware or payware. I'd pay for this one.- Much better on framerates than Flight1 - Less eye candy.- I like the sounds in this aircraft more than the Flight 1. I may have to copy them over to the Flight 1 sounds directory. When you land in this thing, it really lets you know how hard you hit by the sound of the gear impacting the runway and the struts bouncing.=======================================================================Now, like I said, these are just my opinions on test flying them. Remember, you're comparing a Cessna 172 R model to an SP model, so there's going to be a slight bit of difference, but I don't think the stall characteristics and flight dynamics themselves change much between the two. I fly both in real life, while I prefer the 172R for the hourly cost difference ($15 less per hour), the 172SP is not much different, just slightly faster and newer avionics in some of them.Overall, both aircraft are great additions to my hangar. Flight1 is doing a good job at keeping on top of their 172R, even though they admitted it was originally a training application ported into Flight Simulator and some things will never change with it. They did a good job in the 1.2 patch which fixed a few really annoying things such as looking left and right and seeing a door frame instead of what you really needed to see.Just my $0.02

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

Interesting posts. I have both the Flight 1 and RealAir models of the 172. I hardly fly the Flight1 model now - much prefer the more accurate and balanced flight dynamics of the free RealAir model.The Flight1 aircraft looks great but I wouldn't normally pay just for eye-candy.Adamwww.simreview.co.ukWin XP - ARIA 3200PCPrescott 3.20 GHz - 2GB RAMAsus ATi Radeon X800 Pro TD 256MB19" CRT 1600x1200 @ 100hzAudiophile 24/96 AudioCurrently Testing: Wings Of Power - B17

[RobertRent 17]

Excuse me if this is a really stupid question but:Is it possible to merge the components of the Flight1 172 and the RealAir 172 into a composite aircraft who's total is greater than the sum of its parts?In particular, can the Flight1 172 be made to side slip by using parts from the RealAir 172? How would one do that?Thanks,Robert

[Guest av84fun]

<>You might want to check your trim settings/sensitivities. I just flew the default 172 at 1,000 msl out of Seatac at 45 kts indicated.To say it was "stable" sort of overstates the issue for ANY skyhawk. I owned a 1980 172N for a few years and slowflight is always "interesting" in such a light machine, especially with any sort of chop which is standard in the Chicago area. The mushy controls and the need to stand on the right rudder also mitigate against "stable."But to fly a 172 that close to the bottom of the white arc (which is 33 kias) is unrealistic because ANY momentary shift in the headwind component will stall the wings.Even to get it to maintain around 40+ kias requires a significant nose up attitude...probably 20 degrees+ if memory serves which makes you FEEL like you are doing a tail stand. VERY uncomfortable. "Stable"? Not in my book!In the default I was able to dance along at 45 kias with full flaps (of course) full up trim and between 2000-2100 RPM.But as in the RW, whenever you want to get that close to the edge of the envelope, you MUST proceed there SLOWLY or you are just going to overshoot target attitude/airspeed and stall out.Regards,Jim

[robert young 2,900]

HI Jim,I concur. There's no need for aggro in these comparisons. Our 172 was made a long time ago and does not attempt to be anything other than an alternative to the default. I'm sure the Flight 1 Cessna is excellent, as most of your output is.Kind Regards,Rob Youngwww.realairsimulations.com

[jrhoads 6]

>HI Jim,>>I concur. There's no need for aggro in these comparisons. Our>172 was made a long time ago and does not attempt to be>anything other than an alternative to the default. I'm sure>the Flight 1 Cessna is excellent, as most of your output is.>>Kind Regards,>>Rob Young>>www.realairsimulations.comI agree. And your products are excellent as well. Best,Jim Rhoads

[windycloud 30]

I own quite a few Flight1 products including the 172. They are all excellent products. The 172 is one of the best GA in the market. Both 2D & 3D cockpits look just great. A few things I don't like when it flies:1. Engine runs up above 1200 rpm and the plane would not start rolling.2. On final approach, when I cut power it loses airspeed rapidly even if I dive the nose down. The "rounding off and floating down the runway before touch down" is harder to achieve than the real thing. (I have about 100 hours of logged time in 172s and 152s).3. The spinable model is too "spinable" and the stable model is too stable. None performs well on stalls IMHO. The stable model is better. The flight1 152 stalls much better I think.But really, anyone who cares to fly GA in FS should definitely get this plane. It's a great product.Jason Zhang