Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 91

Thread: Default Aircraft Flight Characteristics: Cessna 172 (FSX & SP)

  1. Default Default Aircraft Flight Characteristics: Cessna 172 (FSX & SP)

    Hello All:

    I'm starting this thread because I really want to focus on what's genuinely important to me: The Flight Characteristics of Default Aircraft in both FSX and X-Plane 10 and why it matters to me. There is already a discussion going on about which looks more pretty. I don't mind pretty. However, my first priority is the accuracy in normative characteristic behavior of the aircraft and making a final decision about which flight simulator will give me the best alternative to "real" aircraft flight characteristics.

    I'm trying desperately to understand why the default Cessna 172 in FSX flies so poorly relative to the default Cessna 172 in X-Plane 10, which does seem to fly significantly better. Can anyone help me with that question?

    I know how real aircraft are supposed to "feel." More importantly, I'm familiar with real Flight Control System Dynamics, Augmentation and Boosting. I understand the difference between hydraulic and pneumatic based flight control systems and the difference between mechanical and fly-by-wire. What I don't understand is why I have so much difficulty maintaining "realistic" control over the default FSX C-172 and have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in maintaining control over the default X-Plane 10 C-172?

    I am currently evaluating both flight simulator platforms to see which one I will ultimately stick with. That will determine where my money goes in terms of purchasing aircraft models and other types of add-ons. The main things I care about up front are making sure I decide on the flight simulator that offers the best (most accurate):

    1) Flight Dynamics & Characteristics
    2) Airport Navaids & Navadata
    3) Aircraft Model Offerings with Accurate Avionics, Systems & Instruments
    4) Integration with PilotEdge and/or VATSIM
    5) Integration with TrackIR 5
    6) Overall Instrument Procedures Simulation
    7) G1000, or Prodigy Flight Deck 300 Simulation
    8) Seneca or Duchess or Cessna 340/421/441, and King Air C90 or Super 200, and Phenom 300 Aircraft Models

    As a distant number #9, I will deal with Scenery, Weather, Airports (look & feel) after I get the flight simulator platform, live ATC, aircraft models and airport navaids working properly and meeting my needs consistently. I don't need eye right away and I'm willing to sacrifice it for now, for these other more important requirements.

    Right now, I've only recently installed both simulator platforms: FSX Deluxe and X-Plane 10 Global. I've taken flights around my home base in both default C-172 aircraft. I am temporarily using the track-ball of my Logitec TrackMan mouse, as the Yoke and all other aircraft controls go through my keyboard (for now). I will eventually be using a Saitek Yoke, Rudder Pedals and a TPM for singles and a Throttle Quadrant for twins. But, for now, I'm controlling the aircraft with the track-ball of my mouse.

    X-Plane 10's default Cessna 172 is fairly well controlled using the track-ball. The aircraft's stability and dynamic behavior does a pretty good job of mimicking the C-172 that I'm familiar with and remember flying in the real world. The FSX default Cessna 172 on the other hand, is all over the sky. It has too long a period of lag in its initial aileron response and the increase in responsiveness relative to the distance of travel in the cursor using the track-ball, seems linearly incorrect. You are constantly "behind the roll-rate" with the FSX default C-172.

    I can execute a fairly good coordinated turn throughout 60-degrees of bank and the necessary up-elevator input required to keep the nose on the horizon for a level turn seems just about right for a C-172. One very key observation is the returning of the flight controls back to neutral after initiating a turn requiring more than 30-degrees of bank or so. When returning the Yoke back to neutral in the X-Plane 10 default C-172, the roll rate stops and stabilizes pretty much where it should. Not so, in the FSX default C-172. That aircraft has a nasty tendency to keep rolling and requires moving the Yoke to a more than neutral opposing aileron position just to halt the roll. This is how I end up always fighting the lagging roll in the FSX default C-172 and ending up behind the aircraft in most cases. This also makes landing the aircraft on any kind of short final, on a turn from a relatively close base leg.

    I'm not here to shoot down FSX, but I do need to make a decision based primarily on which flight simulator will give me the closest thing to "real" (for what its worth - we are talking about a computer, not a real airplane) world aircraft behavior. Right now, according to my evaluation and based on my computer equipment, X-Plane 10 is proving to be the better of the two in this category.

    If anyone has any ideas on how to tighten-up and stabilize the characteristics of the default FSX Cessna 172, I'd really like to hear about HOW to get it done. Do I have to move up to third-party Aircraft Models in FSX, just to get better flight characteristics? Is is just the default aircraft that have the lessor flight dynamics quality? Is it fair to make a final decision about which flight simulator I will use, bases solely upon the flight characteristics of the default aircraft models?

    I'll deal with bells and whistles later. Right now, I need the most true to form flight modeling that I can get from these two platforms, FSX and X-Plane 10. How do I go about doing that exactly? There is a very significant difference between both base model C-172 aircraft and the way they respond to control inputs while flying through the same airspace.

    Thanks a bunch!
    Windows 7 | 6 GB RAM | Dell Inspiron 620 | 64bit | Intel Dual Core i3 3.30GHz
    Intel HD Graphics | 2.08 GB VRAM | 27" LG LCD | 1920 X 1080 | 32bit Color
    Flight Sim: FSX Deluxe SP2 | Live ATC Sim: None (Currently evaluating PilotEdge & VATSIM)

  2. #2

    Default

    Lots of options, none which will be relevant until you can relate them to the specific controls.

    The 172 has alternative flight models available and there are replacement 172's but the issue may also be one of an accumulation of small things which may include system setup, world physics and weather.

    I have the almost diametrically opposed opinion. For me, on my system, X-Plane aircraft flight physics are ludicrous. Gave up and stuck with FSX/P3D

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    5,306

    Default

    What I don't understand is why I have so much difficulty maintaining "realistic" control over the default FSX C-172 and have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in maintaining control over the default X-Plane 10 C-172?
    In a nutshell, the flight model for the default FS C-172 was poorly developed. If someone knowledgeable changed the .air file and aircraft.cfg file, they could get the default 172 to fly well, but it's a difficult thing to do. FS flight models are table based, and there are only a few people around who know enough about it to get things right -- even then, it's many, many hours of work (sometimes into the hundreds of hours).

    As mentioned above, there are add-on C-172s you can get that are much better.

    Larry N.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    1,240

    Default Default Aircraft Flight Characteristics: Cessna 172 (FSX & SP)

    I believe A2A and RealAir are working on a C172... Both developers are known for their flight models - personally - I'll probably be buying one of the two...

    Regards,
    Scott
    1982 Beech Sundowner
    The Real Tin Mouse
    The Office

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmallJet View Post
    I'm trying desperately to understand why the default Cessna 172 in FSX flies so poorly relative to the default Cessna 172 in X-Plane 10, which does seem to fly significantly better. Can anyone help me with that question?
    You can do a lot for the default C-172, however, the real answer to your question is that X-Plane uses a completely different 'engine' to model flight behavior.

    Despite what you can do with FS flight dynamics, the limitations of the basic subLOGIC flight engine can never make the plane as 'good' as the X-Plane version.
    Hello Dave

    @ PawPaw's house - near KADS, Addison, Texas, USA

  6. Default

    This is a premature evaluation.. you can't evaluate control effectiveness/realism, until you're using the your appropriate contol hardware..and have calibrated it (sensitivity, null-zones, etc).

    That aside, for what its worth.. I've seem similar differences twixt two, real, C172s (same model), as I've "seen" between X-Plane and FSX, C172s. Point being; both FSX and X-Plane present wonderful simulations of the realtionships between: power/pitch/roll/yaw.. as "seen" by the virtual-pilot; both out the 2D windows, and on the instrument panel. As noted.. you'll find as big a difference in "personality" between two real-world C172s, as you will between the FSX/X-plane versions.

    SO..... get that yoke/pedal setup tuned and working.. then start comparing the simulators and models (add-ons especially).. And don't confuse easier, with more realistic. Considering the built-in limitations of a desk-top simulator.. even the default FSX C172 aint bad at all.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vancouver Island B.C.
    Posts
    1,314

    Default

    Stability can be adjusted in the [flight_tuning] section of the aircraft.cfg file. As you can see I've changed the pitch, roll, and yaw stability. I've commented out // the original settings in case I want to revert to default.
    Bruce

    [flight_tuning]
    cruise_lift_scalar = 1.0
    parasite_drag_scalar = 1.0
    induced_drag_scalar = 1.0
    elevator_effectiveness = 1.0
    aileron_effectiveness = 1.0
    rudder_effectiveness = 1.0
    pitch_stability = 2.0// 1.0
    roll_stability =2.0// 1.0
    yaw_stability = 2.0//1.0
    elevator_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
    aileron_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
    rudder_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
    I5-2500k@ 4.5Ghz/ 16 GB Gskill DDR3 1600/Nvidia GTX460 1GB// CH Yoke/Pedals/Throttle/TrackIR/Win7/ Fsx Deluxe SP1 & SP2

    "Don't let fear or good judgment hold you back"

  8. Default

    Thanks for the feedback, All.

    First, my apologies for all the typos and grammatical errors - it was very late last night. Second, I'm trying my best at this point to remove myself from the Political Discussions that always tend to revolve around "My Flight Sim is Better than Yours" type meanderings. Third, I was really trying to stick to the technical details and/or technical concepts between the distinctions that I have discovered between FSX Default Aircraft Models and X-Plane Default Aircraft Models. Fourth, I know that I am not using hardware flight controls - I get that part already.

    This was a bottom-up test and evaluation that intentionally used the Mouse as the flight control input to the flight control system of the aircraft, in order to see which Flight Simulator the aircraft was most "realistic." Fifth, the word "realistic" is highly subjective. If you have never flown a real aircraft before, then you don't understand real aircraft behavior. If you have some experience with real aircraft, then you understand the tactile sensation and the feedback the aircraft gives you about its attitude with respect to the horizon. You also understand the kinesthetic sensation within your own body, as well as the kinetic reality of trying to manage the energy state of the aircraft.

    None of the kinesthetic (inner ear, muscle fiber, tendons, body and neurological response to g-loading) and kinetic (energy management of the aircraft) will ever be replicated with an at-home, desktop flight simulator. You would need at least motion based simulator and preferably a three dimensional full motion simulator with 6-degrees of freedom, to more accurately "simulate" true aircraft responsiveness. So, I get all that - I really do. But, what I'm trying to understand right now, is a little bit different.

    Questions:

    a) From reading all of your replies, it sounds as if the actual Flight Characteristics of the aircraft, don't come from the Flight Simulator itself, but from the Aircraft's Modeling Files (.air, .cfg, etc.). Is that a true statement? Because, if that is true, then the onus for aircraft behavior about its three axes (horizontal/pitch, longitudinal/roll and vertical/yaw) would rest purely within the Aircraft files itself.

    b) If that is true, then it begs the question - why do X-Plane 10 Global aircraft, tend to have a noticeably higher level of flight dynamic and fidelity in their pitch/roll/yaw, relative to the natural tendencies of the real aircraft they try to simulate?

    Again, I'm not looking for a political solution. I'm merely addressing what others have noticed before, but I'm focusing purely on technical causation and not personal preference. Hey, look. When it comes to issues of whether or not my sky looks perfect, or my weather, or do the rain drops striking the windshield remind of any low visibility approach that I've ever seen before, or does the sun setting in the West as it casts an amber colored blanket over the clouds in the East, actually look like the "real thing," I'm all for having political and personal preference type conversations. But, I am not trying to have an argument over Flight Dynamics. There is enough of that already.

    Flight Dynamics is neutral territory. There should be no Flight Dynamics wars, because it should be crystal clear. Either the aircraft behaves closer to the real thing than its competition, or it does not. I don't see any room for wars on that question.

    Mouse -vs- Physical Flight Controls:

    I get it - I really do. But, my point was this - if the aircraft flies more like the real thing using a track-ball and without having physical flight controls, then should it not be even better WITH physical flight controls? That was my theory for testing these two flight simulator default aircraft models. I figured - Hey, if it does a better job of simulating actual aircraft behavior with a track-ball, then I can make a fairly common sense judgment about how much better it will be once the physical flight controls are installed. Was that not a fair/plausible assumption to make?

    If you are telling me that the aircraft will behave less like the real thing against its competitor while using a track-ball, and then all of a sudden, its in-flight behavior will surpass that of its competition AFTER the physical flight controls are installed and "calibrated," then I would be a bit suspicious of such a claim and would want to know HOW you technically derived that conclusion (if you don't mind answering)? Because, on the surface, such a claim seems a bit backwards.

    If the "better" model works "better" with the the track-ball over its competition, then I expect that superior performance to be maintained AFTER the physical controls are set-up. Am I flat wrong about that - BEFORE I go out and spend many hundreds of dollars - maybe dipping into the low thousands of dollars?

    Heck, for $58,000.00, I can have a nice RedBird MCX 3-Axes. I won't get 6-degrees at that price, but three dimensional impulse initiators ain't too bad. How many of us dream of having something like this in our "Game Room" someday. I do. Goodbye pool table - Hello MCX! Connected to VATSIM or PilotEdge, too! Absolute, heaven on earth. But, I digress. I'm drooling a bit too much - having MCX flights of fancy dreams - wake up - wake up - wake up! Ok, I'm back. I got carried away there for a hot minute.


    Quote Originally Posted by lnuss View Post
    In a nutshell, the flight model for the default FS C-172 was poorly developed. If someone knowledgeable changed the .air file and aircraft.cfg file, they could get the default 172 to fly well, but it's a difficult thing to do. FS flight models are table based, and there are only a few people around who know enough about it to get things right -- even then, it's many, many hours of work (sometimes into the hundreds of hours).

    As mentioned above, there are add-on C-172s you can get that are much better.
    I'd love to take a crack at it, but I just don't have that kind of time available. It was my hope that these kinds of details would have been taken care of by those who produce and then sell these products. Namely, the Flight Simulator producers themselves. This was their task to nail down and should not have been a "post-sales" extracurricular process that end-users had to figure out on their own. However, I appreciate the fact that one can attempt to optimize the aircraft flight model - and I'm sure that some will have that kind of time on their hands. I sure wish I did! Thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by scottb613 View Post
    I believe A2A and RealAir are working on a C172... Both developers are known for their flight models - personally - I'll probably be buying one of the two...

    Regards,
    Scott
    I have both sites bookmarked already. In fact, I have more than 20 developer sites bookmarked already. Everything from Airports, to Scenery, to Weather, to Tools and Aircraft. If there is a developer out there with a website, I've probably already looked at it multiple times. Thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by ReggieF5421 View Post
    You can do a lot for the default C-172, however, the real answer to your question is that X-Plane uses a completely different 'engine' to model flight behavior.

    Despite what you can do with FS flight dynamics, the limitations of the basic subLOGIC flight engine can never make the plane as 'good' as the X-Plane version.
    That says a lot. Thanks!


    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Henderson View Post
    This is a premature evaluation..
    Been guilty of that before...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Henderson View Post
    I've seem similar differences twixt two, real, C172s (same model), as I've "seen" between X-Plane and FSX, C172s.
    I too have seen "differences," but not as dramatic as I've experienced between default FSX Deluxe and default X-Plane 10 Global - relative to the C-172. They are starkly different - especially in pitch and roll responsiveness and linear acceleration within those axial dimensions. Real aircraft flight control systems are design (engineered) to yield a specific control input profile in relation to control force pressure, rate of control surface acceleration, rate of control surface deflection, rate of control force deceleration, "stick force" dampening (linear/non-linear tuning), etc. etc., etc. There is an entire science behind "stick force" optimization. A lot of it depends on the aerodynamic characteristics & performance envelope of the aircraft, as well as the altitude & speed capabilities of the aircraft, including the mission, role, function and purpose behind the overall aircraft design concept (what the airplane was built to do). There is a lot that goes into what the pilot "feels" the aircraft doing after specific flight control inputs are commanded to the flight control system and what the aircraft actually does with those commands from the pilot through the flight control system.

    Folks, you can even see this with your naked eyes when you watch almost any YouTube video of an FSX aircraft and an X-Plane aircraft. There is a distinct "edginess" in the moment of inertia and the angular acceleration leading to the angular momentum of the FSX aircraft in juxtaposition to an X-Plane aircraft. There is a noticeable divergence in the Alpha about the three (3) axes when you watch an FSX aircraft being maneuvered from one of the outside the cockpit views. If watch the videos carefully, you can see what I am referencing during pitch and roll moments. The X-Plane does this with more fluidity through simulated 3-dimensional space and you can definitely notice this divergence between both aircraft, even if you don't know how to articulate in technical terms. It just does not resemble a real aircraft rotating about its three (3) control axes. The tangential acceleration about the axes in the FSX aircraft, is too "edgy" and it leap frogs from one inertial moment to the next, along the angular path.

    I'll see what I can do with the .cfg file, but this is just not what I had in mind for how I might be spending my time with the flight sim. Instead of learning the simulator software, now I have to spend time tweaking the aircraft.cfg, just to get the thing closer to "reality." Ok, so be it. I just don't have tons of time for it. I want somebody else to have already dealt with that, so I can go work on my instrument procedures/skills.

    I'm not complaining per se. I'm simply saying that this should have already been addressed by FSX and X-Plane developers. This is definitely not where the end-user belongs. One does need a background (formal or otherwise) in aeronautical engineering with an emphasis in Flight Control Systems and preferably Aerodynamics as well (for tighter integration in the aircraft development process) to really understand what needs to be done and why. Otherwise, you run the risk of displacing the aircraft's flight control system from its performance capabilities and that leads to very unrealistic flight characteristics.

    Anyway, it basically sounds like that inside this desktop computer sim world, the onus of responsibility for ALL aircraft performance, belongs to the Aircraft Modeler and not the Flight Simulator developer. Although, in the case of "default" aircraft, both the Modeler and the platform Developer are indeed....you guessed it....one and the same.

    So, basically I am SOL until I go Third-Party to get the really good stuff, if I care about better dynamics. Hmmm. I wonder if this same rule applies equally as well to Aircraft Avionics, Aircraft Systems (other that flight controls) and Aircraft Instrumentation? It probably does. Because, if the Modeler fails to get the flight dynamics working at a decent level, then why should they spend any time at all properly nailing down avionics, instruments and oh, say, the Auto Pilot!

    Geepers. I can see that getting my rig set-up "correctly" is going to be expensive, because I'm going to have to plow through all the stuff that does not work the way it is supposed to, before I get to the really good stuff. It is like searching for a good Barber you can trust. They are hard to find and when you do get a hold of one, you never want to let them go. In the meantime, you blow money filtering through all the Barbers around town who never deserved a license to cut someone's hair in the first place.

    Life is so circular, sometimes. Thanks for the help guys!
    Windows 7 | 6 GB RAM | Dell Inspiron 620 | 64bit | Intel Dual Core i3 3.30GHz
    Intel HD Graphics | 2.08 GB VRAM | 27" LG LCD | 1920 X 1080 | 32bit Color
    Flight Sim: FSX Deluxe SP2 | Live ATC Sim: None (Currently evaluating PilotEdge & VATSIM)

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abrussell View Post
    [flight_tuning]
    cruise_lift_scalar = 1.0
    parasite_drag_scalar = 1.0
    induced_drag_scalar = 1.0
    elevator_effectiveness = 1.0
    aileron_effectiveness = 1.0
    rudder_effectiveness = 1.0
    pitch_stability = 2.0// 1.0
    roll_stability =2.0// 1.0
    yaw_stability = 2.0//1.0
    elevator_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
    aileron_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
    rudder_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
    Thanks, Bruce! I will definitely go take a closer look at this.

    If by "Scalar" they mean Scalar Quantity, then cruise_lift, parasitic_drag and induced_drag, are probably all being referenced by size, which only serves to confuse me even further. For example: cruise_lift (I would think) should be represented as a Vector, not a Scalar, and therefore, can be addressed properly as Lift. Addressing "Lift" with "Size" (a Scalar Quantity Definition) is confusing. But, I did not create this model, so I have no idea what they are truly trying to control, here. Same with both parasitic and induced drag. Both are Vector Quantities and should be addressed as such.

    The numbers being used are obviously a modeled ratio of some kind, backed by an algorithm for producing its value. But, that still does not account for the use of Scalar Quantities to represent either Lift or Drag components. I'm at a lost to understand this format. It looks like pseudo code to me and not representative of true Flight Dynamics terminology/formatting.

    Anyway, I'll do what I can and thanks for bringing this file to my attention. I could more easily optimize this, if I had some kind of Moment of Inertia Monitor of sorts. An example would be something like a Roll Rate Monitor. That way, without knowing anything at all about the component of the aircraft model, you could experimentally adjust these ratios until the Monitor showed the aircraft having a "Roll Rate" that was commensurate with Cessna Aircraft Specifications for any given Cessna airplane. That would better capture the aileron dynamics. Then the same tweak method could be applied to the Elevator and Rudder, but of course those measures are not determined by the same functions, so they would need separate "Monitors" built exclusively for their specifications.

    This would just be for control surface actuation. It would not solve the full flight dynamic equation. You would then have to monitor, tweak and optimize the control surface actuation results, throughout the entire flight envelope and all speed ranges.

    This is why I say the typical end-user does not belong here - unless they really know what they are tweaking and the producers of this stuff should have worked out these details long before publishing any aircraft model (default or third-party) to the paying public. It can be done, but it takes a baseline of aeronautical knowledge (aerodynamics), coupled to a baseline of real aircraft specifications & performance data research. Only then can you know if you are getting close to the real performance characteristics in the sim. Besides, no sim is absolutely perfect for predicting the natural response to relative air-flows, for any given body in 3-dimensional space, no matter how many millions are spent developing that sim. The current generation of multi-dimensional algorithmic computational fluid mechanics however, does give us pretty darn good approximations for expected behavior and it allows engineers and designers to more accurately rule out most unwanted behavior before going into prototype production. So, we've come a long way over the decades in aeronautical design relative to what the Wright Bros. had at their disposal, but our design and simulation tools are not yet perfect.

    Anyway, we are talking about a "retail desktop flight simulator," not a commercial grade CFD simulation tool. So I will keep that fact in mind and begin to accept the limitations therein.

    Thanks again for showing me this file. I'll see what I can do.
    Windows 7 | 6 GB RAM | Dell Inspiron 620 | 64bit | Intel Dual Core i3 3.30GHz
    Intel HD Graphics | 2.08 GB VRAM | 27" LG LCD | 1920 X 1080 | 32bit Color
    Flight Sim: FSX Deluxe SP2 | Live ATC Sim: None (Currently evaluating PilotEdge & VATSIM)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Imlay City, Michigan
    Posts
    8,279

    Default

    If by "Scalar" they mean Scalar Quantity, then cruise_lift, parasitic_drag and induced_drag, are probably all being referenced by size, which only serves to confuse me even further. For example: cruise_lift (I would think) should be represented as a Vector, not a Scalar, and therefore, can be addressed properly as Lift. Addressing "Lift" with "Size" (a Scalar Quantity Definition) is confusing. But, I did not create this model, so I have no idea what they are truly trying to control, here. Same with both parasitic and induced drag. Both are Vector Quantities and should be addressed as such.
    Those are not aerodynamic coefficients. Simply a linear way to scale the entity. In those entries "1.000" equals 100% of the dynamic.
    Consider it a multiplier. 1.100 equates to 1.1 x that dynamic's curve, raising the entire curve by 10%. 0.900 lowers the curve....Don
    HAF 932 Adv, PC P&C 950w, ASUS R4E, i7-3820 5.0GHz(MCR320-XP 6 fans wet), HD 7970
    64GB Vengeance @ 1666MHz, 128GB SAMSUNG 830(Win 7 Ult x64), 512GB SAMSUNG 840 Pro(FSX P3D FS9)
    WD 1TB Black(FS98, CFS2&3, ROF, etc.), WD 2TB Black-(Storage/Backup)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2013, 01:25 PM
  2. Default Cessna 172 Lighting
    By AJT67 in forum FSX
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 09:22 PM
  3. FLIGHT 1 C-172 SP
    By beana5 in forum The Outer Marker
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-26-2005, 05:36 PM
  4. Default Cessna 172 performance
    By jshuck in forum FS2004
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-15-2004, 11:58 AM
  5. Default Cessna 172
    By eman2 in forum FS2002
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-07-2002, 05:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •