What Cessna 172 Model?

[rotrhed]

I'd love to see a system to keep track of expenses. The Dodosim Bell 206 does this and it's quite interesting. Any repairs and services are monitored as well as fuel expenses and annuals. It just might be neat to get a real sense of how much owning an airplane really costs.

[thunderstreak]

I am in no way saying that A2A will not make the best GA product out there.
I'm not going to promote another brands products here, so I won't argue the point of what else is out there for FSX.

What I am saying is managing a RR Merlin or R-4360 is challenging and interesting.
Managing a Lycoming 320 is dull, there isn't much to it.
You can line it up on the end of the runway, full rich, apply full power and go.
You can leave it like that and fly the day away, and only touch the throttle again when you are ready to land.
Trust me, many a rental 172 endures this treatment regularly, the engine will last thousands of hours.
They are built to be abused.
The engine in the 172 I flew to get my license had almost 3000 hours on before it was finally overhauled.

Other than mixture and throttle, there is nothing else to do.
Fixed pitch prop, no cowl flaps, fuel valve on both till you run out

P.S. They are aerobatically challenged too!

[Ian P]

thunderstreak: The thing is that while, yes, spam cans really are boring as stink, having an accurately modelled one that you can actually break if you abuse it too much, which responds accurately, which behaves like a real aircraft, is very useful.

I know that when I did my IMC rating, I spent hours flying the NDB approach at Sleap in a C152 (I was using FS9 back then) to get it right. While FSX, P3D, X-Plane, etc. are not licensed traning aids, all that means is that you cannot enter time in them on your logbook, not that they aren't very useful tools for procedures and systems training. That's what Accu-Sim PA-28s and C172s will do. I like the B377, Mustang, Spitfire, etc because they are challenges I'll never get to operate in the real world. On the other hand I'll use an Accu-Sim PA-28 because that's what I'll actually fly in the real world. They're not doing a C152 unfortunately, because that's the vast majority of rental aircraft in the UK.

Cheers.

Ian P.

[Kilstorm]

Thunderstreak: what your saying is why I had thought about and requested (what seems has already been thought about and considered by the A2A team internally) having the ability to fly aged planes as an option. Much like what we get in RL when one learns to fly, an older plane that has seen some abuse and at any given time could have something break or stop working.

A brand new plane might be boring for reasons you pointed out and it would take a lot of flying to age a plane to really start to see many of the accusim aspect come into play. Thats why having the ability to select a new or aged one might be a great feature. I myself would go with an aged C172 and brand new Piper.

Also whie the warbirds and big tin A2A has already done make for great planes and use of the under the hood accusim, to finally be able to get a GA plane to fly at places better made for GA such as the many addon small, bush strips done by other developers is what I cant wait for. We have the Cub but thats a little slow and no where near as indepth as an A2A accusim GA plane will offer I'm willing to bet.

[CAPFlyer]

Also, I'll note that a Cessna 172, much less any other Cessna with a half-decent engine in it cannot be flown at full throttle forever and not break. The minute you get above 90 knots, you're over-revving the engine and it'll definitely be severely damaged within a matter of hours if not less due to this. Unless you're flying a plane with a constant speed prop which has a limiter on it to prevent over-revving and an automatic waste gate or something similar that limits the Manifold Pressure from going over the limit, the engines can be damaged just as easily as the Merlin or R-4360.

[seaniam81]

Also, I'll note that a Cessna 172, much less any other Cessna with a half-decent engine in it cannot be flown at full throttle forever and not break. The minute you get above 90 knots, you're over-revving the engine and it'll definitely be severely damaged within a matter of hours if not less due to this. Unless you're flying a plane with a constant speed prop which has a limiter on it to prevent over-revving and an automatic waste gate or something similar that limits the Manifold Pressure from going over the limit, the engines can be damaged just as easily as the Merlin or R-4360.

Sorry CAP but that's just wrong, the C172's I've flown cruise at 100kts, 120kts, and even one who did 140kts all while running at 75% power. Defently not over revving the engine.

[thunderstreak]

CAP, I would have to disagree.
If memory serves me correctly the tired old 172M (Lycoming O-320) I flew would motor along straight and level at around 2700 rpm full throttle.
You won't hurt it at that rpm for sure.
Used in an aerobatic aircraft the same engine would endure 3200 rpm regularly.

[seaniam81]

The 172N will also do full throttle and is rated for it too.

[pilottj]

hence the phrase 'full rental power!'

[seaniam81]

hence the phrase 'full rental power!'

yep there is that saying but then I again, I bought some block time on a 172 from a friend and his POH said max continuous was the same as having the throttle in the firewall. And the standard was climb out at full throttle and then power back to 75% for cruise.

[DHenriques_]

"You can line it up on the end of the runway, full rich, apply full power and go."

...........................not at Denver ! ))))))))))

Dudley Henriques

[CAPFlyer]

Sorry CAP but that's just wrong, the C172's I've flown cruise at 100kts, 120kts, and even one who did 140kts all while running at 75% power. Defently not over revving the engine.

75% power and firewalled throttle are not the same thing.

[ft]

75% power and firewalled throttle are not the same thing.

No, but firewalled throttle will eventually mean 75% power as you climb. Grabbed a 1981 C172P manual I had around and it shows that the crossover point where full throttle will only give you 75% is at 8000 feet on a standard day.

[CAPFlyer]

CAP, I would have to disagree.
If memory serves me correctly the tired old 172M (Lycoming O-320) I flew would motor along straight and level at around 2700 rpm full throttle.
You won't hurt it at that rpm for sure.
Used in an aerobatic aircraft the same engine would endure 3200 rpm regularly.

I think there are misconceptions again about what does and doesn't hurt an engine and how they are rated/tested.

1) 2,700 RPM is the "red line" on all C-172 models except the pre-mod C-172R's (which is 2,400 RPM). As per the type certificate, that's the limit "For all operations". I am talking about operating beyond that, which the engine will certainly do with the throttle full forward and proper mixture near sea level.

2) The O-320 in an aerobatic aircraft is *NOT* the same O-320 found in a Cessna and is *NOT* spinning the same prop. There are changes to the piston liners, rings, and crankshaft to handle the higher RPM on the aerobatic engines, not to mention a totally different carb or fuel injection system and oil system to handle aerobatic flight.

Remember, engines wear based on work load, not just on how fast they're spinning or how much Manifold Pressure they're developing. It's both. If you take 2 identical engines and put two different fixed-pitch props on them, one being bigger than the other, then run both at the same RPM, the engine spinning the larger prop will wear out faster. Why? Because it's dealing with more torque to move that prop. Similarly, if you had 2 props of the same size, but one at a higher pitch than the other, the engine with the higher pitch prop would wear out faster, again, because for the same RPM, it's working harder.

There is a reason rental airplane engines wear out well before TBO guys. There's a reason that the FAA requires rental aircraft to be on a 100 hour inspection program. They get beaten and abused and the engines are worn out much faster than on a "normal" airplane. When you run them past red line, you will hurt the engine. The further past red line, the faster you hurt it. As has been said with the other Accusim aircraft, how long it'll run before you do irreparable damage will depend on a lot of factors, but I know that the school I used to rent from was doing top-end overhauls on its C-172R & C-172S aircraft after 1,000 hours on an engine that is supposed to TBO at 2,000 hours. Cutting the engine's life in half is pretty severe damage and that wasn't from guys over-reving the engines on a frequent basis for any amount of time.

[CAPFlyer]

75% power and firewalled throttle are not the same thing.

No, but firewalled throttle will eventually mean 75% power as you climb. Grabbed a 1981 C172P manual I had around and it shows that the crossover point where full throttle will only give you 75% is at 8000 feet on a standard day.

You're cherry-picking stats to fit your argument. I didn't say "in cruise at 8000 feet, with mixture at 75% power". I said that once you get over 90 knots (and start unloading the wing) it'll over-rev the engine if you don't start pulling back. Since climb speed is 90 knots, is that not below the threshold I spoke of?

Next time you get in a Cessna 172, takeoff, climb to 3000 feet and level off and leave the mixture and power on the firewall. Watch the RPM keep right on going past 2700 RPM up into the 2900-3000 range if it's got a good engine on it.