What Cessna 172 Model?

[rotrhed]

I instructed off and on in a 172N and it didn't see much more wear than a private owned 172. I'd fly from Salem, or KSLE to spokane, WA just because often with full power and it never affected the plane. 172's being a training plane is built to take abuse that many other airplanes couldnt.

[thunderstreak]

Dudley, I stand corrected! Not at Denver
Here in southern Ontario most of our airports are 600 - 1200 AGL

CAP, I am quite aware of the differences in propellers, parts and pieces from a 172 with an O-320 to a Pitts with one.
And before I get a lesson on what motors came in a Pitts, there are lots of home-built (Experimental) 150 hp Pitts out there.
What I am saying is they all have the same or similar rotating assemblies.
As long as there is oil pressure, you probably aren't going to throw any parts out at 2700 rpm!

I realize the TBO is affected, but it's a rental remember, who cares about TBO!

Next thing you are going to tell me I shouldn't be revving my C-85-12 to 2900 or so just because the rated RPM is 2575!
What fun its that...........really!

[DHenriques_]

Dudley, I stand corrected! Not at Denver

)))))))
D

[CAPFlyer]

Dudley, I stand corrected! Not at Denver

)))))))
D

Hehe, got plenty of time out of Centennial. 172P, 172N, 172R, a little Archer time, and a little Katana. Made the mistake of flying the Katana in the middle of summer when there was major fire smoke. My instructor and I had to cut the flight short because we couldn't keep the oil temp down enough.

Dudley, you ever make it up into Leadville or Aspen with light aircraft? My instructor and I were never brave enough to do it in less than a C-182 (and even better in the TR-182).

[DHenriques_]

Dudley, I stand corrected! Not at Denver

)))))))
D

Hehe, got plenty of time out of Centennial. 172P, 172N, 172R, a little Archer time, and a little Katana. Made the mistake of flying the Katana in the middle of summer when there was major fire smoke. My instructor and I had to cut the flight short because we couldn't keep the oil temp down enough.

Dudley, you ever make it up into Leadville or Aspen with light aircraft? My instructor and I were never brave enough to do it in less than a C-182 (and even better in the TR-182).

Not Leadville, but in and out of high density altitude fields with a variety of light normally aspirated airplanes. No trouble really. I never liked leaning for peak during runups for various reasons but rather preferred doing it immediately after power up on the takeoff roll. Only takes a second to do.
DH

[Fedex B17Pilot]

I instructed off and on in a 172N and it didn't see much more wear than a private owned 172. I'd fly from Salem, or KSLE to spokane, WA just because often with full power and it never affected the plane. 172's being a training plane is built to take abuse that many other airplanes couldnt.

do you still instruct? i live and Spokane and am hoping to start lessons next year.

[Scott - A2A]

Yes, many flight schools have their engines run a full life and more, but I think Chris is referring to the rate of wear in an engine, in general, as power increases. It's not linear, it's an exponential curve. You sort of race towards a cliff.

You may find something like this (am just pulling these numbers off the top of my head as I don't have the actual figures we used handy atm):

% power / est hours until rebuild
55% 2000 hours
75% 1000 hours
90% 500 hours
100% 250 hours
110% 100 hours
120% 10 hours
130% 15 min
140% 2 min

This is also true with RPM. Some auto engines can have a redline of 5000rpm, yet literally come apart at 6500rpm. But as you approach that point of no return, you can get some pretty nasty metal on metal damage inside.

Scott.

[CAPFlyer]

Also, remember these engines don't run all the time at high power. You can't land at full throttle...usually. That does mitigate some of the excessive wear that is incurred by abusing the engine. When I'm talking about taking down 50% of the TBO, that means that in the meantime, there were probably cylinders replaced, a lot of spark plugs (every 10-15 hours if you're lucky), a lot of oil (every 25-30 hours), possibly a magneto (or two) and various other parts that aren't as "bulletproof" as the engine itself. We had one C-172R in Denver that never made an actual 100 hour inspection. It was down every 25 hours for maintenance and after 4, it'd completed the 100 hour because they'd already replaced and/or checked everything that needed to be done for it. It just had that one engine that was cantankerous and because it was one of the two newest, it was also one of the most used, so the two factors meant it spent a lot of time getting things replaced.

[ssdriver]

Yes there are other GA choices out there. Some of them are even visually pleasing. But the flight characteristics of available 172's are seriously lacking. I think that once the sim community get's wind A2A has put these aircraft out there w/accu-sim, it's going to bring A2A a new, even larger audience for their military aircraft. I can't wait.



Scott can ya maybe throw us a fresh teaser picture for Xmas?


Happy Holidays all,

[N602AC]

Scott can ya maybe throw us a fresh teaser picture for Xmas?

+1

sounds fair!!

[Pistonpilot]

Agreed regarding the teaser!

I'm hoping that the A2A boffins go nuts with the maintenance hanger on the GA aircraft. Make it MORE in depth than the existing WOP3 Accu-Sim aircraft!

[whiic]

I'm fairly confident that the GA planes A2A will release will be the most immersive of all GA planes modeled but the competition is still quite hard - though the already existing contestants are only a few (such as Aerosoft Katana). Of course they're not direct contests as they're different planes. Also there's the combination of AccuFeel + [pick ANY Carenado plane] which gives some baseline competition to pretty much any imaginable GA plane but that only accounts to good 3D model + feel (brought by AccuFeel)... some Carenados actually suck in flight modeling and they electrical and mechanical systems still function within limits of FSX, unlike with Accusim.

A2A's current advantage over AS Katana is by far the unique engine and prop performance modeling and the sounds... especially engine sounds as in stock FSX engine "rpm" sound is defined by power output rather than rpm but Accusim (too bad not Accufeel) manages to improve on it vastly: engine braking at fine pitch does not sound like an idle but it also does not sound like identical rpm during climb either. The sound sample is volume controlled and probably band-pass filtered to give illusion of having separate samples for high and low power at same rpm. I doubt they use several samples because crossfading between two samples would require the beat to be in absolute synch. It would also cause severe difficulties in how the engine braking sounds are recorded on the ground (to eliminate variable wind noises). OK. I won't rant or speculate about it. All I know is that sound sampling is seamless: there's no de-synched crossfades, and there's no noticeable looping, and no "clicks" (either at the time of sample loop, or within a sample). It's damn unique.

The only problem with competing (as far as you can even consider it a competition when it's an entirely different airplane) is that I'm not sure how much of that advantage is noticeable in GA. You can mistreat a GA plane and cause accelerated wear but problems are more likely to arise in hours rather than seconds. Or for less drastic misuse: in thousands of hours rather than a dozen of them. A pre-worn aircraft condition reset somewhat reduces this problem but it won't make you plane much more vulnerable to mistreating (unless you fly an additional 1000 hours after you got a 2000 hour pre-worn individual). All vastly superior modeling in engine performance and damage, and oil pressure, fuel feed (incl. primer-only start-up, rough running before running completely dry, etc.) will have much less importance as well because some GA planes are intended to be flown away without more warm-up than required for engine to run smoothly. Of course, while mistreating won't likely cause an instant disaster, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be properly ...and possibly even more extensively modeled. For example variance of EGTs between cylinders which obviously won't be available data to the pilot unless diagnosis equipment is installed. Diagnosis could be done more practically rather than getting magical condition readings in the garage. (Unless, the player chooses to "contract" a "specialist" to diagnose the problem for him/her. For warbirds the current condition readings are understandable as pilots didn't double as mechanics.)

[AdmiralV]

I work at Cessna and have been learning at their flying club where they have a small fleet of G1000 equipped 172sp's. It's great to have all the extra capability from the garmin, but I feel sometimes that gets to be a bit overwhelming. Got to enjoy some time in a gps-less 8KCAB as well during training. Not sure which 172 I would prefer, but being an A2A product I know I will love it!

[Pistonpilot]

Regarding Carenado:

I love their aircraft. I own many.

I then suddenly abruptly un-love them when I go to move the prop lever and the whole plane wobbles like it's been hit by another airplane with even the slightest of RPM changes.

Something about their flight modeling -- especially their twins -- causes this problem, and it's a real immersion breaker. You could go to town on the RPM levers in the real-world airplanes (within reason) and they wouldn't throw you through the windscreen.

-Ian

[FlameOut]

+ 1, what Pistonpilot said !