For all those who are new to flight simulation in general and have Microsoft FSX, here is the Cessna 152 add on available for free at:
http://www.fsinsider.com/news/Pages/FreeGiftfromFSInsider.aspx

It was posted in the FSX board too. Not sure why. It's been out quite a while. Should be added to the FSX aircraft list though....

I find this 152 particularly sensitive to control inputs. I'm not sure that it's at all realistic as I've not flown a 152 in real life. I have flown a 172, and I find the "feel" of the FSX 172 is quite good. I'm not big on editing aircraft (maybe the designers wanted it to feel this way?), but I think this one needs some configuration work.

I suppose if one gets good at smooth control in the twitchy 152, it would be real easy to fly a 172.

The reason I started this thread is, 152 is a good plane to start off before getting on the 172. I remember starting off the very first flying lesson on FSX with a small plane..not sure what it is ..it has 1 seat..anyways after this there was no 152 in between before going to 172 etc..and flying the 172 for the first time is hard for beginners. Yes the 152 is somewhat sensitive but still easier to handle than the 172 for people who start the flight-sim. Will post this in the download section too.

olderndirt wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 9:39pm:


Pilots who I have spoken to, speak with much affection for the Cessna 150 fitted with the Rolls Royce Continental Engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_O-200

They claim it is assembled with greater care then its Lycoming equivalent, leading to reliability?

The Rolls Royce Continental O-200engine fitted to a C150 can always be recognised by the small Union Flag placed on the Engine Side Cowling......!

Our local Aero Club has a few visitors C150/152's converted to Tail Draggers....and very smart they look too!... ...!

Paul.

I have no opinion on the 150/152, because I can't  FIT  into one.. 

Now.. a Piper Tomahawk is a similar airplane, as far as weight, power and a trainer designation goes. Plus it accomodates 6+ footers easily    And the bubble-like cockpit/canopy makes for much better visibility.

They are extremely fun to fly, and demand a little more discipline, on the part of a student pilot ..

I miss flying the old 1973 150 I learned to fly in.  It had the 40 degree flap setting.  With 40 degrees of flaps, it was like you were just hanging in the wind, plus you could turn short final high and perform very steep power off landings.

beaky wrote on Oct 29^th, 2009 at 12:18am:

I realise that I must be wrong as the Cessna trainers are popular with flying clubs & schools all over the world. This would obviously depend on one's own experience. I've been interested in training since starting my first job with the flying club in 1960. The basic trainers in common use at the time were mainly ex-RAF types, the Tiger Moth & Miles Magister being most popular. The DHC Chipmunk was in service with the RAF from 1946 until 1996. These are all tandem cockpit taildraggers & not a high-winger among them. Things have changed a bit with civil flying training since then but the RAF still uses low-wing basic trainers today.

I've always believed that a good trainer is easy to fly but difficult to fly well. That's the reason for the Tiger Moth being regarded by many as the finest basic trainer ever built.

I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental. The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240-A piston engine of 130 hp which is more powerful than the 100 hp Continental O-200-A fitted to US-built aircraft.