Napacon interesting question as to realism vis a vis the Cessna 172. As Peteham says, they were or are all the same but different in little ways, some were lively little beasts others complete dogs, depended on whether they were bent or dirty or the doors did not close or seal nicely etc. I flew them all C150, 172, 182, 210 (strutted and non struts), 205, 206 and 207, 310 etc. Some for a little time some lots, especially the 206. None of them had sparkling performance but they all had one thing in common, they all would float and float and float if you did not have the speed nailed and your touchdown point etc sorted. Yes the 172 would spin but it was not recommended and it was better at an incipient spin for a demo only but the C150 well it would pitch and roll into a really tight nose down attitude in a flash and spin with a pronounced nose down attitude, recovery was straight forward. I often thought it felt like there was a bit of lag in the controls for all of them with that silly tubular control column rod they all used. They were not sparkling climbers either, except when empty. The best of the lot was in my biased opinion the C182, better power basically the same cabin but a great load lifter and the first 210 with struts, solid and quick. They all would bite you if you got slow in a turn in the circuits.
As for the sim models, did not think the FSX default was particular good in the handling or performance department although basic fit out was fine. It was not that bad either but it never sat at the speeds for the various attitudes I expected it should, a little too quick etc. Have not tried the rest. It did not really feel like a 172 to me and rolled too quickly in the sim compared to the real thing. Like all high wing aeroplanes they had their good points and bad.
