>uh - sorry, no it doesn't fully make up, Larry. It may be>more stable than most low-wing aircraft because of the>"pendulum" effect, but compared to the number of high-wing>aircraft that have 2, 3, 4 degrees of dihedral - this aircraft>displays marked roll "neutrality". (I'll pull back somewhat>with "instability"!) >The early Cessna 170's didn't have any dihedral. The Cessna 152 has one degree. The Cessna 210 had it's wing redesigned with "less" dihedral.The Do-27 certainly doesn't spring back to level. It's very slow at it, and has a "heavy" feel to the controls. I read that it IS suppose to be heavy in feel. I can't say exactly what it suppose to do response wise, if I should move the stick side to side. I've never flown one.L.Adamson

>I guess we have to do some more digging. I must confess I>look for it's stall/spin characteristics, how well it>slow-flies, and then how well it slips on approaches - when I>"break in" a new kite. You've raised some interesting>questions about an interesting aeroplane. If this is you're criteria, then you're in for big dissapointments! :)The MAJORITY of simulated aircraft don't spin or slip well. They're not to good in slow flight either. And their softfield takeoff abilities stink! :7 While we might want to put every simulated plane through the ringer for spins, just how many "real" aircraft would you go around trying to spin? The FBO, insurance companies, and perhaps even the manufacturer wouldn't be to happy about it! :)And by the same token, how many aircraft do you see "slipping" into the local airport? Having lived under the pattern for eight years, I see very few!As I've said, these flight characteristics are out of the normal everyday use of the majority of these airplanes. Programming slips and spins, really is a specialty and has been so for several years. And worse than that, this specialty programming has been destroyed with the last two MSFS releases, and has required quite a re-write in flight dynamics.If I desire the best in slips and spins, I know where to get them. And I do have them. But I don't expect every simulated aircraft to have these characteristics. Nor should they, as it isn't an important part of what the model is about. L.Adamson

Please do not take my criticisms on the flight model as disliking this aircraft. I just wish it shined in that category as well. I have plenty of real world time (close to 2000hrs and counting) in other aircraft (some STOL aircraft included). I am a big fan of the no flaps slip to ground option in certain situations, and I just wish this neat aircraft could simulated a few things better.

>Please do not take my criticisms on the flight model as>disliking this aircraft. I just wish it shined in that>category as well. I have plenty of real world time (close to>2000hrs and counting) in other aircraft (some STOL aircraft>included). I am a big fan of the no flaps slip to ground>option in certain situations, and I just wish this neat>aircraft could simulated a few things better.>He, he .... And I've had my many "spins" both upright and inverted in the Pitt's. My STOL experience is the Maule, but have always wanted an Aviat Husky. Other than that, I own a two-place Van's RV6A 180 Lyc C/S prop, two axis A/P, which is getting slowly painted at the moment. And I do regularly slip my simulated Marchetti SF260 in many times, because it really is, my favorite simulated GA airplane. And it does "slips" very well! :)L.Adamsonedit: No "e" in Husky. Took it out..

Sweet! Did you build the RV? I have only flown in an RV8, and that was for a single flight. Very fun stuff indeed. Nimble bugger.

yes

You have way more patience and skill than I will ever have! I know what kind of process that is, so congratulations to you. Have fun with it.