C185 Bush for FS9

[kiwiflyer45 123]

HiI am enjoying the C185 Bush but have some issues, one of them major. I flew C185's on floats and wheels for nine years in the SouthWest Fiordland area of New Zealand so have some real-world experience...1. The floatplane model is outstanding. Within the limits of FS it is just about as real as it gets. Well done! But a minor quibble with both the ski and tundra tire versions - the amount of torque when going to full power and also when raising the tail to the take-off position is fairly considerable in the real thing but barely perceptible in your FS version. In the real world you really need to work the rudders when going to full power with the tail down and when you push the wheel forward to raise the nose. 2. Minor quibble number two. :( I am a short guy (5'6") but even for me it feels like the pilot's forward view (POV?) is too low. It is certainly true that the 185, like all taildraggers, has poor forward vision with the tail down, but I could still see the engine cowling and not just the instrument panel. I find that if I raise the view twice using the keyboard, it becomes a much more realistic position. Any way that can be tweaked?3. Here's the MAJOR one. The Tundra tire version cannot be flown on or off any surface that is not perfectly flat. It simply bounces up and down until the landing gear collapses. I have had my exciting moments in the 185 (read "embarassing moments") when I first started flying it, but can assure you I've never "pranged" one or even dented one. And I have flown many times into very rough air strips. But the Tundra tire (FS9) version is virtually useless. No problem with the ski plane on the same surfaces!!! I wonder if the contact points were ported over from the standard tire version and no allowance was made for the much larger tundra tires? This really needs to be fixed as in its present state it is pretty much useless.Again - a great product and lots of fun but some tweaking is needed.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Glad you're liking the 185. I too spent a "few" years in the left seat of them, although mostly on floats in Canada before moving on to the Beaver. They are a great machine.On the torque thing, sg38 might be a better person to ask about that as he has a lot more experience with FDE's than I. On the eyepoint issue though, I think I can help you with that. Have a look in the aircraft.cfg file (use Notepad if you've not opened that up before) and look for the entry:[Views]eyepoint=-4.60,-0.80,2.4 It's a fair way down. Now, I *believe* it is the 3rd value in there that sets the vertical position (first 2 are fwd/back, second side-side if I remember correctly). Try adjusting that 3rd value a bit and see what you come up with. I'd maybe go 3.0 and see which way that takes you and then tweak from there. Make SURE you backup the original aircraft.cfg file first in case you mess it up totally.Hopefully that helps.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

Glad you're liking the 185. I too spent a "few" years in the left seat of them, although mostly on floats in Canada before moving on to the Beaver. They are a great machine.On the torque thing, sg38 might be a better person to ask about that as he has a lot more experience with FDE's than I. On the eyepoint issue though, I think I can help you with that. Have a look in the aircraft.cfg file (use Notepad if you've not opened that up before) and look for the entry:[Views]eyepoint=-4.60,-0.80,2.4 It's a fair way down. Now, I *believe* it is the 3rd value in there that sets the vertical position (first 2 are fwd/back, second side-side if I remember correctly). Try adjusting that 3rd value a bit and see what you come up with. I'd maybe go 3.0 and see which way that takes you and then tweak from there. Make SURE you backup the original aircraft.cfg file first in case you mess it up totally.Hopefully that helps.

Thanks - I'll give it a try and if it works I'll post the results here. I appreciate your response. I just missed out on flying the Beaver. The company I worked for had just sold their last one when I went to work for them. I heard nothing but good things about them - a truly great aircraft.

[Frank_Steffens 0]

You can try these contact points for the tundra version:[contact_points]static_pitch = 9.0static_cg_height = 3.5gear_system_type=4max_number_of_points = 9tailwheel_lock=1point.0 = 1, -22.35, 0.0, -0.70, 2500, 0, 0.42, 60, 0.15, 2.5, 0.6, 0, 0, 0point.1 = 1, -2.67, -3.4, -4.11, 2500, 1, .90, 0, 0.38, 2.5, 0.6, 0, 0, 2point.2 = 1, -2.67, 3.4, -4.11, 2500, 2, .90, 0, 0.38, 2.5, 0.6, 0, 0, 3point.3 = 2, -4.60, -17.0, 3.28, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0 //LWpoint.4 = 2, -4.60, 17.0, 3.28, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0 //RWpoint.5 = 2, 1.2, 0.0, -2.2, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0 //tailpoint.6 = 2, 1.2, 0.0, -2.2, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0 //Fslgpoint.7 = 2, -18.75, 0.0, 6.45, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0 //Aux1point.8 = 2, -14.12, 0.0, 0.01, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, 0, 0 //Aux2

[kiwiflyer45 123]

Thank you to both responders. The new contact points solved the problem perfectly and the adjustment of the POV also did the trick, though I found it was very sensitive and so only needed a single unit increase. So instead of 2.4 I found 2.5 a much more realistic view.[Views]eyepoint=-4.60,-0.80,2.5I deeply appreciate the quick and totally helpful responses. Thanks guys :(I'm satisfied with things now though 3 out of 3 would be nice. :( But why I want to have more torque when in the real world there were many times I wished there was a lot less of it, I do not know! :(

[Guest BeaverDriver]

But why I want to have more torque when in the real world there were many times I wished there was a lot less of it, I do not know! :( More realistic therefore more fun (although the REAL term for it is Masochism :( ).Glad to help, and yeah, the Beaver is something else to fly. Feels 10 times lighter than the 185 even at close to twice the weight. Really nice to fly, but very unforgiving. It can bite, and hard, if you don't respect it. I loved flying it.Enjoy the 185 and I'll see if I can give sg38 a ring to find out about the torque.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

But why I want to have more torque when in the real world there were many times I wished there was a lot less of it, I do not know! :( More realistic therefore more fun (although the REAL term for it is Masochism :( ).Glad to help, and yeah, the Beaver is something else to fly. Feels 10 times lighter than the 185 even at close to twice the weight. Really nice to fly, but very unforgiving. It can bite, and hard, if you don't respect it. I loved flying it.Enjoy the 185 and I'll see if I can give sg38 a ring to find out about the torque.

It's funny you used the word "Masochism." I actually used that term when I first started writing my response then erased it as I am new on here and didn't want to upset anyone. But yeah, I think there's a tiny streak of that in the pilot mystique. "Easy" is too boring... :( I was not aware the Beaver was so light on the controls - it looks like it would be a pretty solid beast. But most British aircraft I have flown have been very responsive and light on the controls and although the Beaver was Canadian designed, I suspect a lot of the team that worked on it were ex-pat Brits from the parent DeHavilland company. I have certainly heard that it's not an aircraft to take for granted and have great respect for anyone who has flown it. I appreciate your following up with the FDE expert. It would be nice to tweak the FDE and make it a bit more "beastly" and realistic. I never really ground looped a 185 but certainly found it a handful when I first flew it, as my only other tailwheel experience was the PA18. Notice I said "really." I did do a very nice 360 once when my seat came off the tracks as I pushed the wheel forward to bring the tail up. I fell back flat on the floor. Thank God I was able to hold onto the throttle and close it or the results would probably not have been funny. As it was the airplane did a very graceful 360 degree turn on the runway while I struggled to get back upright. No harm done except to my dignity! B) You can bet that my pre-flight check of the seat was a lot more conscientious after that!Cheers

[Guest BeaverDriver]

It's funny you used the word "Masochism." I actually used that term when I first started writing my response then erased it as I am new on here and didn't want to upset anyone. But yeah, I think there's a tiny streak of that in the pilot mystique. "Easy" is too boring... :( I was not aware the Beaver was so light on the controls - it looks like it would be a pretty solid beast. But most British aircraft I have flown have been very responsive and light on the controls and although the Beaver was Canadian designed, I suspect a lot of the team that worked on it were ex-pat Brits from the parent DeHavilland company. I have certainly heard that it's not an aircraft to take for granted and have great respect for anyone who has flown it. I appreciate your following up with the FDE expert. It would be nice to tweak the FDE and make it a bit more "beastly" and realistic. I never really ground looped a 185 but certainly found it a handful when I first flew it, as my only other tailwheel experience was the PA18. Notice I said "really." I did do a very nice 360 once when my seat came off the tracks as I pushed the wheel forward to bring the tail up. I fell back flat on the floor. Thank God I was able to hold onto the throttle and close it or the results would probably not have been funny. As it was the airplane did a very graceful 360 degree turn on the runway while I struggled to get back upright. No harm done except to my dignity! :( You can bet that my pre-flight check of the seat was a lot more conscientious after that!Cheers

<LOL> - I had a similar incident with a seat, only mine just wasn't locked in position so it just slid back on me. This was excaserbated by the fact that when on floats, the nose comes up quite high during the initial takeoff run as the aircraft starts to plough and before it gets up on the step. I suddenly found myself too far back to reach the rudder pedals, and this machine (the 185) requires full right rudder to maintain direction at that point. Fortunately I was able to yank the throttle back to idle and it slowed down pretty quick. Like you, I made sure my seat was locked from then on :( .Yeah, there probably were a few engineers and whatnot from GB, but the design of it, and many DH Canada machines (Otter, Buffalo, etc.) really was unique to Canada and in response to what was required up here for the day. The light controls are due to mass balances placed on them which countered the forces that otherwise might have been fairly heavy. That said, the Beaver (and Otter is the same) never was 'accused' of going exactly "fast" which is one of the things that does contribute to control stiffness as you know. The Beaver (and Otter) are like a big baby in some respects, but man, could they haul a load out of lakes and strips that weren't much bigger than an oversized mud puddle at times. One interesting thing though. whereas if you could get the 185 out of the water (I assume it's the same for wheels, but I never tested this), it would always climb. Some days under some loads though, it just wouldn't get off the water. The Beaver on the other hand, would always get off the water, but then wouldn't always climb. You'd sit in ground effect forever under high and hot conditions. That made for an "interesting" flight one day when I first discovered that little trait of the Beaver. Fortunately didn't hit anything, but I was going around virtually everything (including extra tall trees!) for about 20 miles to the lake I was aiming for. Like I said, the Beaver could bite without warning. I wasn't overloaded, it was just a very hot, still day. I took 300 lbs more out of that same lake several days before the the machine practically jumped out of the water. It was 10*C cooler though.I haven't heard back from sg38 yet, but I should today or tomorrow. However, I did find an entry under [flight_tuning] that might be worth playing with. Look for these lines:p_factor_on_yaw= 1.0torque_on_roll=1.5I would try giving the first line (p_factor_on_yaw=1.0) a tweak. Try 2 just so the results will be really obvious (you may end up with an uncontrollable airplane) but this will allow you to positively identify what that does and see if it's what you are trying to achieve. You can tweak it from there. The torque_on_roll entry I don't think is what you are looking for, but I believe it's the only torque entry in there except for the starter torque (don't play with that or you may find your machine doing snap rolls everytime you turn the key to "Start" B) ). Anyway, give those a go and see what happens. Good luck with that.

[Guest sg38]

Well, you can try that. Unfortunately I have no idea how and if fs9 accepts this entry. Aerodynamics (not only) are more advanced in FSX.Concerning the 'jumping' issue. That's even a problem within the various FSX versions. E.g. If the plane has been built for Acceleration you are likely to experience jumping in FSX with only SP2 installed!But fs9 is a completely different animal.Sorry that I can't be of any help in this case butp_factor_on_yaw= 1.0is the way to go :)Best regardsBernt

[kiwiflyer45 123]

Thank you both very much indeed. I increased the p_factor_on_yaw= 1.0 value by small increments and stopped at p_factor_on_yaw= 2.0It's still perfectly controllable but now you really do need to work the peddles to stay lined up. AWESOME!For anyone who reads this thread I would recommend all of the tweaks mentioned here. The 185 tundra and ski have now become much more realistic and fun to fly. The only "down side" to the tweaks is in adjusting the POV you do make it a bit harder to see out to the middle distance on the sides, as your virtual head is now up closer to the wing roots. But nothing a little wiggling of the wings can't cure! :(Talk about nostalgia! I use Flight 1's AFX and Instant Scenery 2 and have re-created a number of the airstrips and floatplane destinations I used to fly into in the Fiordland region of New Zealand. I am having a blast from the past! Thank you friends for your great help! :(

[kiwiflyer45 123]

Hi BeaverGuy. We were both lucky with those seat incidents - I know there have been fatal accidents with various Cessna aircraft from that happening. It sounds funny now but scared the c--p out of me at the time!I hear you on the 185 on floats thing. We found it was virtually impossible to overload the 185 and 206 on floats. If it was too heavy the floats would be too deep in the water and you just couldn't get it up on the step and it wouldn't fly. If you could get it up on the step, it wasn't overloaded and would fly just fine. Welllllllllll ----- fly... :( I went on later in my career to "bigger things" and find myself shaking my head at some of the stuff we did back then.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Thank you both very much indeed. I increased the p_factor_on_yaw= 1.0 value by small increments and stopped at p_factor_on_yaw= 2.0It's still perfectly controllable but now you really do need to work the peddles to stay lined up. AWESOME!For anyone who reads this thread I would recommend all of the tweaks mentioned here. The 185 tundra and ski have now become much more realistic and fun to fly. The only "down side" to the tweaks is in adjusting the POV you do make it a bit harder to see out to the middle distance on the sides, as your virtual head is now up closer to the wing roots. But nothing a little wiggling of the wings can't cure! :( Talk about nostalgia! I use Flight 1's AFX and Instant Scenery 2 and have re-created a number of the airstrips and floatplane destinations I used to fly into in the Fiordland region of New Zealand. I am having a blast from the past! Thank you friends for your great help! :(

VERY cool! Sounds great. Glad to hear it's working for you :(

[Guest sg38]

I went on later in my career to "bigger things" and find myself shaking my head at some of the stuff we did back then.

LOL, that's true!!! Moving from gliders to SE planes I thought; gee, I didn't know that before I had my PPL, this went on and on with each licence. My guardian angel had a lot to do in the early days expecially when flying gliders ;)Once it wasn't him but a checkpilot who saved us both. My seat wasn't correctly locked and just decided to slam to it's aft stop during take-off rotation in the Remorquer. It took me only a split second to let go off the stick but the attitude was nevertheless quite remarkable until he took over the controls.Afterwards I learned that this isn't uncommon for this plane and I have no idea how that would have ended if I had been alone on this flight.Talking about ground effect...I once hit a severe downdraft at our home airfield after take off with a 152 and couldn't gain any altitude at all. This was the first and only time I went below high voltage power lines on take off at an incredible nose high attitude!Cheers Bernt

[Bina 59]

Hi guys,I understand some guys in this thread are real Skywagon pilots and I to get some help from you re: some questions (maybe inappropriate for this forum though):1) I always find it rather easy to use deafult Cessna-172 to fly even IFR flights. This is not the case with Carenado's C185F. One of my major problems here - it lacks DME unit attached to navigation equipment (as in default Cessna). So, do you guys fly in this situation - without DME to know the distance from e.g. airport VOR/NDB?!?2) Imagine you want to fly VFR from e.g. KSEA, i) is it actually possible from Intl airprots like KSEA; ii) If yes, how do you actually fly VFR - plan ahead your route and file with ATC?Thanks!Rustam

[Boeing_Driver 76]

1) I always find it rather easy to use deafult Cessna-172 to fly even IFR flights. This is not the case with Carenado's C185F. One of my major problems here - it lacks DME unit attached to navigation equipment (as in default Cessna). So, do you guys fly in this situation - without DME to know the distance from e.g. airport VOR/NDB?!?

Hi Rustam,One can certainly fly IFR without DME but it does have it's own challenges. You can either use timing to try an determine your distances from a VOR (the one you just passed) or you can use cross radials to determine your position along a route. In some instances, you may not be able to do an approach that requires DME. For instance, there may be two VOR approaches to an airport, one that's just a plain vanilla VOR approach and one that says VOR DME. The latter would give you lower minimums but at least you'd have an option if you were without the equipment.

2) Imagine you want to fly VFR from e.g. KSEA, i) is it actually possible from Intl airprots like KSEA; ii) If yes, how do you actually fly VFR - plan ahead your route and file with ATC?

Big questions! :( Yes, it is entirely possible to fly in and out of international airports without DME, all you need is a radio and transponder. Again, if a DP or STAR required DME, you would need to file your IFR flightplan with remarks that specified "no DPs/STARs".As to flying VFR, the main thing is just knowing wher you are at all times. That doesn't require any nav aids at all, just a sectional and a good pair of eyes. If you are departing a class C or B airport, you'll need to call Clearance Delivery and get a VFR clearance to exit the airspace (I ask for flight following to my destination so they don't drop me once I pass the border of their airspace). They will normally specify what kind of direction they want you to fly and an altitude restriction. After that, you are on your own for navigation.