NICE 210, just the Aileron roll rate is way too slow for this aircraft, and the elevator is a bit too sensitive! Also agree with all the other minor snags mentioned.

If you are interested these are my config and air files, roll rate increased to 90deg p/sec , MOI altered, elevator control not as touchy. On a whole she is more agile but less aggressive.Modded filesI like them and at the end of day that's all that counts :)

If you are interested these are my config and air files, roll rate increased to 90deg p/sec , MOI altered, elevator control not as touchy. On a whole she is more agile but less aggressive.Modded filesI like them and at the end of day that's all that counts :)

thank you I will give them a go.!

Tried them but aircraft appears to 'surge' on initial takeoff roll. Elevator did seem better but not sure if real 210 has sensitive elevator?

Well well, EXAGERRATED you call it?? From your post I see you have zero hours IRL on all kinds of 210's.Do yourself a favour, and go and have a look at a REAL 210's ailerons (1967 and up) and look at their size compared to a 172, 182 or 206 and you will note they are LARGER.That is a "flying wing" in itself, and I did not do one, or two rolls in a 210 before, and I TELL YOU now, that beast can roll AT LEAST 90 degrees a second at Va Speed which is 120 KIAS pulling up 10 degrees from a dive waiting for Va at full throttle and FULL aileron deflection to the stop in one quick action. A full 360 degrees will take you less than 4 seconds (If you know what you are doing), and if you don't believe me (which is obvious), believe what you want, I am happy for you. At least I know what the REAL 210 can do, and I am happy that I collected all that information over the years of flying 210's with over 10 000 hours TT now (NOT armchair flying by the way) REAL flying. That is why I can state what I state !! On a lighter note and IMO, the 210 is the best single engine piston, six seater retractable ever made, and you better treat her with respect, or she will bite you!!

I never stated the opposite I just said that it was hard to believe, you have to admit that is a very fast roll rate! As I said I am here to learn and comments like "they think they know it all these armchair pilots!" are imo very childish. :( I'm glad there are real world 210 pilots here in this forum, hopefully with your knoledge and advice some of the issues with this plane will get fixed quicker.I did myself the favor and looked up the wingspan for the cessna 210 (don't know if it is 1967 and up tough) and found it to be 11.20m (wingarea is 16.23m2), the 206 is 10.97m (wingarea is 16.30m2) and the 182T is 11.00m (wingarea is 16.20m2).There is not much of a difference in wingspan and the Cessna 206 wingarea is actually larger according to my sources...but I don't know if the data for the 210 refers to models made from 1967 and up...?...so it could be wrong. This info is not easy to find on the internet.

Comparison from the 1974 Cessnastype___wing span___wing area___aileron area172______35.1________175.5_______18.3 206______35.1________174.0_______17.3210______36.9________175.0_______18.9Due to it's greater span the 210 needs bigger ailerons than the 206 to achive a similar roll rate and the 206 does have a roll rate of approximately 90deg/sec (plus the Cessna 310, the Commander 114 etc...)There are quite a few videos available at youtube which show aileron and barrel rolls in a simple Cessna 150. And even that slow 150 has a roll rate of close to 90deg/sec. e.g.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHqt4ZFKIeA&feature=relatedor something very impressive: http://www.commander.org/Bergcom/Video/Hoover.htm

Comparison from the 1974 Cessnastype___wing span___wing area___aileron area172______35.1________175.5_______18.3 206______35.1________174.0_______17.3210______36.9________175.0_______18.9Due to it's greater span the 210 needs bigger ailerons than the 206 to achive a similar roll rate and the 206 does have a roll rate of approximately 90deg/sec (plus the Cessna 310, the Commander 114 etc...)There are quite a few videos available at youtube which show aileron and barrel rolls in a simple Cessna 150. And even that slow 150 has a roll rate of close to 90deg/sec. e.g.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHqt4ZFKIeA&feature=relatedor something very impressive: http://www.commander.org/Bergcom/Video/Hoover.htm

Thanks for the videos bstolle, I never tought planes could do that!!! One crazy Commander pilot there!Thanks again!

If you are interested these are my config and air files, roll rate increased to 90deg p/sec , MOI altered, elevator control not as touchy. On a whole she is more agile but less aggressive.Modded filesI like them and at the end of day that's all that counts :)

I tried your modification and I like it, a huge improvement imo over the original!Thanks! By the way, and excuse my ignorance, but what does "MOI" mean?

Hi,I just tried the modded files from PropDrvr! Thank you!Now I really do not know which one is the most realistic...it seems that with the modded files the performance are quite different from original one (which I was said was very close to perf numbers). Elevator is way better but roll seems very sensitive now. From my own experience (very little) even high roll rate GA such as MCR do not feel so sensitive on aileron. I also spoke with C182 and C210 pro pilot (pipeline checking) and they told me they prefer using the 182 because it is way lighter than 210 to fly. It seems that C210 are quite heavy on the yoke. Any C210 pilot to feedback the modded files vs original one?Pierre Laine

http://files.jwp-inc.com/Cessna%20210/Misc%20Information/Aviation%20Consumer%20Cessna%20210%20review.pdfSee the Aviation Consumer Report PDF.The report mentions:"The airplane does not have well-harmonized controls. Though the ailerons are delightfully quickfor such a big airplane, pitch pressures are typically Cessna-heavy, as in the Skylane. The otherside of the coin, as one owner noted, is stability: “It’s not meant to be an aerobat."Quotes from Owners:"The aircraft is very heavy in pitch and requires lots of trim for landing. It flies better loaded andis easier to land with the middle seats filled.""Comes down like an elevator if you get the speed below 80kts.If you forget to set 10 degrees flap or don't set the elevator and rudder trims correctly for takeoff you will be standing on the right rudder pedal and lifting yourself off the seat hauling on the yolk.Flown by the numbers it's a delight and very capable but nothing like a Cardinal to fly.""The 210 is a very forgiving airplane which is light on the controls, a little nose-heavy with a forward CG, and has ample power to do whatever you want to do with the airplane.""It's not a 172 (though it flies like one), especially turbocharged models. Bad habits taught to students, such as power off on the downwind for a gliding landing...are improper in the 210. Fly a power on approach; keep the power in the green until you've got to retard it further for landing. Fly stable approaches; the 210 makes a nice instrument training platform, so far as a small single engine airplane goes. Get in the habit of flying it accordingly. It can certainly be flown like any other light single, but between the cost and the capability, the 210 calls for some respect in approaching one's decision making and flying...plan ahead, fly stable, fly smart, fly smoothly. Respect Va."

From my own experience (very little) even high roll rate GA such as MCR do not feel so sensitive on aileron. I also spoke with C182 and C210 pro pilot (pipeline checking) and they told me they prefer using the 182 because it is way lighter than 210 to fly. It seems that C210 are quite heavy on the yoke.

That's one of the difficulties in flight dynamics programming :( But I can asure you that the 337 will have the 'heavy' feel and at the same time be very maneuverable.

That's one of the difficulties in flight dynamics programming :( But I can asure you that the 337 will have the 'heavy' feel and at the same time be very maneuverable.

How do you feel about the C210T elevator sensitivity?What can be adjusted without effecting other parameters? (if needed).It does seem very touch to me.

Ok, just edited the .cfg to try.Elevator_Effectiveness default value = 0.95, I changed to 0.65Elevator_Trim_Effectiveness default value = 1.4, I changed to 1.0Seems (and I stress seems as I have not flown a C210) better to me and more in line with the descriptions from my review and comments above.

If you haven't flown a real 210 it's really difficult to judge.By just reducing the elevator effectiveness you reduce the available (and neccessary) pitch authorityFor more substantial changes you would need to go into the air file and experiment with the elevator lift and pitch moments like CL_de, CL_q, CL_adot, Cmo, Cm_adot, Cm_de, Cm_dT, Cmq_dT. Problem is that these values not always do what the description says.I haven't installed the 210 anymore but if there's at least one active 210 pilot around who would do actual test flights and answers my questionnaire, I could make a completely new flight model if there's enough demand.

Hope some one show up! It would so great to have one of your FDE for the C210:Big Grin: I will try Glenn setting of aircraft.cfg just to see. Thanks to share!Pierre Laine

Me interested! :( Hopefully some real world pilot will show up...

Ok, just edited the .cfg to try.Elevator_Effectiveness default value = 0.95, I changed to 0.65Elevator_Trim_Effectiveness default value = 1.4, I changed to 1.0Seems (and I stress seems as I have not flown a C210) better to me and more in line with the descriptions from my review and comments above.

I will try those settings Glenn, thanks!