After searching and finding an FDE that gets the roll and pitch rates right, there is still a huge problem with the FDE. I shouldn't be able to come in on final slower than 40 KIAS with 30 degrees of flaps. Correct me if I am wrong but 40 KIAS is Vs1. Secondly, In the real thing, I can easily bring this thing in for a landing at 80 mph indicated. After doing some calculations, that comes out 70 KIAS....roughly. When I try this in this aircraft, I have a pitch down of almost 10 degrees. That is not right at all. I usually have a little nose up attitude in the real thing at 80mph (roughly 70KIAS) with full flaps. That's with both power on and power off approaches. Bstolle, if you are planning to do an updated FDE and I think that you said you might have a stab at making one, please get this part of the FDE right, I would love to help you if I can.

At 70 KIAS flaps 30 i get a little nose down, 1-2 degrees. Flaps 30 stall speed is around 55-60 KIAS (default weights, 50% fuel). This is with the default, unmodified FDE after the latest patch (although I don't think they modified the FDE in that patch).

At 70 KIAS flaps 30 i get a little nose down, 1-2 degrees. Flaps 30 stall speed is around 55-60 KIAS (default weights, 50% fuel). This is with the default, unmodified FDE after the latest patch (although I don't think they modified the FDE in that patch).

see I get a heck of a lot nose down attitude with full flaps at 70 KIAS I lowered the lift scalar of the flaps from 3.2 to 1.6 and that helped out a lot.

There must be something wrong with my install... I get a very pronounced nose down picth @ 70KIAS and full flaps, no where close to 1-2 degrees of picth.

After searching and finding an FDE that gets the roll and pitch rates right, there is still a huge problem with the FDE. I shouldn't be able to come in on final slower than 40 KIAS with 30 degrees of flaps. Correct me if I am wrong but 40 KIAS is Vs1. Secondly, In the real thing, I can easily bring this thing in for a landing at 80 mph indicated. After doing some calculations, that comes out 70 KIAS....roughly. When I try this in this aircraft, I have a pitch down of almost 10 degrees. That is not right at all. I usually have a little nose up attitude in the real thing at 80mph (roughly 70KIAS) with full flaps. That's with both power on and power off approaches. Bstolle, if you are planning to do an updated FDE and I think that you said you might have a stab at making one, please get this part of the FDE right, I would love to help you if I can.

I'm still waiting for the PIREP to start working on the new FDEs but I don't see any serious problems with the original FDEs. R U using the default FDEs?Stall speeds are correct with 70kts clean and 57kts with full flaps. You didn't specify the Vs1 configuration but in any case 40kts isn't anywhere close to the default FDEs stall speeds (or the real 210)At 70kts and full flaps I have a slightly nose high attitude about 1-2deg How is it possible to have the same attitude with a power on and off approach with the same speed and flap setting??If you have access to a real 210 and can perform the neccessary test flights I can send you the questionnaire.Any help is highly appreciated!

I'm still waiting for the PIREP to start working on the new FDEs but I don't see any serious problems with the original FDEs. R U using the default FDEs?Stall speeds are correct with 70kts clean and 57kts with full flaps. You didn't specify the Vs1 configuration but in any case 40kts isn't anywhere close to the default FDEs stall speeds (or the real 210)At 70kts and full flaps I have a slightly nose high attitude about 1-2deg How is it possible to have the same attitude with a power on and off approach with the same speed and flap setting??If you have access to a real 210 and can perform the neccessary test flights I can send you the questionnaire.Any help is highly appreciated!

That was my problem, I was using a fix from a user. My fault, sorry. The FDEs could still be fine tuned a bit imo.

talking of which can someone tell me the original values in the .cfg for elevator_effectiveness and elevator_trim_effectiveness? I think it is 0.95 and 1.4 respectively. Can someone confirm? Thanks!

The FDEs could still be fine tuned a bit imo

I must admit, I'm curious. What specifically do you believe needs tweaking, and on what do you base your comments (i.e. RW experience in the 210, book values that vary dramatically from the sim aircraft, etc.)? While I've not flown the 210, I have flown the 206 (RW) and based on comments RW 210 drivers have told me, the 210 flies very much like the 206, only a bit zippier. That's very true of what I'm finding in the Carenado 210, so as I say, I'm curious as to what actually needs fixing in this machine.

talking of which can someone tell me the original values in the .cfg for elevator_effectiveness and elevator_trim_effectiveness? I think it is 0.95 and 1.4 respectively. Can someone confirm? Thanks!

Confirmed

First I'm not saying anything is dramatically wrong here! I love this plane!After reading some comments I've heard that the 210 and power on approaches are very common. I find it hard to accomplish this in the Carenado 210, plus the roll rate still seems a little slow based on the comments in this forum. I'm really not interested creating an argument here and that's were you want to take this it's not going to happen.If not then I would appreciate your comments on the two arguments of my post.

I must admit, I'm curious. What specifically do you believe needs tweaking, and on what do you base your comments (i.e. RW experience in the 210, book values that vary dramatically from the sim aircraft, etc.)? While I've not flown the 210, I have flown the 206 (RW) and based on comments RW 210 drivers have told me, the 210 flies very much like the 206, only a bit zippier. That's very true of what I'm finding in the Carenado 210, so as I say, I'm curious as to what actually needs fixing in this machine.

The comments I have heard and read from pilots suggest that the 210 is 'typically Cessna' heavy in pitch control. I only have time in 152's and 172's but if the pitch was as touchy as this FDE in those aircraft I would probably be in big trouble! That is the only real issue I have found with it TBH.

First I'm not saying anything is dramatically wrong here! I love this plane!After reading some comments I've heard that the 210 and power on approaches are very common. I find it hard to accomplish this in the Carenado 210, plus the roll rate still seems a little slow based on the comments in this forum. I'm really not interested creating an argument here and that's were you want to take this it's not going to happen.If not then I would appreciate your comments on the two arguments of my post.

I must admit, I'm not sure what part of my post/question could possibly be construed as argumentative. You made a very non-specific comment that the FDE's needed tweaking, but completely devoid of any details. Not sure which of the two posts is more argumentative, but in fact, I don't believe either yours or mine were intended to be . Now, with respect to the issues at hand, I will say that Glenn's comments are similar to what I found with respect to the pitch sensitivity. I have increased my pitch stability considerably. This, however, I believe to be as much a controller setting/characteristic as perhaps the aircraft as I have this issue with all aircraft in FSX. I put that down to my CH equipment, and have heard that Saitek can be still more sensitive on all axes. I'm not sure that's a flight model problem, but of course if everyone is seeing similar things, then yes, a global tweak there is in order. Insofar as the roll rates go, I've not seen any problems there, although a comment or two (and some sort of consensus from bstolle, I believe) has been made and perhaps could be looked at. My personal feeling is that they are ok. Like the 206 and 185, this is a bigger Cessna and they tend to feel quite different to their lighter brothers - the 172 and even the 182. It might be the roll rates are a little slow (I'm still not convinced) but the "feeling" that's imparted by that is of a bigger Cessna, which this one definitely is. Regarding your comments on power approaches in the 210 not being possible (and please correct me if I've misinterpreted your comment), that one I disagree with. I do them more often than not (old habit from RW flying - keeps the engine warm and helps prevent shock cooling, but sometimes is a trade off for safety with single engine aircraft). Certainly if you are flying a standard 3 degree glideslope, you are going to be using quite a lot of power if you have full flaps, and carrying it right down to the threshold. If you prefer higher, steeper approaches (still a safer thing to do in a single engine machine) then yeah, you are coming back more on the power and possibly doing a power off approach, but in this machine, that would make for a reasonably steep approach. The flatter the approach, the more power you'll need, flap settings being equal for all approaches of course. Hope that helps a bit.

I must admit, I'm not sure what part of my post/question could possibly be construed as argumentative. You made a very non-specific comment that the FDE's needed tweaking, but completely devoid of any details. Not sure which of the two posts is more argumentative, but in fact, I don't believe either yours or mine were intended to be . Now, with respect to the issues at hand, I will say that Glenn's comments are similar to what I found with respect to the pitch sensitivity. I have increased my pitch stability considerably. This, however, I believe to be as much a controller setting/characteristic as perhaps the aircraft as I have this issue with all aircraft in FSX. I put that down to my CH equipment, and have heard that Saitek can be still more sensitive on all axes. I'm not sure that's a flight model problem, but of course if everyone is seeing similar things, then yes, a global tweak there is in order. Insofar as the roll rates go, I've not seen any problems there, although a comment or two (and some sort of consensus from bstolle, I believe) has been made and perhaps could be looked at. My personal feeling is that they are ok. Like the 206 and 185, this is a bigger Cessna and they tend to feel quite different to their lighter brothers - the 172 and even the 182. It might be the roll rates are a little slow (I'm still not convinced) but the "feeling" that's imparted by that is of a bigger Cessna, which this one definitely is. Regarding your comments on power approaches in the 210 not being possible (and please correct me if I've misinterpreted your comment), that one I disagree with. I do them more often than not (old habit from RW flying - keeps the engine warm and helps prevent shock cooling, but sometimes is a trade off for safety with single engine aircraft). Certainly if you are flying a standard 3 degree glideslope, you are going to be using quite a lot of power if you have full flaps, and carrying it right down to the threshold. If you prefer higher, steeper approaches (still a safer thing to do in a single engine machine) then yeah, you are coming back more on the power and possibly doing a power off approach, but in this machine, that would make for a reasonably steep approach. The flatter the approach, the more power you'll need, flap settings being equal for all approaches of course. Hope that helps a bit.

I have 'tamed' the pitch sensitivity by adding a +5 curve in the FSUIPC joystick calibration page on the elevator axis. I then saved it as 'aircraft specific' so it loads automatically when I select the 210. (I have the Saitek yoke)

That sounds like a good way of doing it there Glenn. Have you found the Saitek yourself to be more sensitive than other systems? I've heard that is the case, and have a Saitek X52 myself, but I only use it for helicopters, and they behave rather differently to the fixed wing machines so it's hard for me to tell. Thanks for the idea there - might try that one myself.

That sounds like a good way of doing it there Glenn. Have you found the Saitek yourself to be more sensitive than other systems? I've heard that is the case, and have a Saitek X52 myself, but I only use it for helicopters, and they behave rather differently to the fixed wing machines so it's hard for me to tell. Thanks for the idea there - might try that one myself.

I wouldn't say the Saitek is more sensitive....just more accurate. I can only compare it to the CH yoke that I had before which I found to be 'mushy' in the pitch axis (even after lubrication with teflon) I can certainly see that it seems more accurate when I calibrate the axis in FSUIPC. The 'in/out' numbers stay closer together than they did with the CH through the pitch axis. I'm sure its more to do with the metal shaft on the Saitek than anything else. The Saitek is also much more of a 'hefty' construction than the CH product.