Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Gregg_Seipp

C210 - Does a real 210 land like this?

Recommended Posts

So, I've been looking at the Carenado Centurion forever as a replacement for my old C182Q. Today I got it and took it up around the pattern. Flies nice (tho...I did tweak the elevator per another thread...seemed 'woh' to me...not sure if a real 210 has an elevator like that. (Shouldn't matter to the discussion since all I really did was increase the amount of travel on my CH yoke a bit.)

 

So, everything is good but, the one thing I have found difficult is putting it down on the mains first. Not sure why, but it seems to want to land on all three wheels at the same moment. Haven't got the stall warning yet pulling back (and maybe that's part of the trick?) but it just seems to want to land flat. Never had that kind of trouble with any other airplane. Anybody else notice that? Is that how a real 210 lands? What do you do to get a good 'main wheels first' landing? I'm flying final at 75KIAS with full flaps,...about 14 on manifold pressure(?) Maybe I'm just being a chicken and need to go ahead and pull the nose up more. Dunno and I'm looking for some experienced advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

yeah it is a bit of a squirly one on landing.. I know what you mean.. I have found out that it is very sensitive in the flair.. I have FSUIPC and have changed the slope in the elevator setting to -10 or something like that and I like it a whole lot better .. I haven't flown that one in quite a while - I have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spent many good hours flying this plane - it was my first payware plane when I started flying FSX after a long time away from any sim attempts and I kinda wrote off earlier difficulties to physical control issues (yoke calibration and so forth) - but in retrospect I don't thing there's any question that the 210's flight model isn't quite as good as the Bernt Stolle models I have that came after (A36, P46T, C90, 337), or the updates that he did on other earlier Carenados (at least the one I have, the V35). At one point, Bernt had talked about doing a reworked 210, but interest kinda fizzled.

 

I haven't flown this plane much lately but took it out for a couple of trips around "the patch" this evening just to refresh my memory and to compare with some of the planes I'm flying a lot these days. I'd forgotten how touchy it is in the pattern, with pretty dramatic (and to my mind exagerated) pitch changes on flap extension and, yes, it's difficult to hold off the nose in the flair with a rather nose down attitude even with power off and a modest descent rate. I've got a fair bit of Cessna time, including Cessna retractables but no 210 time so I can't say for sure, but it doesn't feel quite right to me. I was able to hold the nose wheel off on touchdown on my second and better attempt maintaining close to stall speed over the fence but it still didn't feel good. The only change I've made is to elevator trim, but after this last flight I may play around a bit more there.

 

Just some quick thoughts after revisiting the plane...

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally did get a mains first flare this morning...unbelievable. It took me about 15 attempts. I kept exaggerating the nose up until I did a landing with 9 degrees nose up. Externally, the tail is fairly close to the ground...3-4 inches I'd say. Airspeed indicator was not smooth...notching down 1-2 knots at a time until touchdown at 56 KIAS. The far end of the runway was not visible, you had to watch out the side of the aircraft.

 

I also did a 20 degrees flaps and a no flaps and made it happen...again...takes a LOT of nose up.

 

With that much nose up you don't have much time, the aircraft comes down pretty quick.

 

Now, look at this nose wheel failure video. The pilots can clearly see down the runway and are in a beautiful flair...tail a good foot off the ground. Very, very different than what I'm seeing.

 

 

I'd really like to hear what real world pilots think about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind I have zero RW time in this airplane so this is all completely anecdotal...I don't know how a real one flies. My realism settings are max. This plane flies pretty much like a C182 except on landing...it's another world there.

 

I studied the vid above and it looks to me like they only have flaps 10 set which would probably make their their speed on landing higher, eyepoint worse and their flare a bit more nose high since they would be using the wing to create the drag the flaps usually do. Anyway, it's the only thing real world I got so whatever. It's my guide.

 

I set it up on a mile final in calm wind and began to tinker. The best I could come up with still feels like a bit of a carrier landing but it's better. Set up on the VASI's (or where you think the picture looks right.) Power set to about MP 16. Fly down to the runway at 75KIAS. After you cross the threshold (or about normal TCH) begin reducing power to MP 11-12. Level off for the flair but DON'T cut power. Keep holding the nose up and stay close to the runway. It will want to float but at least you won't slam it in and you'll get mains down first.

 

Word of warning: published stall speed is 61 knots but it starts to fall out of the sky at 62 even in ground effect and with the extra power. You won't get a stall horn...it's just...whince, wham! I think MP 11 worked a tad better than 12 in terms of floating. If you're speed is above 62 you can hold the nose up while you're rolling on the mains. I had to up the eyepoint an inch or two as well to try to mimic what I 'felt' the eyepoint was in the video...with that height I lost sight of the end of the runway momentarily near touchdown (as I think, maybe, they did).

 

I tried putting more weight in the back as well but didn't see that much difference.

 

One more note: I put on a 8 knot component crosswind and bumped power up to 13 mp and it was pretty much perfect.

 

Maybe someday a RW pilot will see this thread and straighten me out (please) but that's the best I could come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK a little RW stuff - 210's are fast and sensitive. They are a GA workhorse and should be loaded carefully from front to rear to max contra fuel required - so as close to MTOW as you can get before you leave. Keep the pattern speed high (100-110 KIAS) for most standard runways, no more than Flap 2 on final, trim for attitude and keep the MPa as low as you can to maintain 500 fps descent and 90 KIAS over the fence. Commence the flare after easing MPa and juggle it easily for smooth main gear contact. Very touchy in cross winds and turbulence.

 

Once you get the bigger runways under your belt go for STOLs but remember FLAP 3 will make you float and you have to work hard with trim and MPa to combat that.

 

Practice and good luck, many good long hour pilots still have "fun" with a 210. (By the way I find the Carenado FDE quite realistic and good "fun").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...thanks for the RW advice. Tried this out this morning. It's fairly easy to get the mains down a moment or two before the nose. The smoothest I could get was to let airspeed bleed off to 70 and then begin to pull the nose up and try to get it down before 62. Tried the same thing with flaps 30, holding the power in until very close and using the 70 knots as my guide. The trick seems to be to get it on the ground before 62...add some power if needed.

 

It's so similar to the 182 when the gear is down that it's a breeze to fly except on the landing. The 182 just settles down with no mental effort required...like the 172, it's pretty automatic. The 210, for me at least, requires real concentration and true attention to speed to do a mains landing without slamming the pavement (62). I found the transition from 172 to 182 almost nothing (real world...though, in all fairness, I had a flight instructor with me on both of those aircraft so I had some guidance). Carenado doesn't give any guidance so you're basically on your own walking out to an airplane you just bought alone. I don't see what's so hard about putting down what you just did in a PDF. Their lack of guidance is a sore spot with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it, your getting the feel for it mate :good: Don't worry too much about the numbers, 210's are all about power and feel, unlike their smaller siblings (except the 185 which also needs that special touch).

 

Cross winds are always "fun" in a 210 too B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gregg: No, the 210 is lunched when it comes to landings. There's no way you should require as much nose up in the flare as you do. It is all but impossible to get a landing on the mains only and if you were in a bad (very strong) wind and didn't want a full stall landing, you'd be in trouble. It is as though the oleo strut in the nosewheel has been hyper extended. RW I've never flown a Cessna that required anything close to this attitude on landing (and I've flown most of the Cessna singles, many of them commercially). I wrote Carenado way back, but typically there was "no response". Also the flaps at 30 are waaay too effective. This reminds me more of the 185 with 40 degrees of flaps (which we almost never used unless it was a very tight runway or lake). Twenty degrees in this machine is more like 30 degrees (max flap on the 210) RW.

 

Unfortunately I've stopped flying it because of the landing attitude. The flaps I fixed, but there's zip you can do about the landing attitude. Just takes the fun out of it when you know in your mind that it's a matter of time before you collapse a nosewheel (or would if it were RW). Sorry for the bad news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...truthfully, I contacted Carenado and asked them to trade it for the C337, which they *graciously* did. I did explain the problems I was having. I *hated* doing it...I *never* want to give up on an airplane but, whether it was the aircraft or just me, it was an issue. I did work out a procedure by landing the airplane over and over again but it didn't feel right and didn't seem to mesh with the little evidence I could find on videos (and it ain't much) and the RW checklist. Fact is, if I was a prospective buyer of a C210 and it required that kind of handling, I wouldn't own it. On the other hand, It did teach me a great deal about my flying while I was trying to sort it out...much more careful precision. I've translated that to my skill with other aircraft.

 

The C337 is, in terms of landing, the exact opposite. You can be utterly sloppy in a fairly broad range of airspeeds and still get a good flare and touchdown...settles to the runway onto the mains with no issue whatsoever. In fact, it feels so real it's eerie...like the first time I was in a C182 RW...a bit lazier on the correcting turns, slower to give up airspeed. I remember looking over for my checkride instructor and thinking how odd it was that I wasn't on one.

 

If they do find out there is any issue with the C210 on landing and they patch it I'll be in line to buy it again. It was, apart from handling on the flare, everything I wanted in an instrument trainer. But, I don't want them to patch it to make it simpler. If it's right, leave it. If it's wrong, fix it. I'm in no position to say having never been in one before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's wrong. I have landed RW aircraft with an over filled oleo and even then I never touched down nose-wheel first and I had nowhere near the nose up attitude in those as I required to get the 210 to land on all 3 gears at once. Good decision on your part (although there are a "few" things in the 337 that are "incorrect" as well, but they aren't to do with dynamics), but it is too bad. It does spoil an otherwise pretty good airplane and one I really wanted for a long time in FSX. Unfortunately, Carenado doesn't patch their stuff after about the 2nd or 3rd week following release as a rule. Once we've finished beta testing the aircraft, he makes the fixes he wants to, then moves on. He might do the odd other thing if it's simple and fast, but typically once he's moved on to the next model in production, he doesn't come back to the last one. That's unfortunate and has left a trail of "broken airplanes" in his wake, often with really stupid, little mistakes that would take 10 minutes to fix. For more major things like bad FDE's (pre-Bernt), customers stepped in and fixed the machine fortunately. But, I can't criticize as I've "moved on" as well to other developers (as you know ;). Such is life :).

 

Good luck with the 337.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nowhere near the nose up attitude

 

I fully agree! It's been about 15 years since, but i occupied the right seat as a pax only for several hops from San Diego to Camarillo and back in the mid-1990s and from that experience I agree with your assessment. I recall the attitude was closely consistent with my own 182(RG) experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall the attitude was closely consistent with my own 182(RG) experience.

 

That is exactly what I have been reading from real world pilots online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

210 is in the hangar for me as well. I had hoped Bernt would work his FDE magic on this one as well, but it was not meant to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to this a little late as I'm not flying Carenado machines now, but unfortunately the attitude is in the model, not the dynamics. It's how it sits on the ground that is the issue - it's too nose high. You can get the right attitude ok, but with how it's modeled, you end up touching down on all 3 wheels at once (if you're lucky and don't end up touching down on the nosewheel first!). You can adjust the contact points, but then you'll have the nosewheel sunk into the ground by a foot or so, so that doesn't help. Too bad. This was probably my most anticipated airplane next to the King Air. Neither are still on my system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was probably my most anticipated airplane next to the King Air. Neither are still on my system.

 

You removed the KingAir? That's a Bernt Stoll airplane. He blew me away with his C337...amazed at the FDE. What didn't you like about the KingAir?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flight dynamics are fabulous. Really good. Bernt's contribution was outstanding. Unfortunately that's where it ends. I have the same failure as many others do with the Avionics, where they suddenly go into full test mode and the only way to get it back is to recycle the Avionics switch. Extremely annoying at altitude, potentially deadly on an IFR approach near minimums (virtually speaking of course). The Avidyne and 530 (?? - can't remember what the Primary Navigation Display is, it's been a while) are dressed up default GPS units with little or no more functionality than that. On the EADI you can get a Distance readout for the GPS, as long as you have a VOR tuned into NAV 1! That's wrong. Period. If you aren't within range of a VOR station (doesn't matter which one - anyone will do) then you lose your GPS Distance information (not your DME distance - that IS to a VOR, but GPS is independant of any VOR station, or it's supposed to be). There were 2 or 3 other things that escape me now, but what really got me was that Carenado were (once again) made aware of these issues and *chose* to do nothing about them. Yes, they fixed some things, but the electronics/avionics glitch is a major deal. If I were flying a plane IRL that did that, it wouldn't fly again until that were fixed. Yeah, this is a sim, but I expect the developer to at least *try* to fix major bugs like that. So yeah, it's gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I've logged just over 40 hours in the C90B and only experienced avionics issues twice with the C90, both times on startup, Cycling the master avionics switch then is no problem. I have a host of other third party aircraft and seem to have higher overall quality and less issues with the Carenado models.

 

So what do you fly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch. Sorry to hear that. Carenado shied away from avionics for years. Could be some growing pains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flight dynamics are fabulous. Really good. Bernt's contribution was outstanding. Unfortunately that's where it ends.

 

That's harsh. There is a lot to like in the King Air - and yes some things to be annoyed at - but the good stuff certainly doesn't end at the excellent FDE.

 

I have the same failure as many others do with the Avionics, where they suddenly go into full test mode and the only way to get it back is to recycle the Avionics switch.

 

I've got a fair number of hours on mine, and I've only had this happen once. Even then it wasn't all the Avionics, it was just EADH and EHSI as I recall. Of course I wouldn't fly IRL until I understood and corrected this problem after even one occurence, but this is FSX, not RL. Not trying to negate your experience, just offer that it doesn't happen to everyone on anything like a regular basis.

 

The Avidyne and 530 (?? - can't remember what the Primary Navigation Display is, it's been a while) are dressed up default GPS units with little or no more functionality than that.

 

I'm not a great fan of the Avidyne and would've preferred it to be easily replaceable with the RXP 530, but while it isn't a fully featured Avidyne unit, it isn't a default FSX GPS either (not that the default units are all that bad). Regardless, this kind of functionality is pretty much the norm for GA planes with GPS units in them, even from other well-regarded developers like Milviz and RealAir. The other unit is a 430, and is replaced in mine with the RXP 430 anyway, with the supported integration. I would far rather a vendor support the detailed RXP units (which I can use again and again in my aircraft) than having them bump up the price on a plane just to pay for them re-inventing the wheel.

 

On the EADI you can get a Distance readout for the GPS, as long as you have a VOR tuned into NAV 1! That's wrong. Period.

 

Yes, of course this is wrong, and this should be corrected. I haven't flown the KA in some time, being pre-occupied with other aircraft, but I honestly never noticed this problem (I'll have to look again), but for me this is obviously a detail, not a showstopper, as I look to the GPS unit for this info more than the EADI, especially in the normal VC views. What I do use is the DME readout, and I know that works.

 

There were 2 or 3 other things that escape me now, but what really got me was that Carenado were (once again) made aware of these issues and *chose* to do nothing about them.

 

I guess this is the crux of the matter. I have a number of recent Carenado planes, I like all of them, and absolutely love several of them. Yet they're all flawed in niggling little ways, and I know that this drives some to distraction as some of the details seem like they could be easily fixed. Some vendors continue to refine their planes, while with Carenado you're probably going to get 2 or 3 patches and then you're done. Yes I wish this wasn't so, yet on balance I still find their planes to be of high value and in some aspects even class leaders.

 

The C90 gets a lot right, some things wrong and is still a blast to fly. I recommend it, but also recommend that you look through this forum to see EXACTLY what works and doesn't work and decide for yourself how much these things matter.

 

Just so we're clear - I respect BeaverDriver's opinion and am not trying to engage in a point, counterpoint wrangle. Just wanted to offer another point of view.

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I wish this wasn't so, yet on balance I still find their planes to be of high value and in some aspects even class leaders.

 

BTW, just in case someone thinks I'm being an unabashed fanboi, that I wouldn't like to provide Carenado some incentive to improve, and on the off chance that they actually look at this subforum occasionally there are a number of older Carenado planes that I would buy if they kept up development and fixed some of the outstanding issues that have been left on the table.

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Scott,

Please understand, I was (and am) speaking for myself only. For those who really like it - GREAT! I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I was asked about it, and I answered, but again, speaking for myself and not others.

 

I will take issue with one item you mentioned - that being that the avionics in Milviz and Real Air are not that much more functional. Dig into those a bit and you'll find they are far more advanced. If Carenado were more up front about that, then I wouldn't have an issue, but again the issue is with me, perhaps not with others. I do agree with you about making these aircraft more RXP friendly. If he's not going to code the instruments, you should have the capability to go elsewhere for them. That's what happens IRL.

 

ffpilot & Scott - I had that failure on 5 out of my 6 flights. It could be a conflict with some system in there, but I've seen others reporting this as a more or less severe issue as well. My point is more that Carenado was made aware of it, but has chosen to ignore it (and at this point, I believe they have moved on to other things so I doubt any fix is coming soon). Yes, this is only FSX, but I guess for us RW pilots (and perhaps ffpilot is, I don't know) immersion is everything. If I suddenly don't have any Avionics (and in a glass cockpit, if you lose your PFD and MFD, you have lost all but emergency backup systems by today's standards) repeatedly, that really kills it for me. It may not for you, and that's fine. And as I said, if it happens at FL250, it's a pain (in the FSX world). If it happens just above minima on a tight IFR approach in the mountains, you are in potentially a life threatening situation. Yeah, it is only FSX and the only thing that's going to get "killed" is the quality of your experience, but that's what it's all about for me. On reading the distance info - one thing an IFR pilot learns very early on is to keep the scan "tight". Vertigo is a constant threat and if you are taking your eyes away from your main flight/nav instruments in front of you and looking over to the middle of the panel for important info, that's not a good thing. At altitude, not a big deal. On an instrument RNAV approach, that becomes a much bigger deal, especially with the WAAS systems coming online now. Again though, it's more the fact that these things been reported (many times) but not word one from Carenado about fixing them. If that's all I, as a paying customer means to him, well maybe I can spend my money elsewhere. Again though my decision and my feelings on this. I don't pretend to impose that on anyone else.

 

ffpilot - I've recently been turned on to PMDG and am flying the J41 at the moment. I have the 737 package and will eventually "graduate" to that once I'm up to speed with the manuals. Otherwise Aerosoft makes a really good Twin Otter, and I do fly the Carenado 208 fairly routinely. At this point those are about it, but that's mainly because PMDG aircraft are systems heavy and you really need to stay current on them for the first while or getting back into them after a layoff means having to do some re-learning. They're a long way from what I flew IRL - Beavers, Otters and 185's :).

 

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ffpilot & Scott - I had that failure on 5 out of my 6 flights. It could be a conflict with some system in there, but I've seen others reporting this as a more or less s

 

I would think that would be more the case. I keep a spreadsheet log, which makes it easy to do calculations. I've logged 19 flights for 40.5 hours in the C90. The only in-flight failures/freezes I have had have been of my Saitek Multi-Panel, which at those occurances was plugged (USB) into the non-powered ports of the Saitek Cessna Pro Flight Yoke. I've now added a separate, powered USB hub to cure that. BTW, for others reading this I will add that I ordered the separate power supply for the Saitek yoke's built in USB hub (not at all required for the yoke itself) and it was miserable, perceptibly providing less power to the Multi-Panel than when the yoke's USB hub was not powered. i.e the MP display was dimmer and partially inop.

 

The only C90 avionics issues have been on startup occasionally when the HSI fails to fully initialize. That's been the extent of it! A simple recycle of the master avionics switch cures it every time. Certainly not a show stopper on startup. I do have a newer, faster system, which I have detailed in my profile. It may be i7 tech, but has a medium level graphics card and is not a world class gaming machine.

 

I have the RXP 430 integrated into the panel and thus appreciate the Avidyne for other features, such as traffic, flight plan display, ability to display a different map perspective (range), and more convenience looking up NAV and airport information.

 

PMDG models are a totally different dimension from GA types represented by Carenado (and others). You can see from my sidebar profile that I had a deep involvement in VA and ATP types. PMDG took that to an incredible new level, and after a career-induced absence of several years from simulation I found it more challenging than I wished to move back and forth from GA to PMDG. Since I moved from FS9 to FSX upon installing a new system in early January I've logged 171 hours. That's slightly less than an hour a day. If I had time to fly 20 hours a week or more I'd likely be able to blend the two. At this point I'm sticking with GA and appreciating how much more models like the C90 and avionics like RXP provide than what I have experienced in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the EADI you can get a Distance readout for the GPS, as long as you have a VOR tuned into NAV 1!

 

I really didn't recall seeing this, but I wanted to go back and check before responding fully, and:

 

Nope, I don't see it. In retrospect I assume you meant EHSI, since the EADI doesn't display either DME or waypoint distances (sorry I didn't catch that last night - it was a long day). My EHSI has no problem displaying distance to waypoint from the GPS with no VOR tuned or a different VOR turned or anything else. Doesn't matter what the waypoint is, the EHSI displays GPS distance, regardless of what Nav 1 is tuned to.

 

Yes, this is only FSX, but I guess for us RW pilots (and perhaps ffpilot is, I don't know) immersion is everything. If I suddenly don't have any Avionics (and in a glass cockpit, if you lose your PFD and MFD, you have lost all but emergency backup systems by today's standards) repeatedly, that really kills it for me.

 

Not sure what being a real world pilot has to do with this (and yes, I am one), but if stuff isn't working for you in FSX, it's not working and you have a valid complaint - we're in agreement here. My only point for those considering this plane (and obviously fppilot's point as well) was that I'm not having the problem other than so occasionally (once in my case) that it isn't a concern in the context of the sim. If this were a real world avionics failure, I'd have zero tolerance. It's not.

 

Have you contacted Carenado on this?

 

I will take issue with one item you mentioned - that being that the avionics in Milviz and Real Air are not that much more functional.

 

OK fair enough. I have the Milviz B55/E55, and RealAir's Lancair Legacy and both Dukes. I've played with the GPS's on all of these before replacing them with RXP units (which I prefer for many reasons, not the least of which is that they almost completely match real world units, making them excellent trainers), and they all look essentially the same to me, other than a few nits with display brightness. What functionality do you see from either of these vendors that's not in a recent Carenado?

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
since the EADI doesn't display either DME or waypoint distances (sorry I didn't catch that last night - it was a long day).

 

It sure is supposed to, and does if you have a valid VOR station within range! It's supposed to display GPS info at all times, but it won't unless you have a VOR station tuned in on your #1 Nav. If yours doesn't at all, then you have a further bug that I've not seen. But yes, it is supposed to have distance info on it. That's part of what they do.

 

Have you contacted Carenado on this?

 

Two or three times, as mentioned.

 

What functionality do you see from either of these vendors that's not in a recent Carenado?

 

I'd have to dig out the manual for those units at work to describe the features that are missing from the Carenado units but present in the Milviz and Real Air's. I can't remember off hand what they all are. Things are rather hectic at work so I may not get to that however. If you have those machines, just do a comparison based on the manuals that accompany each machine.

 

was that I'm not having the problem other than so occasionally (once in my case) that it isn't a concern in the context of the sim. If this were a real world avionics failure, I'd have zero tolerance. It's not.

 

Fair enough. For me it is. Vivre la difference -_-

 

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites