C210 - Does a real 210 land like this?

[Flyfox 114]

Hi everybody

 

I had the same problem with the T210. I actually like it a lot and I like flying her, but landing is really tricky. I am not glad with FDE either, but modyfying the air files can cause unwanted and unexpected side-effects. That's why I tried a very simple approach here. I only modified the [Flaps.0] section of the aircraft.cfg file:

 

lift_scalar=1.0 //3.20

drag_scalar=1.50 //1.10

 

where the values behind the double slash are the original values of Carenado.

The effect is great for me. The approach pitch is reduced to a normal level and the landing is much more realistic with main gear touch down first. No endless floating in the ground-effect any more! Please check it out.

 

Felix

[Piotr Ratajczak 0]

I have used a fix presented in the post above and the effect seems to be quite nice for be, aircraft landed more like I would expect, I have however no r/w experience. If anybody else have used it I would really appreciate sharing an opinion.

 

@Flyfox: thanks.

[molleh 451]

Hi everybody

 

I had the same problem with the T210. I actually like it a lot and I like flying her, but landing is really tricky. I am not glad with FDE either, but modyfying the air files can cause unwanted and unexpected side-effects. That's why I tried a very simple approach here. I only modified the [Flaps.0] section of the aircraft.cfg file:

 

lift_scalar=1.0 //3.20

drag_scalar=1.50 //1.10

 

where the values behind the double slash are the original values of Carenado.

The effect is great for me. The approach pitch is reduced to a normal level and the landing is much more realistic with main gear touch down first. No endless floating in the ground-effect any more! Please check it out.

 

Felix

 

I just got done testing these fixes out, and I have to say it did a GREAT job of making the Carenado 210 flyable for me again!

 

If you combine the scalar tweaks above with reducing elevator effectiveness (I used 0.40 for that) as well as tweaking the brakes scalars (they are WAY too grabby IMO) it really changes the whole plane very very nicely! So thank you Felix for posting this because this is the main thing that was killing the plane.

 

If anyone else has the 210M but had hangared it because of the FDE issues, I highly recommend you put these tweaks into the aircraft.cfg and give it a try.

[Flyfox 114]

I just got done testing these fixes out, and I have to say it did a GREAT job of making the Carenado 210 flyable for me again!

 

If you combine the scalar tweaks above with reducing elevator effectiveness (I used 0.40 for that) as well as tweaking the brakes scalars (they are WAY too grabby IMO) it really changes the whole plane very very nicely! So thank you Felix for posting this because this is the main thing that was killing the plane.

 

If anyone else has the 210M but had hangared it because of the FDE issues, I highly recommend you put these tweaks into the aircraft.cfg and give it a try.

 

Thanks, Molleh! I am glad you could also improve your C210T experience. My elevator_effectiveness is also reduced (to 0.6) and the toe_brake_scale is set to 1.0. With all these tweaks the C210T has become one of my favorite SEP planes in FSX.

[tttocs 301]

That's why I tried a very simple approach here. I only modified the [Flaps.0] section of the aircraft.cfg file:

 

Well, let me add my thanks as well. I still have no idea of what the correct behavior is, but remain convinced that the flaps are just wrong as it comes from the Carenado "factory" with way too much lift and this change made enough sense to give it a try, though the magnitude of the lift scalar change did and still does make me wonder. Flew the ILS 1 approach into the new Orbx KWYS earlier and I'm cautiously optimistic. It certainly made flying the approach an easier experience with no ballooning on every flap extension, and I was able to hold off the nose quite nicely on landing. Wow, I may actually fly this plane again! :-) Now I'm curious how short field performance will be impacted.

 

BTW, I have not changed elevator_effectiveness, in part based on some discussions on this from some time back warning about taking away too much elevator authority and actually increasing problems in the flair. At the time, I recall some discussion that this was a change best addressed in the air file. I dealt with the sensitive elevator with a curve in FSUIPC, making my yoke less sensitive near the neutral point, but still retaining full authority. I find this quite workable.

 

Thanks again for this suggestion.

 

Scott

[Guest tymk]

I also gave up on this plane at some point due to the approach/attitude issues, but I've decided to give it yet another 'second chance'... I love the actual aircraft and the model's VC too much ;-)

 

I'm currently using PropDriver's modded config/AIR file (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/338859-roll-rate-and-elevator/page__st__25#entry2014031), which does alleviate the twichy elevator issue quite a bit. I've also combined it with the lift_scalar tweak, and I've been able to pull off some decent landings (I'm using lift_scalar=1.6 at the moment, and I'll try going even lower according to Flyfox's suggestion).

 

Big thanks to both PropDriver and Flyfox!

[tttocs 301]

Just wanted to follow up after almost a week flying with this (Flyfox') modification, and I'm still a happy guy. The timing was perfect with the release of Orbx' KWYS, as I wanted to fly a piston single in the area which was capable of the climb rates and altitudes needed to do instrument flights in this high mountain region, and the 210 has been getting a heavy workout in the mountains of NW WY and Montana ever since.

 

These changes have made this a "go to" plane once again. Still probably not perfect, but doggone good.

 

Scott

[Guest tymk]

These changes have made this a "go to" plane once again. Still probably not perfect, but doggone good.

 

Scott

 

Just a quick question: are you using "lift_scalar=1.0" and "drag_scalar=1.50", or have you made any additional modifications?

[tttocs 301]

Just a quick question: are you using "lift_scalar=1.0" and "drag_scalar=1.50", or have you made any additional modifications?

 

As I mentioned earlier, I do not modify the elevator effectiveness parameter and I am using the standard air file. What I've done is to set a fairly aggressive curve in FSUIPC for my yoke so that I still have full elevator effectiveness as travel increases, but small yoke movements near the neutral point result in small changes. I've also made a minor reduction to the elevator trim effectiveness value, as I always struggled over and under-shooting trim. The final missing link for me were Flyfox' flap changes. These changes allowed for stable approaches without the aggressive ballooning which used to occur on flap extension and a more normal landing attitude which allows fairly easy mains-first landings.

 

I've no way of knowing how "right" these changes are in any absolute sense, but they do make the plane react in what seems to be a more reasonable fashion and make it fun to fly in challenging situations again.

 

Scott

[Guest tymk]

Thanks! I think my settings were too conservative, I'll use Flyfox's exact numbers...

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

My two questions on this latest effort will be on:

 

1. The flair...do you get a SOLID two point landing or is it an almost three-point. Best I could consistently get is a near three-point unless I risked the 58 knot near-fall onto the runway.

2. That last notch of flaps. It seems waaaay too effective. Perhaps they made the second notch a little 'not enough' or something. Dunno. Just seems a big change from flaps 2 for a Cessna.

 

Gregg

[molleh 451]

My two questions on this latest effort will be on:

 

1. The flair...do you get a SOLID two point landing or is it an almost three-point. Best I could consistently get is a near three-point unless I risked the 58 knot near-fall onto the runway.

2. That last notch of flaps. It seems waaaay too effective. Perhaps they made the second notch a little 'not enough' or something. Dunno. Just seems a big change from flaps 2 for a Cessna.

 

Gregg

 

Hi Gregg,

 

It's very easy to get a nice 2 point landing with the new tweaks Here are some pics to demonstrate. This was just a nice simple ~65-70 knot touchdown with one notch of flaps:

 

 

 

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

It's very easy to get a nice 2 point landing with the new tweaks Here are some pics to demonstrate. This was just a nice simple ~65-70 knot touchdown with one notch of flaps:

 

That looks pretty good. What was your power/flaps setting? Does it work on flaps 3?

[molleh 451]

That looks pretty good. What was your power/flaps setting? Does it work on flaps 3?

 

Yeah it works well with full flaps as well. Here is a pic of the panel on approach with full flaps:

 

 

And touchdown attitude:

 

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

I have to say that looks pretty good. Perhaps you should share these settings with support. Anything's better than what they've got.