@Bert - no, that's the 210. The poster was looking for a way to get his 210 useable again and was having the same issues as I (and others) were having with attitude on landing. Those aren't for the 206 - it's good the way it is.

 

@Scott - thanks. Yeah, IMO it's probably the best release they've had, but I don't have all of them so that's pretty subjective. As I said though - if I'm going to criticize bad work, I have to be prepared to compliment good work and this was pretty easy to do in this case . If they hold this level of quality, and especially if they start coding the avionics to a higher level, Carenado will leave almost everyone in their dust. Long time coming - let's hope they hold it .

 

Agreed on the 210 settings. Losing all that lift helped immensely. I just flew it from Cordova (PACV) to Anchorage (PANC) and landed there, then hopped over to Lake Hood and it was perfect on both landings, so if it was the flaps, that really did the trick.

 

Thanks folks, appreciate the feedback.

 

Glenn

Great review. I just bought an airplane yesterday, so I haveto wait until August for this puppy. Thanks again!

 

Don

I personally think the aircraft rides nose high... You can barely get off the ground at the correct speed (even lightly loaded) without dragging and fearing a tail strike. I have nearly 1500 hours of RL flying (80% of them in different Cessnas) and it doesn't feel right. Looking at YouTube videos, and comparing, seems to back up my sentiment.

 

For example, this 3-degree approach shows a slight nose-down attitude at what looks like 75 knots (maybe as low as 60-70 knots as stated in the comments). This is not possible with the Carenado version (it would ride nose-up). Rotation in the Carenado feels long (dragging) and climb feels excessively steep to me.

 

 

Since we can't adjust the wing incidence in aircraft.cfg, I modified the AIR file and shifted the CL vs Alpha table by 3 degrees. This allows me to do a 3-degree approach (such as an ILS or most visual indicators) at 0 degree attitude indication (at default weight). To me this feels more realistic, and offers much better visibility.

 

The modified AIR file is attached. Backup the original, and rename this from .TXT to .AIR.

Well, good I guess. I have that much time too... in 185's. The rest of my Commercial time over 17 years I spent between 206's, Beavers and Otters. But hey, if you don't like it, fix it! It's up to you -_- . Your airplane, your prerogative ^_^ . No argument from me. Have fun.

@BeaverDriver: Thanks for the edits! I was using the reduced "lift_scalar" and "drag_scalar" values Scott mentioned, and they did improve things significantly. Now, with the reduced "pitch_scalar", it feels even better. Plus, not being a RW pilot, I'm grateful for your and Scott's insights, now I know what feels "right" to me is indeed close to how the real airplane should behave.

 

At my end, I modified the AIR file slightly by modifying the elevator sensitivity curve (actually, it is linear by default) to get rid of the excessive sensitivity with small inputs while retaining elevator authority at larger deflections, but then again, I have no way of knowing how "realistic" that is...

 

@Bert Pieke: Sorry for sidetracking the discussion a bit, I was just eager to get Glenn's opinion on the 210 tweaks, and I hadn't seen him in this part of the forums for quite some time...

 

Thanks again!

Tym

Good day!

So is it true that it's the best Carenado airplane? I really afraid to buy something Carenado after lots of disapointing...

Thank you

Pavel

Without Bernt Stolle FDE, I don't think this has any change of being the best Carenado Airplane. But that's just my opinion.

The stall speed is 54KCAS, which is likely to be 50KIAS. Thus 1.3VS0 is only 65 KIAS, which would generally be a flat to very slightly pitch-up attitude for approach. My tweak puts a flat attitude at 70 KIAS (not nose down).

 

No, I don't think it's the best Carenado airplane. My favorite is the B200.

 

Good day!

So is it true that it's the best Carenado airplane? I really afraid to buy something Carenado after lots of disapointing...

Thank you

Pavel

I'm sure that you'll get lots of opinions on this question..

 

My favorite Carenado airplanes are the F33 Bonanza, and the Cessna C337.

Well, dang. I'm trying to hold off, waiting for the A2A 172 to be released, but this writeup makes for a serious temptation. Serious.  I LIKE my Carenado airplanes, even with the problems everyone reports. Thank you Beaver Driver for the effort! Much appreciated.

Well, dang. I'm trying to hold off, waiting for the A2A 172 to be released, but this writeup makes for a serious temptation. Serious.  I LIKE my Carenado airplanes, even with the problems everyone reports. Thank you Beaver Driver for the effort! Much appreciated.

 

They look similar, but the turbo-charged 206 is a completely different airplane than the C172. Different enough to justify owning both, IMO  :wink:

 

I was expecting the G1000 and steam version to be included in the package, so that's a bit of a disappointment. $34.95 is a lot of money to pay, knowing you're not getting the "complete" package. Also, no Stolle FDE - but if real-world pilots say it's a "delight" to fly i guess that's not an issue. Has anyone looked at the airfile to see if they just took the one from the 182T and change a few parameters, or whether it's a genuine, new airfile?

 

With an "FPS Patch" for the 182T coming out, I might plonk down the money for the steam 206. Then I won't really need the glass 206 since the glass 182 will finally be flyable.

@BeaverDriver: Thanks for the edits! I was using the reduced "lift_scalar" and "drag_scalar" values Scott mentioned, and they did improve things significantly. Now, with the reduced "pitch_scalar", it feels even better. Plus, not being a RW pilot, I'm grateful for your and Scott's insights, now I know what feels "right" to me is indeed close to how the real airplane should behave.

 

At my end, I modified the AIR file slightly by modifying the elevator sensitivity curve (actually, it is linear by default) to get rid of the excessive sensitivity with small inputs while retaining elevator authority at larger deflections, but then again, I have no way of knowing how "realistic" that is...

 

@Bert Pieke: Sorry for sidetracking the discussion a bit, I was just eager to get Glenn's opinion on the 210 tweaks, and I hadn't seen him in this part of the forums for quite some time...

 

Thanks again!

Tym

 

My pleasure Tym. Tell me, what did you do to affect the elevator sensitivity? I have this problem with a lot of machines and I would LOVE to know how to adjust this. If you could tell me what parameter you adjusted, that would be great. Thanks!

Just a quick "PS" - my statement about it being "the best" Carenado release is purely subjective and to be taken lightly. I did qualify my comment by saying I don't have them all, and certainly if one is more fond of a B200 or Malibu and not the 206, it would be only natural to prefer those. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with that. My comments were more or less based on how many things worked correctly and how "finished" it was out of the box. All the machines prior to this (in my experience of the machines I own) required a significant patch to get it straightened out (remember how much work had to be done to get the lighting fixed in the B200, and how much effort a customer (THANK YOU!!) had to put in to get the C208 to where you could fly it without half the engine gauges being in the red when using book values!). It wasn't meant to infer that the airplane is perfect by any means. In fact, "pilotjohn's" comments are well taken and there is merit in his comments about the attitude. His RW experience does count for a lot in this and bears noting. The thing with any sim of course is that there is a level of subjectivity to it, no two airplanes (even of the same model and type) fly the same (I flew a 185 for one company that could do 130 mph on floats in cruise and it's sister airplane could only manage 118, one Beaver that I would use to go into very short lakes and another one made only a year later that we wouldn't dare take into a lake less than 3500 feet long - there is a LOT of variance here). There is one thread here where a fellow (non pilot) talked to other RW pilots and thinks the airplane should do approaches with roughly 12" MP whereas the Carenado one "needs" 17" (roughly). Well, he didn't mention about his loading, the weather he was using at the time, what approach angle he was using, etc. There is a great temptation to look at videos and read books and say, "This airplane should do this... period". It doesn't work that way. My experience was all in the bush (or almost all) and honestly, I could take some hellacious loads out of a moderate sized lake in the Beaver in the Spring and Fall. That same airplane on a hot summer's day almost got me killed when I took out a 3/4 load and couldn't get out of ground effect. There really is that much difference. So for sure, try to get it close, but don't get too hung up on the minutiae. Every airplane is different, and very few of them actually meet book values (how many of you get the actual gas mileage as given by the government agencies ?). As long as it's close, that's about as realistic as you're going to get. Most of all, ENJOY IT! Don't let 2 or 3 kts take the fun out of the airplane for you. Real world pilots like pilotjohn and I don't .

Thanks for all the feedback BD. Always great to get rw pilot feedback. I agree she fly's great, although my rw experience stops at rental 172's.. One thing that really bugs me though are two graphics issues, at least issues to me (subjective I guess). First the glare screen textures, the front edge that is always in your face, at my usual 2560x1600 resolution are blurry. As a temp solution I opened its DDS in photoshop and applied some gaussin blur and darkening to simulate a smooth textured vinyl. Much easier on the eyes now, but I know its not accurate to the stock factory material now. Second is the front panel lighting. Is the lighting really that bright? And is the dome light really that dim? The highlights on that front panel lighting are actually clipped, at least on my monitor calibrated with Spyder 5 for photography. Is there a way we end users can tone that down you know, or is that hard coded?

 

C

When I asked Carenado about the panel lighting, they told me that the real plane indeed has that bright lighting..

 

When flying at night, I actually quite like it.  When I use it in daytime to compensate for sunlight glare, I like it a lot less..