Hi Chris,

I'm pretty certain the panel lighting is on a dimmer switch IRL. We get a T206H in our hanger from time to time so if I remember I'll have a look. But I am 90+% sure you can dim that in the real machine, so it would be completely adjustable.

 

I like the Spyder system myself although now I use the X-Rite system now. Don't think there is a lot of difference in the monitor profile quality though. Both are good systems.

Glenn,

 

How would you rate the Carenado T210M to the CT206H in terms of realistic FDE ?

 

 

Les Parson

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!

 

PM sent, it's probably best to keep this thread focused on the 206... :wink:

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 .

 

This should be a statement For All Time. Amazing how many people take all the air out of their own tires over these variances.

 

uhhuh, just try a typical 3 degree precision approach at only 15"-17" pressure and full flaps in the sim and see what happens :-)...you'll need way more than 20, probably closer to 24" I bet.

 

Then watch and listen carefully to alot of youtube vids of this (as well as some textual pilot reports on this plane) and you'd probably come to the conclusion that the sim plane may have a bit too much flap drag going on there. The way it is currently you'd need maybe an 800-1,000 fpm descent rate at full flaps before you'd want to set your MP at 15"-17" for 70kts-75kts. That's a STEEP approach, certainly not precision.

Please tell me you aren't coming all the way in from the OM using full flaps!! :huh:  If you have too much money and wish to use it up in fuel, that's a sure fire way to do it. Try dropping 10 at the OM, 20 at about 1 mile final and if you really want, go full at about 1/2 mile out, but there's no reason on an IFR approach (where you'll have LOTS of runway for this plane) to use full flap. I'd use full on floats because you really want to get slowed up as much as possible before touching down, but on a long runway (and 3500 feet is LONG for this plane), 20* is lots. That gives you enough nose down attitude to see the runway (until you flare, then you look out the side-front windscreen for your reference, and yes, that is really how we do it) and keeps your glide path and power in line. Also for speed, slow to 70 (a bit slow for an approach with this airplane anyway, although certainly do-able) at the OM and you'll have the tower at any international airport screaming at you - "Cessna Alpha, Bravo Charlie, keep your speed up, we have a 747 at 15 mile final now who is number two." Yeah, I've heard that too. Slow to 90 kts at the OM, 80 at about 1.5 to 2 miles final and 70 at the threshold. Again, easier on the gas, easier on the ATC guys and much easier to fly.

 

As for the videos - thanks, but I've seen lots of "videos", including while I was flying film crews around to photograph logging ops in Northern Ontario. I know what an approach in a 206 should look like ^_^

<p>wasn't really looking for a lesson...been in aviation for 13 years myself and an adx for more than 10 so I'll just repeat...try a 3 degree precision approach and just keep an eye on your MP all the way down, and compre it to your real world numbers...please dont tell me they match.

You know, maybe the reason why you're not seeing what I'm saying is because you aren't testing full flap landings? It's all fine and dandy at flaps 20 but once I drop below 500agl full flaps just have so much drag I have to add a ton of power here way into the 20's, and it should be doable at least below 20 (if not 15-17). I can only maintain 15-17 using flaps 20 all the way down.

I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air, it is what it is:

http://www.associatedpilots.com/documents/C-206_operating_notes.pdf

 

Just read it from the very bottom of page 2 thru the top paragraph page 3. It can't be done. It COULD be done, however if you reduce some flap drag.

 

*Edit* - Beaver, one last thing if I may ask you to comment on. I know this depends upon the height and seating position of each individual pilot BUT...could you shed any light regarding seating position?...specifically, is it normal in this plane to see any part of the cowling at all if you crank the seat up a bit, or NOT al all? Thanks.

Hangar,

 

Thanks for your edit suggestions in the other post.

 

I'm sure the performance niggles aren't worth fighting over in any event, it's also a question of perspective and preference, which can vary.

 

I've tried coming in below 20" manifold pressure with full flaps and fuel tanks and default load and yes, by around 70 knots too far out I start sinking like a rock and have to blip the throttle a bit, but changing load, point at which I go full flaps, etc. easily handles that. And I like the fact that the 206 feels a little different this way from other Carenado Cessnas, it feels both like a lighter aircraft, more nimble yet a bit underpowered, and with the nose high attitude on landing. If I tweaked it to be more "accurate" it would also feel like Just Another Cessna, and in FSX, I think a little creative license is okay - that's just me.

 

For me the real clue in terms of realism will be whether this performs well as a bush plane up around ORBX PNW and SAK; that's where I'm hoping to fly it the most, especially into small mountain airstrips.

 

A fun discussion to have, in any event!

wasn't really looking for a lesson...been in aviation for 13 years myself and an adx for more than 10 so I'll just repeat...

~ IMHO, ego waving doesn't add to this otherwise interesting post, and Beaver Driver has more than proved his credentials in this thread, so the 'talk down the nose' isn't really warranted.....

 

So... this one looks interesting. So for all those of us who screamed at Carenado to stop doing all G1000 planes and go back to some steam gauges, we really should be buying this, to back that message up with good sales figures! :smile:

 

But the 206 is just not a plane that interests me one bit; very safe for Carenado, and rather predictalbe in what to expect, both visually, and across the flight envelope.

 

I'm not quite ready to part with the readies yet!

Too bad about reality XP and prepar3d otherwise I would get this. Probably

~ IMHO, ego waving doesn't add to this otherwise interesting post, and Beaver Driver has more than proved his credentials in this thread, so the 'talk down the nose' isn't really warranted.....

 

Actually.. I'm one of the few here who infact will rarely mention any of my own credentials, but sometimes you need to stand up for yourself when your ideas are being tossed aside as if they aren't warranted.

 

I have provided some valid backup information for my findings and the data is just as valid as Beaver's thoughts on the matter and perhaps even more so because it can be backed up by viewing actual video footage.

 

I think part of the problem with discussions such as this is that there are typically 2 different mindsets and points of view...meaning that simmers generally get very caught up and even anal when it comes to "numbers", whereas pilots are often more "feel" and "perspective" oriented...guess it's sort of a natural point of argument since historically in the sim it's always been extremely difficult (if not impossible) to have the best of both worlds. Typically if the "numbers" are spot on then the "feel" loses something in the process, and vice versa.

 

Personally, I think the feel and perspectives are fantastic!...just trying to get a tiny bit closer to the numbers is all.

Deleted. It isn't worth the effort! Have a nice day.

I'm having a very weird issue with the fps...when I start a flight, I'm on 50 fps or more, after just 5 minutes, the fps drops down to even 1 to no more than 8 fps...does anyone have this very weird but very annoying issue???, this doesn't happen with my other Carenado aircrafts...just with the C182 and now with the C206... :(

Been a Carenado customer for years. Got the CT206H and now the old U206G is off the hard drive and into backup. 'nuff said.

Have flown the new one for 3 hours and severalk landing in ORBx land (Scotland and Australia's bush). Very nice. Really like this airplane.\

One issue that is disappointing to me is that I cannot get the radio buttons to work, Not the radios. That's fine. I am talking about the top controls, COM1, COM2 and beepers selectors for NAV, NAV2, ADF, Marker. At some point I wanted to turn the damn beeper off from some VOR or other and could not click those things to work. Had to resort to pressing keys (CTRL-1, etc. to try to stop them as I did not know which one it was).

Do those things work in the interface for you? I'd love to know.

Other than this, great plane! I do not have flight time in a real C206 but I did fly in one for 5 hours as a passenger last month. It seems to handle like the real thing to my inexperienced hands.

I do not regret removing the old one, but I do miss the tons of paints I had. Hopefully some will start showing up for the new model.

There is a service pack out that fixes this.