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. Also attached is a screen capture of a short final at 70  knots.

Thanks John. I am not a pilot but have about 30 hours right seat in a 210B with a friend and much of that me getting to play pilot. While that's nothing compared to you, I noticed in level flight that this Carenado plane it is not balanced. Configured for fore C of G, it presents as aft C of G. At 140 knots with 2 people in the front and full tanks, the plane presents as nose high. Like 3 degrees. This is confirmed looking out the side view and looking at the horizon or externally observing the plane from the side.

 

Does your modded airfile address that as well?

 

C.

Im surprised at these comments considering Glenn's (beaverdriver) glowing report of the FDE.

Im surprised at these comments considering Glenn's (beaverdriver) glowing report of the FDE.

I bought it partly based on his review to be honest. Only to be a little baffled after a test flight. I have flown the pattern in a 210 in real life a half dozen times and remember vividly having a nose high attitude trying to maintain 90 in the downwind. Check. But in cruise its like riding in a truck. Nice and level and clear view out the front. Although the glareshield is at my chin, I can see the cowling but not the spinner but still I can see out front. Check. but the pitch does not seem to level in any configuration. The FDE needs some help.

 

C. 

Just having fun here. I am no Bernt Stolle and I ain't no Beaver Driver either. I have had only about 100 hours in various small singles in real life. Mostly all Cessna a few piper and while I am not yet a pilot, most of that time has been right seat at the controls. I do know that the 182 and the 210B I have flown, or flown in, are not the same as a 206. I believe in the end, planes are balanced for cruise configuration with a centered C of G or they can be unsafe when the wing AOA is not right at speed. Also, in my experience, most Cessna's sight picture are very similar on final when in landing configuration but obviously flare will feel or be different. I do think I have enough feel from amateur flying to know when a plane is out of trim or out of balance and or C of G is fore or aft though.

 

Playing with Airfiles is not my thing. But I am trying a different one (from a nearly identical 206 airfile) with this model and I like it better. Try it for yourself. Understand I am not the author. Just make a copy of your original and save this one as .air instead of .txt in the folder for this plane.

 

I have not tested all the engine settings and flight profiles against the POH. I need to discuss with someone who knows how to modify this stuff. I would like to merge the "flight dynamics/blance and feel" of this air file with the "engine behavior" parameters of the original file shipped with this plane. Mainly so that I can retain the (in my opinion) better flight characteristics of this other file with engine and power behavior of the original at various altitudes for MP, RPM and TIT, feet per minute and all that.

 

Comparison pics... And a video in cruise. Paying close attention to the horizon out the side view...

 

http://youtu.be/yYsaJC9CPj0

 

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).

Ooops that file can't just be renamed. Sorry about that. In hind sight, I think I cannot just post it either. It is from the original Carenado 206 for FSX. So if you own that plane, you can swap it out and experiment with the handling.

 

That said, I know that the Turbo and non-Turbo are not the same but handling should be similar. Just the engine behavior would need a tweak. In which case I wish I knew how to cherry pick the engine characteristics from the Turbo air file and plop them right into the non-turbo file. 

 

NOTE: I know that allot of love and care went into this release and the accompanying air file was crafted by someone with a far more solid grasp of these things than I. However, as a trackIR user with EZCA, I feel more in tune with the original handling and feel from the non-turbo release.

 

Charles.

Thanks John, I do find I`m straining to look over the glareshield on approach even with trackir5 and EZdock. Will give this a shot

 

Doogie

Nice work, John...thanks for taking the time and posting this.

 

Now with this new air file all I needed to do was to decrease the flap drag down to .6 in the cfg to get proper manifold pressure on final. 

 

Have a good read here, and make note of some of the manifold pressures mentioned during approach phase.

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

 

I have 2 questions about this plane I thought perhaps you or someone else might know:

 

1. I read another article about this plane that mentioned there is rudder needed in turns to stay coordinated in the 206 (unlike some other Cessna's which apparently do not)...but in this simulated version I find I need almost no rudder at all...can this be fixed?

 

2. How's the best way to lean this airplane (is the gauge working correctly?) and at approx. what altitude should we start that process?

Thanks John, I do find I`m straining to look over the glareshield on approach even with trackir5 and EZdock. Will give this a shot :)Doogie

Gonna try his next.

 

*edit* Actually this great! I agree with hanger John. Great job. Thanks. Now I'll keep this plane. :-)

 

C.

Wanted to add. I like this original airfile now that I have flown it more. Emberasingly enough, I retract that I said I liked the old 206 airfile better. This one is very nice now that I can see out front better. This is going to be a favorite for me in the hanger. Highly recommended. Thanks Carenado team and thanks John again for this little tweak. She's a gem.

 

C.

I`m probably being totally stupid here but when I add John`s airfile to my 206H after renaming the original to old and renaming Johns to .AIR I get an error that the model failed to initialize? Am I missing something?<br /><br />thanks Doogie

 

 

I`m probably being totally stupid here but when I add John`s airfile to my 206H after renaming the original to old and renaming Johns to .AIR I get an error that the model failed to initialize? Am I missing something?

Hi,

I get the same as well so that makes two of us. I have sent a PM to Pilotjohn on this so hope he can help.

I`m probably being totally stupid here but when I add John`s airfile to my 206H after renaming the original to old and renaming Johns to .AIR I get an error that the model failed to initialize? Am I missing something?<br /><br />thanks Doogie

Same here!  Not sure what I'm doing wrong either.

 

Gary

To cvearl and GHarrall - Glenn's review is spot on. Both he and I have a lot of real world time in big Cessnas and Pipers. These planes do not fly level as the pictures here suggest. In straight and level, they fly a little nose high. In formation flight one can see this easily. This is a double-edged sword. Does one want reality or convenience? Glenn's review suggests the reality. Of course, this is my opinion, bases on 2000+ hours of dragging these things through the air.

 

Don