Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pilotjohn

Nose-High FDE Fixes

Recommended Posts

Guest BeaverDriver

I've pretty much stated my case, but as a parting comment, here's a pic of the Carenado machine in flight:

 

C206-22.jpg

That's on autopilot and maintaining 5,000 ft. You can see that it is in level flight, or maybe 1 degree nose up. That's how they really are. The view out the front window is deceiving because Cessna panels are so high (I used to carry a cushion to sit on in those to get me up a few more inches IRL). Beyond that you've got that long cowling. Visibility over the nose of these machines is not good. As Donmo suggested, changing the parameters to get the nose down is one of convenience, but departs from reality. On landings with these machines IRL, you are looking out the side of the front windscreen at the runway edge, NOT over the nose because you can't see the runway over the nose. Again, this plane is extremely real in that respect, but also again, if you wish to change it, that's fine. I do find it a tad ironic though, that people always say they want it "as real as it gets" but when they get it, the first thing they do is change it :P . Anyway, it's your aircraft.

 

The deal with approaches is, unless you are doing an IFR approach on a 3 degree GS, this business of the aircraft needing too much power compared with the real thing isn't correct. All that means is you are approaching too low, too flat and probably too slow. Unless it's a very short field, you want to use 70 to 75 kts on approach at the slowest. The way you do it though, is fly at about 500 to 1000 ft above the runway elevation (typically you turn final from base at 500 ft agl if doing a visual approach), then proceed until you can pull the power back to about 15" for your descent. If you are coming in short, then you started your approach too soon. Less than that and you started too late. It takes practice, but it works. Ideally, you want to do power off approaches in single engined airplanes so that if you lose your engine you still make the runway. In bigger aircraft like the 206, that can result in shock cooling the engine (same with the smaller ones too I guess), so leaving a bit of power on (typically 15" in a constant speed prop machine and maybe about 1200 to 1500 rpm in a fixed pitch prop machine) is better for the engine, but you will land short if you lose your engine. So this bit about needing too much power in the Carenado airplane doesn't really fit. You fly the approach to set your MP, not the other way around. Again, for an IFR approach, what's your weather? What's your loading and where is it (C of G)? Is it a standard 3 degrees? How much headwind do you have (meaning your GS will be slower so you have to drag out your final approach longer)? All that will play a part in your final approach speed. What you see in a video is a snapshot. That's it. The next approach may have required that you drag the thing on, and that can take a LOT of power. If you are doing a short field approach and having to clear trees first, you may be coming in with gobs of power then chopping it to zero as soon as you clear the trees. THERE IS NO ONE SET STANDARD! Anyone with real time should know that ^_^ .

 

Enjoy the airplane. Like I've said, I've stated my case and stand by it. If you choose to deviate, that's entirely your choice, but it is one of convenience, and contradicts reality. Up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn thankyou for your insight my friend. I have 0 hours RL experience so I will just keep it the way it is then. I don't do much bush flying in FSX but am trying to do more and more. I`m usually a Boeing or Airbus flyer but still own a lot of the Carenado aircraft. My solution is pretty much the same as the cushion trick, Ive setup a new camera with EZCA that raises me up so I can see the cowling and the PAPI lights on a 3 degree approach.

 

Thanks again

 

Doogie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BeaverDriver

Yeah, it's a real adjustment for those used to flying jets. Typically there's virtually no nose to see over in those, and jumping into a big Cessna or Piper is a bit of a shock. IRL I used to hate not being able to see over the nose very well, especially on floats where there were obstacles in/on the water. You get used to it though, but yes, vis is really restricted in these machines. It's actually even worse in the Cessnas because that wing root means a lower top frame for the side window, so you have to actually duck your head to see straight out sideways. It's a pain, but it is what it is :).

 

Thanks Doogie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've pretty much stated my case, but as a parting comment, here's a pic of the Carenado machine in flight:

 

C206-22.jpg

That's on autopilot and maintaining 5,000 ft. You can see that it is in level flight, or maybe 1 degree nose up. That's how they really are. The view out the front window is deceiving because Cessna panels are so high (I used to carry a cushion to sit on in those to get me up a few more inches IRL). Beyond that you've got that long cowling. Visibility over the nose of these machines is not good. As Donmo suggested, changing the parameters to get the nose down is one of convenience, but departs from reality. On landings with these machines IRL, you are looking out the side of the front windscreen at the runway edge, NOT over the nose because you can't see the runway over the nose. Again, this plane is extremely real in that respect, but also again, if you wish to change it, that's fine. I do find it a tad ironic though, that people always say they want it "as real as it gets" but when they get it, the first thing they do is change it :P . Anyway, it's your aircraft.

 

The deal with approaches is, unless you are doing an IFR approach on a 3 degree GS, this business of the aircraft needing too much power compared with the real thing isn't correct. All that means is you are approaching too low, too flat and probably too slow. Unless it's a very short field, you want to use 70 to 75 kts on approach at the slowest. The way you do it though, is fly at about 500 to 1000 ft above the runway elevation (typically you turn final from base at 500 ft agl if doing a visual approach), then proceed until you can pull the power back to about 15" for your descent. If you are coming in short, then you started your approach too soon. Less than that and you started too late. It takes practice, but it works. Ideally, you want to do power off approaches in single engined airplanes so that if you lose your engine you still make the runway. In bigger aircraft like the 206, that can result in shock cooling the engine (same with the smaller ones too I guess), so leaving a bit of power on (typically 15" in a constant speed prop machine and maybe about 1200 to 1500 rpm in a fixed pitch prop machine) is better for the engine, but you will land short if you lose your engine. So this bit about needing too much power in the Carenado airplane doesn't really fit. You fly the approach to set your MP, not the other way around. Again, for an IFR approach, what's your weather? What's your loading and where is it (C of G)? Is it a standard 3 degrees? How much headwind do you have (meaning your GS will be slower so you have to drag out your final approach longer)? All that will play a part in your final approach speed. What you see in a video is a snapshot. That's it. The next approach may have required that you drag the thing on, and that can take a LOT of power. If you are doing a short field approach and having to clear trees first, you may be coming in with gobs of power then chopping it to zero as soon as you clear the trees. THERE IS NO ONE SET STANDARD! Anyone with real time should know that ^_^ .

 

Enjoy the airplane. Like I've said, I've stated my case and stand by it. If you choose to deviate, that's entirely your choice, but it is one of convenience, and contradicts reality. Up to you.

Wow, what a spot on review. I think we need to embrace what Glenn has shared here and apply this to our flight simming experiences. I think most of us(I'm including myself here as well) jump to conclusions as to how " we think it should be" as opposed to just waiting things out and hearing different perspectives. Each aircraft does handle differently. Just as when you get into a car versus a truck, another car, etc., the views over the dashboards look different. My wife drives a big suv. Man I hate getting into it right after driving my Chevy automobile and feeling just a bit awkward when I first get into the driver's seat. Planes are the same way. I've flown both Pipers and Cessnas( IRL) and each time, had to sit in the pilot's seat for a few minutes, just to get comfortable and get the right "feel" for just sitting in the aircraft. Personally, I prefer flying low wing over high wing aircraft for flying as well as visibility purposes. This is probably due to the fact I was trained in a Piper Tomahawk. I'm certain fliers that trained in Cessnas feel differently than I do and have an affinity towards high wing aircraft. The fact remains, however, that no two aircraft fly exactly the same way and sitting in each cockpit looks and feels different. Once again, nice job Glenn! :mellow:

 

Gary

Wow, what a spot on review. I think we need to embrace what Glenn has shared here and apply this to our flight simming experiences. I think most of us(I'm including myself here as well) jump to conclusions as to how " we think it should be" as opposed to just waiting things out and hearing different perspectives. Each aircraft does handle differently. Just as when you get into a car versus a truck, another car, etc., the views over the dashboards look different. My wife drives a big suv. Man I hate getting into it right after driving my Chevy automobile and feeling just a bit awkward when I first get into the driver's seat. Planes are the same way. I've flown both Pipers and Cessnas( IRL) and each time, had to sit in the pilot's seat for a few minutes, just to get comfortable and get the right "feel" for just sitting in the aircraft. Personally, I prefer flying low wing over high wing aircraft for flying as well as visibility purposes. This is probably due to the fact I was trained in a Piper Tomahawk. I'm certain fliers that trained in Cessnas feel differently than I do and have an affinity towards high wing aircraft. The fact remains, however, that no two aircraft fly exactly the same way and sitting in each cockpit looks and feels different. Once again, nice job Glenn! :mellow:

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These planes do not fly level as the pictures here suggest. In straight and level, they fly a little nose high

oh?

 

 

 

I would say it really depends upon your weight, airspeed and alititude, etc. As you can see they are quite capable of flying "flat". Yet there's another video at FL190 where the plane is riding 2 degrees nose high.

 

I will say, however, that John's fix tends to have a slight nose-down effect in cruise...so he may have overdone it a tad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

You have 206 time? Lucky ######. Commercial or private? Next time I am in Invermere visiting the parents, I'm gonna hit Babin Air up for a ride in thiers. 4 degrees nose up in high cruise is reality in these behemoths? Never expected that.

 

I just had a thought. Perhaps its just on my system. Glens screenshot does not appear to look quite the same as mine. Maybe its a setting in fsx. Reality is set to hhard on mine. I'll try medium. I know for my a2a planes and real air it is suggested I fly with the realism at hard for correct handling. I know realism setting can affect characteristics.

 

Will check this morning.

 

I completely respect your seasoned opinions. 4 degrees up just seems to be a tick or two more than it should be or than I expected. But I'm not a licensed pilot let alone a guy with 206 time. Largest single I've flown in is a 210B and only a few dozen hours mostly right seat. Its perhaps a tick bigger than a 182RG. Cruises about the same speed as a 206 and even though it has the extra windows, it only has 4 seats.

 

C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is as simple as the airplane didn't feel right to me in FSX, having flown many other Cessna and many other planes over the last 10 years. I made the change because it meant the difference between throwing $35 out the window and never flying it again, or keeping it and flying it a lot.

 

Single engine piston Cessnas (there are a few exceptions but 172, 182, 206) are all the same. They are based off the same airfoil, they stall similarly and fly very much alike. If you don't see that and haven't felt that, you need to fly more airplanes; control forces, weights (and as a result some minor speeds) aside, it's a large orange vs a medium orange.

 

I'm well aware of everything that goes into the pitch attitude in an approach. I simply wanted a level attitude in a 3 degree glide-slope (as I said at the default weight) in no wind conditions. I don't give a rats butt with headwind, steep, shallow, UAV or fully loaded, high or low, hot or cold, it's irrelevant. I wanted to comfortably see out the front (like I do IRL) when doing a standard approach, in ISA at recommended speeds.

 

All this BS, without taking into account my other complaint that it was nearly impossible to liftoff at around 65 (one notch of flaps) without nearly striking the tail, which is even more BS. So, I will continue flying it because I can now live with it. Others can continue to use the original. I don't really care.

 

For those that are having issues, I haven no idea why. The only thing I can think of is that having a TXT extension corrupts it during download (newline changes). The forums wouldn't let me attach it with .AIR extension. The size after download should be the same as the original.

 

--- IMPORTANT ---

So now it's attached with a .pdf extension (hopefully not munging). Rename to .air. Make sure you're NOT hiding extensions in Windows, so when you rename it doesn't become CT206H.pdf.air. It has to really be CT206H.air.

--- IMPORTANT ---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey John...any chance you can make a version of that air file that would fly flat at 75kts instead of 70k? I loaded the thing up in AirEd but couldnt find the correct table to mess with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey John...any chance you can make a version of that air file that would fly flat at 75kts instead of 70k? I loaded the thing up in AirEd but couldnt find the correct table to mess with.

 

I'm away from a PC for the long weekend, but this is what I did:

 

 

I used AirUpdate since it would be tedious otherwise (in GUI with other tools)... http://mudpond.org/AirUpdatePage.html
 
Selet the CT206H.air and Dump (Full Dump)
 
Open the text file that is created, and copy the two columns of numbers from table 1545 (CL vs Alpha)
 
Paste the two columns into Excel, and duplicate the sheet.
 
For even entry where the CL is not 0.5 (basically everything except the first and last few entries) subtract 2 degrees from the first column (in radians).
 
I set each row in the first column of the first sheet to the row from sheet 2 less 3*PI()/180 (in your case).
 
Copy the modified columns and paste them back (replacing the original numbers) to the text file.
 
Select the text file again, and run Update.
 
I would try 2 degrees to see if that gives you 75 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely thinks it's a bit nose-high. This looks straight and level to me, but as you can see, there's a 550 fpm descent rate. Even so, I still can't see over the nose.

 

4mp2.jpg
 
Don't know if it's just a matter of getting used to it, or if it really needs "fixing". From a flight simulator perspective, I'll be using Shift+Enter a lot when flying this, together with Shift+Backspace when I want to look outside. Their C182 and C210 are similar, though not quite as pronounced.

Asus Prime X370 Pro / Ryzen 7 3800X / 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz / Gainward Ghost RTX 3060 Ti
MSFS / XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey John...many thanks for all that helpful info...will work on it tonight!

 

@Jimmi - looks like your seating position is too low and a tad too far back. Looks like your eye level is about even with the lip of the glareshield when it's your CHIN that should be level with it instead. Also try sitting 4-6 inches closer to the panel as well. Looks like your sittin all the way back, maxin and relaxin on auto pilot :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey John...many thanks for all that helpful info...will work on it tonight!

 

@Jimmi - looks like your seating position is too low and a tad too far back. Looks like your eye level is about even with the lip of the glareshield when it's your CHIN that should be level with it instead. Also try sitting 4-6 inches closer to the panel as well. Looks like your sittin all the way back, maxin and relaxin on auto pilot :-)

 

Well that's where Carenado place you by default. So maybe it's their seating position that's wrong, rather than the flight model.

 

Here's an example of the big difference the seating position can make. In the first shot, you can clearly see the runway and you're able to take off safely. In the second (Carenado default position) it looks like you're in a taildragger, and entrecôte is on he menu for sure if you attempt to take off.

 

 Don't know which is more realistic-  maybe something in between?

 

e609.jpg
 

v8zq.jpg

 

 

It's also hard to compare FS with the real world, because you have much better peripheral vision and can more easily move your head and eyepoint. So an "unrealistic" eyepoint might still be preferred if it actually allows you to fly the plane properly. I had a similar problem with the Carenado P46T, where it was simply impossible to fly a normal visual approach and come out anywhere close to the runway. A few taps of Ctrl+Enter, and it felt like a completely different airplane.


Asus Prime X370 Pro / Ryzen 7 3800X / 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz / Gainward Ghost RTX 3060 Ti
MSFS / XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One big thing I haven't really heard mentioned is the massive size of a 206 cowling and glare shield. I fly the 172 (instruct in it) and 182 (own one IRL) on a daily basis and have been in the 206 several times and 208. The glareshield in the 206 is much higher compared to a pilots view point and it's a much different view than the other three even the caravan, and in fact I find the carenados T206H standard flight profile angles and view from the cockpit exactly match up to what it was for real life for me in a 206 even with the seat cranked up all the way (then again I'm short at only 5"6 so that may effect my perspective) but from my real world experience the sim matches perfectly, that's just a real world to sim comparison, if you want to adjust it to make it more enjoyable in the sim then that's a whole separate thing, and the beauty of a sim!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...