My problem with this sim is what seems to me as an unusually senstive elevator and resultant problems with pitch control. My question is whether or not I could achieve better control(less sensitivity) with a .cfg edit ? Whether in climb, level flight, or descent the 'flighty' VSI fluctuations require constant attention and make for a tiresome journey in good weather and bad.Thanks for any suggestions. John

It's only on the second pagehttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...59408&mode=full

Perhaps I should have mentioned earlier that 'ballooning' is not a problem for me, so that the fixes mentioned in the previous posts are not relevant. I made them anyway, but it didn't change anything. Simply put, my elevator is just too loosy-goosy. How do I tighten it up ?Thanks for the response, Riddle.

I'd be curious to know if you are feathering the prop all the way to touchdown... That's the only way I could see you not having the problem others (including myself) have mentioned. I found the edits mentioned in my other thread worked but degraded performance (hard to sustain normal cruising speed and/or climb to altitudes above 5,000ft). The only way to get this bird down like a normal aircraft is to fully feather the prop while on landing approach...

"Simply put, my elevator is just too loosy-goosy. How do I tighten it up ?"I find with many aircraft, I have to tune the elevator_effectiveness. Not due to any fault in their FDE's, but due to the controller I use being a bit sensitive to begin with. In the flight_tuning section of the aircraft.cfg, you can reduce the elevator_effectiveness parameter. If it's at 1.0, it uses the default effectiveness value it reads from the .air file. If it is at .5, the effectiveness is roughly half as much. If it's at 2.0, twice as much.I couldn't tell you how sensitive a real 182 should be, but adjusting that value in the aircraft.cfg should help your problem. If you need to adjust elevator trim, you can adjust the elevator_trim_sensitivity value in the same section of the aircraft.cfg. If these two variables aren't there, you can certainly add them into the flight_tuning section. Most of these variables allow you to adjust certain FDE issues without having to become an .air file expert.Hope this is of help.Regards,John

John how do you get more horse power out of the engine???

Here are the only edits I made for the balloning and approach problems that some were having including me, and since they are flap edits they should only effect the aircraft after flaps are lowered. ( I know almost nothing about tweaking aircraft config parameters, and I have been helped by other people, so I am not trying to pass myself off as an expert. I do feel that I know how a plane that I flew in real life, should fly on the sim, however. )Here are the changes I made lift_scalar=.5 drag_scalar=1.7I increased the drag scaler a bit today, from what I had originally tried after a friend of mine stopped over this afternoon and tried flying it. He is a CFII and has checked pilots out in the C182. He said that it did not seem to have quite enough drag with 1.5. I just tried it on a 1500 ft runway in Misty Fjords and had plenty of runway left and could comfortably land on the main gear first. Save the orginal settings in case you don't like these, so you can always go back to the default. If you play with the drags under flight tunning, then I think you will have cruise and climb problems with the aircraft. I checked takeoffs on 10 degrees of flaps, and climb rate seemed normal. By the way, the elevator seems to be OK, but I think I am going to reduce the elevator trim effectiveness next, which I have done on many planes I fly. If one click up ( I use a switch on my CH Yoke) starts me climbing and one click down starts a descent, obviously it is way to sensitive. It is easy to find a setting that you like, just by adjusting and flying until you get it where you want it.

You want to increase the cylinder size and compression ratio--however that will affect fuel burn. If you don't want to affect fuel burn, adjusting the thrust scalar in the prop section may be a better way to handle it. I find that the compression ratio/cylinder size don't always produce the expected power if the underlying .air file has some odd engine data in it. I try to stick to editing aircraft.cfg files whenever I can since I find it easier to back out my changes if a patch is made by the vendor. -John

Oops, I was changing the entries under flight tuning...CRUISE_LIFT_SCALAR=1 PARASITE_DRAG_SCALAR=1 *:-* The edits are only for the flaps...Thanks John/Bob for the tips & info...

I've only got a few hours in a 182RG, but I can tell you that the aircraft is VERY heavy on the controls compared to a 172. I know that my first landing favored the nosewheel, as do the landings of many other pilots transitioning from the 172 to the 182.John (original poster John). There could be several possibilities to "tighten up" your pitch control. Either increase the pitch stability entry, or lessen the elevator authority. You'll have to play with the settings. Adjust them by .2 or so and see what it takes to start to get the feel you're looking for.And as always, backup the original file.

>The only way to get>this bird down like a normal aircraft is to fully feather the>prop while on landing approach...The following is a reprint of my post at Flightsim Com, but a serious classroom lesson regarding constant speed props & featering (when possible):This is kind of an extention of the 182 thread, but actually a classroom regarding constant speed props.I must admit, I got quite a kick out of some of the last replies before the thread was locked.Anyway, "NO", I don't feather the 182's prop, because it would be quite impossible! This "one engine" airplane does NOT have a prop that's capable of featering. You're usually only going to find those on piston twins or jet turbo-props. The prop in the 182 has a fixed range from fine to course, but never full parallel (spell?) to the wind, which is a feathered condition.Now how do I know all this? Most likely, it's because I've installed C/S props, along with the governors, oil tubes, and removing the plug that comes in a new Lycomings hollow crankshaft. Adjusting the governors & so on. I could give a whole lesson on how the governor controlls the oil pressure which is fed into the hollow cranshaft, but I won't.... I'm also rated to fly retractable & constant speed airplanes. Not to mention I "own" a constant speed ( Hartzell prop/ Lycoming ) airplane!Back to school----The advantage of a C/S prop, is that it's like a gear shift, where a fixed prop is always a compromise between full takeoff power & top cruise speed. It's always in the middle, or toward one end or the other.The C/S prop allows as much horse power as you can get with what ever the density altitude is for takeoff. That means, you can get in the air quicker & climb faster. The blue knob will be full forward & prop in "fine" pitch. During the cruise phase, by pulling the prop control out, the prop will become coarser, which is like changing to higher gears. Compared to a fixed prop that's in the middle of takeoff & cruise pitches, the C/S will allow higher cruise speeds. If the fixed prop was set for just cruise, but lousy takeoff performance, the plane might be somewhat lighter, and possibly faster. A C/S prop might be in the 80lb range, while a fixed metal is about half of that. And wood or composites are even lighter.Advantage of a constant speed prop & the pattern & landing....If an airframe is slick enough, without too much drag, such as all the wing wires & bracing on a Pitt's bi-wing, or perhaps the struts on a Cessna, you might have to think about slowing to pattern speed, miles from the airport. With a constant speed, you can rush to the pattern area at much higher speeds, and pushing the blue knob forward, will slow you down, as the prop starts moving to a finer pitch (lower gear). On final approach, the idea is to go full forward, which not only slows you down farther, but allows the engine to develope the highest horse power possible in case of a go-around.So NO, I don't feather the prop for landing, and YES, I go full forward with the prop control!However, since "speed management" is the key to entering the pattern, I can still land the Cessna, whether in full fine pitch, or just leaving the control at perhaps 65%. It works either way.And BTW--- If your speed management is rather bad, and you need around 90 kias or so, with gear down, for the pattern; then pull your thottle back & hold backpressure in level flight until airspeed drops. Then you can pitch down, apply flaps, and whatever.Attached pic, is my constant speed prop. The spinner is off, and you can see the dome, which contains a piston, spring, and air pressure. The oil pressure moves the piston & prop to coarse pitch. If pressure is lost, the spring & air pressure move it to fine pitch.L.Adamson

Mr. Adamson,how many hours do you have? Just a little curious. :)And i also see that your about to hit 3000 posts, so congrats if i miss it. :-wave

>Mr. Adamson,>>how many hours do you have? Just a little curious. :)>I've always said, that when it's 10,000---- I'll let you know! But not being a commercial pilot, it could take a day or two... :D

>I find with many aircraft, I have to tune the>elevator_effectiveness. Not due to any fault in their FDE's,>but due to the controller I use being a bit sensitive to begin>with. In the flight_tuning section of the aircraft.cfg, you>can reduce the elevator_effectiveness parameter. If it's at>1.0, it uses the default effectiveness value it reads from the>.air file. If it is at .5, the effectiveness is roughly half>as much. If it's at 2.0, twice as much.>>Hope this is of help.>>Regards,>>JohnHi John,The elevator_effectiveness parameter was set at 1.0 so I doubled it. At a setting of 2.0 the elevator was much more controllable, ie, much less 'goosey' and the ensuing flight was more enjoyable. Thanks for your help.Jack

>Thanks for your help.>JackWait, I thought in the original post you said your name was John...I'm confused now :-hmmm .