I wondered if it had just a little too much elevator authority right before the stall.

Gonna echo this, same with the Comanche. Even the smallest titch of elevator sends me flying back into the air. Maybe I'm just landing terribly (true to real life, mostly), but it just seems a little exaggerated from real life. Again, just my 2 cents.

...try 100lbs of baggage in the back, and in the cfg decrease the value of 2.0 to 1.5 for elevator_effectiveness. Helps alot with the pitchy flare.

 

By the way...I noticed you have to add the baggage every time you load the plane. It's not saving it in the shift+3 menu.

I'm not so sure we should be recommending changes to cfg values.

 

Scott has produced an aircraft based on what he owns so I think that changing his cfg values so it helps you fly it better is fraught with danger.

 

Hirdy

I hadn't noticed a problem with the Cherokee's flare being to pitchy.  I just made a few more landings. 170 lb. pilot only. Saitek X52 stick.  Landing on mains, and the nose wheel settles. Just a nice even descent.  Works fine for me. 

I know it's a long and dense thread, but I'd recommend you go back a few pages and read some of the comments from A2A's Scott G. on controllers and controller settings after several others noted this issue with their A2A aircraft.  Taken in total, he makes a very effective argument that this is a controller issue, not a plane issue.  I would definitely NOT recommend messing around with reducing elevator_effectiveness or any other item in the aircraft.cfg in an A2A plane, as many of the settings are done in order to assist in the way Accusim manipulates the plane.

If you have FSUIPC and use it for controls, a curve may help with fine tuning.  But read Scott's comments first before proceeding.

(not A2A) Scott

I've read all his posts & I understand what he's saying. But it doesn't explain the over sensitivity in the pitch axis.

I use FSUIPC with direct controls & no curves. I don't have over pitching problem with any other addons. So it's not a controller problem.

My question still stands, why? Are A2A right & ALL the other developers wrong?

I've read all his posts & I understand what he's saying. But it doesn't explain the over sensitivity in the pitch axis.

I use FSUIPC with direct controls & no curves. I don't have over pitching problem with any other addons. So it's not a controller problem.

My question still stands, why? Are A2A right & ALL the other developers wrong?

I've owned most RealAir models over the years. I'm not seeing this "pitch" problem with the A2A 182 or Cherokee.  I don't have the Comanche. They're all flyable without modifications.  No FSUIPC.

LAdamson, I'm not sure that flying a yoke based aircraft with an X52 joystick is a great test. A joystick doesn't translate the motion required in the same way as a yoke does. As an example, flying the Cherokee with my joystick, I don't notice any tendency to overflare. Flying it with the Saitek yoke, on the other hand, which is closer to the actual aircraft configuration, I do notice that there is a greater pitch authority down under 55 mph than I would expect. Not a big deal, certainly not something that you don't adjust to very quickly, but it is something that I do notice, maybe because different muscles are involved in the movement. Seems like it ought to be a little more slushy. I have to be uncommonly careful when pulling back or else it results in a balloon even as your senses tell you it's on the verge of the stall. Part of that might just be because the yoke is not all that great, maybe too frictiony, especially when you are applying some aileron into the wind. So of course, a lot of this is subjective. The guys that have $1000 yokes by PFC that they can pull back all the way into their gut and turn 90 degrees to the side to spread that input range over, might have an entirely different experience when it comes to their perception of force required to complete a manuever. It's hard to tell what part is the actual flight modelling and what part is due to somebody's controller.

I do not own the Comanche, but I do own both the C172 and the C182.

 

I guess this all is tied to the modeling of propwash over the elevator / horizontal stab with the latest versions of accusim, starting with the C172.

 

A2A is probably still fine tuning this and other aspects of their approach. I no longer use FSX as a sim, but I do recall very well the effect, specially on the C172... It was particularly evident during landing, and even when performing landings with an idled engine. The slightest up elevator would balloon my C172...

 

Now, my RL experience comes only from gliders, and they have an extraordinary ground effect, and some are very sensible to the use of the spoilers near the ground as well as the elevator, but even the trickiest I ever flown didn't give me that effect when I pull the stick near ground... ( closing the spoilers that's a different matter, somehow equivalent to giving engine on an aircraft while under ground effect... )

 

I think A2A should continue to look at this aspect of their accusim modeling... Maybe propwash effects are overdone ?

I do not own the Comanche, but I do own both the C172 and the C182.

 

I guess this all is tied to the modeling of propwash over the elevator / horizontal stab with the latest versions of accusim, starting with the C172.

 

A2A is probably still fine tuning this and other aspects of their approach. I no longer use FSX as a sim, but I do recall very well the effect, specially on the C172... It was particularly evident during landing, and even when performing landings with an idled engine. The slightest up elevator would balloon my C172...

 

Now, my RL experience comes only from gliders, and they have an extraordinary ground effect, and some are very sensible to the use of the spoilers near the ground as well as the elevator, but even the trickiest I ever flown didn't give me that effect when I pull the stick near ground... ( closing the spoilers that's a different matter, somehow equivalent to giving engine on an aircraft while under ground effect... )

 

I think A2A should continue to look at this aspect of their accusim modeling... Maybe propwash effects are overdone ?

Completely agree. I only have the 172 but even at 50-60 kts I should not float so high just by lifting the nose when right over the runway

Same very valid points raised. Maybe they could add an option like "controls advance landing" & "Controls FSX landing".  I just think that its odd that both a high wing and low wing have similar sensitivity issues in A2A planes

 

 

LAdamson, I'm not sure that flying a yoke based aircraft with an X52 joystick is a great test.

 

Doesn't make any difference, for the end result.  

Raising the nose on a 172 in a flare while in ground effect doing 50-60 KIAS is absolutely without a doubt going to give you monster balloon full stop. Raising the nose at around 30-40 KIAS will feel "mushy".

 

Note that the elevator on a real 172 remains very effective right into the stall. It is pitch sensitive all throughout the entire landing and requires a fine touch to get the flare just right. The elevator will hold the nose off the ground briefly while rolling out after touchdown with the stall horn chirping.

 

One must keep a watch on the ground outside to keep the airplane off the ground and pull back relative to the picture they see and not by some mechanical timing where they simply pull back at some fixed airspeed and height above the ground. The 172 is one of the most pitch sensitive airplanes I have flown. I find the J-3 to be more stable and the 162 to be less so. The real airplane is sensitive so don't blame your controllers or adjust the sim parameters, just get some more practice in.

 

During my PPL I struggled with my landings for a long time. I had balloons, hard touchdowns and flew it along the runway oscillating up and down as I struggled for what felt like countless hours (close to 20). It felt like forever and was getting really frustrating. Now every other airplane feel so easy.

 

I have no time in a Cherokee, but I found the A2A model to loose power much earlier in the landing so I carry power. It is also much less sensitive in pitch. It behaves very differently from the A2A 172 for me.

 

I can't speak for the Comanche as I have no time in that plane and don't own the A2A model and I won't make any assumptions about it. Every airplane is different.

A few more comments.  I'm having no problem landing the A2A Cherokee or Cessna 182. I've never cared about the stick length or range of our desktop controllers. I'm use to the long stick of real life Stearman, down to the 2" sticks used on R/C radio controllers. And then the in betweens such as the Pitts and the Van's RV.  I go by what I see,  not by a range of motion.  

I hadn't noticed a problem with the Cherokee's flare being to pitchy.  I just made a few more landings. 170 lb. pilot only. Saitek X52 stick.  Landing on mains, and the nose wheel settles. Just a nice even descent.  Works fine for me. 

 

It's going to take some people time to change their habits

 

In the real world, if you come in fast in a comanche and think you are going to go nose high on short final and it'll just settle, you are going to float half the runway. 

 

A stabilized final, dead on your speed, is much more important in a Comanche or Mooney then a Cherokee.

 

The rule in a Mooney is usually to go around if you bounce more then once or you'll end up with prop strike if you try to force it down. Just like in the real world, simmers are going to have to learn to manage their speed better on final.

Completely agree. I only have the 172 but even at 50-60 kts I should not float so high just by lifting the nose when right over the runway

 

50-60 knots? You'd float 1500 feet doing that. 

 

I watch the students at my field all the time come in too hot and eat up over 1/2 the runway length before touching down. 

 

Cessnas balloon like crazy if you are fast. Cherokees are much more forgiving. 

 

When you move up to faster high performance retracts, speed management becomes even more crucial. 

I have no time in a Cherokee, but I found the A2A model to loose power much earlier in the landing so I carry power. It is also much less sensitive in pitch. It behaves very differently from the A2A 172 for me.

 

 

That's completely consistent with the real world except you can usually chop the power on short final unless you are coming in flat. When I flew a 161 Warrior, I'd usually carry power until right before the flare. With the 140 Cruiser, I'd dump the throttle on short final. I think the hershey bar wing vs. tappered was the difference there.

 

Even if you are high you can forward slip the crap out of a Cherokee, come in 10 knots fast, cut the power, and it'll settle very quickly. 

 

Meanwhile, the 172s across the field routinely float half the runway (2450x40). And you can see them lurch skyward, up and down, as they are trying to fight it down while being too fast. 

 

 

I've read all his posts & I understand what he's saying. But it doesn't explain the over sensitivity in the pitch axis.

I use FSUIPC with direct controls & no curves. I don't have over pitching problem with any other addons. So it's not a controller problem.

 

I expect we'll have to agree to disagree then.  I use a Saitek yoke calibrated in FSUIPC with very small nulls (for reasons I've previously described - it's a tradeoff) and don't feel either the 172 or 182 in their current releases are unrealistic in pitch.  I do use slight curves with both, but that's largely to compensate for the tendency of the Saitek to be a bit sticky around the neutral point leading to a bit of over-controlling near neutral.

 

Scott