Great place to practice cross wind approach and landing at the moment. Crabbing!

I opted 10 degrees of flaps. In real life I would probably land with no flaps

Everything was great until Asobo wind model cut wind more than a half. ATIS reported 18 kts crosswind. Now I have only 11kts. I hope they will improve it in upcoming update

33 knots crosswind right now at EKCH. Just accomplished a very challenging approach.

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Everything was great until Asobo wind model cut wind more than a half. ATIS reported 18 kts crosswind. Now I have only 11kts. I hope they will improve it in upcoming update

 

How's the 182, is it a good model to get?

Cool screenshots! Although I have to disagree with your math. 11 is not "more than half" of 18. Just saying. 

must have been a long flight, PAFA is in the middle of nowhere.

32 minutes ago, Bdub22 said:

Cool screenshots! Although I have to disagree with your math. 11 is not "more than half" of 18. Just saying. 

Well, it was 18kts gusting to 22kts according to ATIS 🙂 Approach started at 27 kts, so 18-22kts would be reasonable  expectation at the ground level, but it dropped significantly on short final

4 minutes ago, desbean said:

must have been a long flight, PAFA is in the middle of nowhere.

I know, but that I at least I don't have LOD issue. It already looks pretty poor as far satellite imagery ! LOL

52 minutes ago, Dillon said:

How's the 182, is it a good model to get?

I used to own 182 older model F (IRL), but it was not turbo. This one more reminds me of heavy version 172 for some reason. 182 flies significantly different from 172 even though they look a like. 182 is very stable IFR platform, more stable than 172! Since I owned both 172P and 182F I always did my instrument proficiency in 182! 

My 182F had 40 degree flaps. 40 degrees flaps produced significant drag, so forward slip was not an option. It was great help for short strips. 182 would drop down with full flaps! Very nose heavy during touch down not as floaty as 172. Cowl flaps played  significant role in closing engine. If I were to  forget to close cowl flaps in climb I could see CHT temperature jumped passed 400 in matter of 30 seconds. in Carenado model it don't think it really taken into account at all. Of course F model had older 6 cylinder Continental carburetor engine different from 182T. Descent was always an art since shock cooling in my 182 was very real possibility. Gotta watch CHT at all time climd for rapids warming and descend for quick cooling. Carenado 182 uses default system so not much to compare in this department. You can abuse it all day long and noting will happens.

Finally my universal landing check list that work for most airplanes I have flown IRL good for sims too: BCGUMPLS

B-booster pump

C- cowl flaps or carb heat

G- gas (fuel selector)

U- undercarriage

M-mixture

P-prop

L- landing light

S- seatbelts

50 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I used to own 182 older model F (IRL), but it was not turbo. This one more reminds me of heavy version 172 for some reason. 182 flies significantly different from 172 even though they look a like. 182 is very stable IFR platform, more stable than 172! Since I owned both 172P and 182F I always did my instrument proficiency in 182! 

Interesting.  One major thought to bare in mind is the newer models fly far different than the older models.  I flew a newer late 90's 172 the other night and the stability, sharpness of the engines when applying power, and the feel of the aircraft was so different than the older 172's.  Of course a sim version is not going to capture the real aircraft to the degree we are used to but it looks like Carenado is modeling a newer 182 which for those of us who've flown the 80's or before models it's like flying two different aircraft. The improvements of the newer models is amazing to experience first hand.

Edited October 3, 20205 yr by Dillon

2 minutes ago, Dillon said:

Interesting.  One major thought to bare in mind is the newer models fly far different than the older models.  I flew a newer late 90's 172 the other night and the stability, sharpness of the engines when applying power, and the feel of the aircraft was so different than the older 172's.  Of course a sim version is not going to capture the real aircraft to the degree we are used to but it looks like Carenado is modeling a newer 182 which for those of us who've flown the 80's or before models it's like flying two different aircraft. The improvements of the newer models is amazing to experience first hand.

I flown aircraft of same make and model made ranging from 1950th to 2000th. Some of them have some noticeable difference some actually not. The older 172 you flew probably was 4 cyl lycoming 160hp or 6 cyl continental 150  hp. From early 90x Cessna switched to fuel injected derated lycoming 160hp and later 180hp. 160 vs 180 definitely may feel little different. But if you flown old Hershey bar Cherokee 180 and later contemporary tapered wing Piper Archer you would only noticed difference cockpit layout  later model mag switches and light in over head panel  instead of lower panel ingestion switch.

 As CFI I'm checked out in all models of 182 that includes turbo . Of course any new aircraft even if I'm qualified but haven't flown  I would study POH first, and then  would take it for a "spin" before teaching.  But again  after years and years flying perceptions changes, things blend and become somewhat uniform. Initially of course I could feel the difference between two 172 same year and model, but now they all the same to me LOL Sometimes I jump in airplane that I haven't flown for years but things come back pretty quickly after few landings.