>>One more thing I just tried, full flaps ( 30 degrees) I>took>>of and was able to climb at 1700 FPM according to the VS>>indicator, and I hadn't even retracted the flaps or landing>>gear. >>>>Then I put out 30 degrees of flaps, engine at just above>idle,>>trimmed for 65 knots and the plane flew at level flight for>>miles, with the nose at about 10 degrees down from level. >>>>>> I wonder who Beta tested this thing? >>First I read the original first sentence, and couldn't get>near 1700fpm, not even half of that, and wondered if you just>popped it off the ground & saw 1700 for a second or two.>> edit: It's a fact, that some real airplanes will litterly>"pop" off the ground with full flaps (even 40 degrees), but>suffer highly in acceleration. While some POH's use 10 & 25>degrees for short field performance takeoffs over an obstacle,>there are actually some that use a full 40.>>Then I come back to reply, and see the second sentence, which>means it's off to testing again. For me to fly 65 kias in>trimmed level flight, 30 degrees flaps, I was looking at 2200>to near redline depending on my prop control.>>One down the line throughout this thread, I'm seeing some>replies, that's possibly justified, as well as replies that>have no validity at all. >To me, landing this 182 is purely a non-event.>>L.AdamsonI am talking about 1700 fpm steady climb. Also, when you say your prop is a 2300, what is your manifold pressure reading at the same time? Do me a favor, if you are getting flight behavior as you are stating, which seems to be drastically different than some of us are seeing, how about posting your Aircraft.cfg file, cause some of us must have some bogus data in ours.

Stright for the horses mouth, Carenado got back to me on this issue..."Thanks for your feedback...Really you are ok ...but the reason is simple.The real plane what I use as "original model", is equipped with a Horton StolKit because Im working in a possible new STOL version and I forgot to make thecorrespondant exchange of some parameters to the standard plane used to makethe definitive standard 3d model...well ...our Beta Testers was working with mewith the "other project" (STOL) and they was very happy with the "finalcut"...LOL Don't worry because finally you will fly the normal 182 rg. AService Pack will be released ASAP.About STOL capabilities of the Cessna 182 RG...yes is true but with a HortonStol Kit the behavior of the RG is very close to your actual Carenado 182 RG.We hope in a future to introduce this fantastic STOL performances to ourcustomers with the correspondant 3d model obviously. By the moment excuse the inconvenience...About your solutionchanging the value of the 'induced_drag_scalar' to '2' ...sadly is not the way,but congratulations by the effortFinally thanks again for your feedback and happy landings!!"I guess that puts this one to bed, can't wait for the patch... :-wave

>I am talking about 1700 fpm steady climb. Also, when you say>your prop is a 2300, what is your manifold pressure reading at>the same time? >> Do me a favor, if you are getting flight behavior as you are>stating, which seems to be drastically different than some of >us are seeing, how about posting your Aircraft.cfg file,>cause some of us must have some bogus data in ours.I get 1700 fpm with only a "drastic" bit of pulling back the yoke, and it only will last for about a second, as airspeed quickly bleeds off to a stall. Just tried this again, at near sea level from Half Moon Bay, California. Still could not duplicate the 65 kias at idle either. edit: deleted the cfg file. Is it technically legal to post a copywrited CFG??? I really don't know...

Good news! I also hope the release some updated sounds! My ears hurt from long flights!!

I am so happy to hear the news!!! I have been playing with the CFG numbers thinking it was just me being picky. I will be checking in on Carenado's website daily. Dillon, thanks for sharing with us. I am sure alot of owners will see this post. Best regards, Jeff

Just wanted to reply to my own post--I was reminded via PM that the .air file references I made to engine power only applied to FS2002 prop aircraft, not FS2004. Turbine power throttle profiles can still be adjusted in FS2004, but not piston, at least not in the manner I hinted at.-John

I knew something had to be wrong with that Aircraft file. I have over 600 hours in RA Cessnas, and if I flew one that handled like this one on approach, I would be calling an A & P mechanic as soon as I got it on the ground :)

bumpUK

There is no such thing. Flight Simulator .cfg files cannot be copyrighted. :)

I have the 182RG and just tried a short flight to see if i can duplicate anything here but the airplane seems to operate ok, neutral trim, i get none of the floating probs some of you have noted. for instance i configured for landing with gear down, flaps 30, 1900RPM, and the airplane indicates 2deg pitch down on the attitude indicator and a vertical speed of around -500fpm and it just descends perfectly on to the runway at 75 KIAS.So do i have to apply the service pack when it is released?

>Stright for the horses mouth, Carenado got back to me on this>issue...>>>"Thanks for your feedback...Really you are ok ...but the>reason is simple.>The real plane what I use as "original model", is equipped>with a Horton Stol>Kit because Im working in a possible new STOL version and I>forgot to make the>correspondant exchange of some parameters to the standard>plane used to make>the definitive standard 3d model...well ...our Beta Testers>was working with me>with the "other project" (STOL) and they was very happy with>the "final>cut"...LOL Don't worry because finally you will fly the normal>182 rg. A>Service Pack will be released ASAP.>>About STOL capabilities of the Cessna 182 RG...yes is true but>with a Horton>Stol Kit the behavior of the RG is very close to your actual>Carenado 182 RG.>We hope in a future to introduce this fantastic STOL>performances to our>customers with the correspondant 3d model obviously. By the>moment excuse the inconvenience...About your solution>changing the value of the 'induced_drag_scalar' to '2'>...sadly is not the way,>but congratulations by the effort>Finally thanks again for your feedback and happy landings!!">>>I guess that puts this one to bed, can't wait for the patch...>:-wave Very cool, nice to hear they're responding to feedback. :) Now if they'll just fix the couple radio/gauge issues people have noticed, too.

OK, got home from work tonight and decided to try once more after reading these threads all day, some of them claiming that the plane flys perfectly. I have just downloaded the new Florida Scenery, which is where I got my PPL many years ago. I loaded up the Cessna 182RG and took off from No Perry airport in Hollywood Florida, , where I had my check ride, destination Tamiami Airport in South Dade. THis is a flight I had made dozens of times when I lived in So Florida in different Cessnas. The Tamiami tower cleared me about 7 miles west of the airport, for a left base to 9L which is a 4996 foot runway. I got my speed down to 62 knots with 20 degrees of flaps and about a 300 FPM descent rate. Following the Vasi lights, I reduced power to idle at about 600 feet AGL and saw that the I was getting too high for the Vasi G/S, and the altitide was not dropping enough , so I went to 30 degrees of flaps at idle power. As soon as I lowered the flaps, the plane immediately climbs up 175 feet and stays there.... I'm talking stays there , like in level flight. Well lets see, I have idle power, gear down , 30 degrees of flaps, windows open ( just kidding about the last item) and I am flying along like nobody's business level at 400 feet. Now I only have about 1,000 feet of runway left waiting for this silly plane to start descending again, and I finally push the nose over, and now I am back to the @xx3@* Space Shuttle Approach again. I finally force the C182 onto the runway without landing on the nosewheel, and stomp on the brakes and come to a stop with about 200 feet of runway left. Almost 5,000 feet to land a C182RG.......Yup, nothing wrong with this flight model :) LOLBack to my SF-260......

"Almost 5,000 feet to land a C182RG.......Yup, nothing wrong with this flight model LOL"Ground effect? (Sorry, just wanted to add some levity here) :)

cant we all just get along and get drunk? :-kewl

> As soon as I lowered the flaps, the plane immediately>climbs up 175 feet and stays there.... I'm talking stays>there , like in level flight. Well lets see, I have idle>power, gear down , 30 degrees of flaps, windows open ( just>kidding about the last item) and I am flying along like>nobody's business level at 400 feet. Now I only have about>1,000 feet of runway left waiting for this silly plane to>start descending again, and I finally push the nose over, and>now I am back to the @xx3@* Space Shuttle Approach again. I>finally force the C182 onto the runway without landing on the>nosewheel, and stomp on the brakes and come to a stop with>about 200 feet of runway left. >> Almost 5,000 feet to land a C182RG.......Yup, nothing wrong>with this flight model :) LOL>>Back to my SF-260......>At least I'm getting a few chuckles out of this! :D Perhaps we really DO have different cfg files!!!Here you're waiting for it to come down, and I'm thinking of carrying a bit of power through the landing because airspeed is dropping fast, and I don't want the bottom to fall out! And instead of 5000', I'm just past the threashold at 65 kias! When applying flaps, and if I don't touch the yoke (but would in real flight), the nose rises (balloons) then pitches down, and airspeed decreases.I believe you, I suppose, but mine is truely the opposite.... :( Of course I also use the SF260 as my ultimate benchmark for flight dynamics..... period!L.Adamson