Actually the most realistic planes that I fly in FS9 are the Bill Lyons Goose and Sikrosky S-43.

Bob,To demonstrate the vastly different results we're getting from the 182, here is a copy of a reply on the same subject title at forum Flightsim.com. I've been running dialog there, because it's as though, two different models seem to exist.I am getting the same performance as you are Larry. I have tried power off landings and with full flaps, gear down and prop to full, it sinks like a stone. If you don't use power you will come up way short of the runway. This plane in real life likes you to carry some power into the touchdown. If you fail to do this and do not flare perfectly, you risk dropping her in. At least the copy which I purchased acts almost like the C182RG I used to fly back east. And BTW, my preference for the SF260 is because I have 2.5 hrs in one, I own an RV6A which is a two seater side by side sliding canopy plane, much like the 260, and I like running a few aerobatic routines, in which the SF260 does well.L.Adamson

think you could post some pics? Id love to see some. A great plane indeed. My issue on the RG is landing. With full flaps, it doesnt like to flare. I have discovered that if i shoot final with 10 and touch down with 20, it is easier to flare. I dont mind the few extra knots added to the speed. Are one of you gentlemen having this issue to? :)Glad to see were all getting allong now.. :) We should all get a beer and lay out in the sun.. lol.. :-lol

I agree that it seems like there are 2 different flight models. Some people say it is on a par with a default FS9 Cessna on approach and landing ( me) , and some people claim it is OK and flys great. The question I have, is if it flys great, now come the designer says it needs a patch?

>I just performed three consecutive attempts at landing at>Heatrow (don't remember which rwy but they are all long...). I>had full flaps, maintained 70 knots and 100 feet and had cut>the throttle. I flew the entire length of the rwy without>losing one inch in altitude and only about 3-4 knots in speed.>I repeated it two more times with the same result, no throttle>but still no descent and only slightly slowering. I'm no real>pilot and really don't know what can be expected, but I've>never experienced this behaviour before in any other add-on>(and I have lots of them...). Reminds me of what could happen>in Fly!II at certain airports! :)>>I have to add though that it looks stunning, has a wonderful>VC that works perfectly with TrackIR and that landing with one>notch of flaps is no problem.If what you say it true.. then there is a Problem.The original post stating that Ballooning is not acceptable because of flaps does not hold water. He is obviously not a pilot. cause it does baloon when flaps are extended and you have to fight with the yoke and push it down to keep the aircraft at altitude.But what you are saying is that you cannot bleed off speed, then there is a problem. Cause the 182RG induces a lot of drag whith full flaps. Even the 172S does not float that much. The 182RG without engine power comes down fast and you can see the ground drop under you than a 172S without power...which tends to float a bit.So..they may have programmed the balooning correctly...but they may not have programmed the drag that goes with it.Mind you.. I am saying these things based on y'all posts. I have not flown this sim aircraft myself. However, I have flown the 172S and the 182RGs.

> The question I have, is if it flys>great, now come the designer says it needs a patch?The "patch" implies, deleting the STOL fileA STOL file would only mean ---- Lower stall speed,shorter T/O distance. And that's about it, as the change wouldn't really mean much, unless you need a lower stall speed & shorter takeoff.

>> The question I have, is if it flys>>great, now come the designer says it needs a patch?>>>The "patch" implies, deleting the STOL file>>A STOL file would only mean ---- Lower stall speed,>shorter T/O distance. >>And that's about it, as the change wouldn't really mean much,>unless you need a lower stall speed & shorter takeoff.>Well if you are correct, than the flight model is garbage, and will remain so after the patch. As almost everyone of us knows, or should know, all the bells and whistles like doors that open, windows that slide, wheels that roll, etc.. etc. aren't worth squat if the flight model is unrealistic. I have hundreds and hundreds of hours in real single engine aircraft, mostly Cessnas, and I have never flown one that behaves like this one with either flap deployment or setting up an approach.

Hey Bob, not to get off the subject, you mentioned in this thread a new Florida scenery. What were you referring to? I was looking for this. Thanks! Best regards, JeffEDIT: Bob, I saw the Ultimate Florida thread after I posted this. Sorry.

>Hey Bob, not to get off the subject, you mentioned in this>thread a new Florida scenery. What were you referring to? I>was looking for this. Thanks! Best regards, Jeffhttp://fs-freeflow.com

Its like they released 2 diff aircraft as far as flight dynamics go. mine doesnt like to flare to well with full flaps.

>Its like they released 2 diff aircraft as far as flight>dynamics go. mine doesnt like to flare to well with full>flaps.They say the real one with two people (front seats only) & full fuel, doesn't always like to either. It's a forward CG condition on a plane with a heavier wing loading that doesn't like to float too well. Apparently, there has been quite a number of hard nose wheel first landings, and bent firewalls.There are several solutions, as I learned in the Piper Arrow, which can also be nose heavy due to it's retracts & heavier engine/constant speed prop combo. The first is to carry a bit of power through the flare, and you can add a bit to pull the nose up if required. Otherwise, you'll need to fly a higher approach speed, so there's enough lift available to pull the nose up in the flare. If not, it will slam nosewheel first, and there is nothing you can do about it.But back to this "STOL" version of the 182. I can do a nice steep approach, thanks to the constant speed prop, which is a good airbrake, and full flaps. It easily bleeds off speed clear down to 60 kias, where I round out to level attitude about 15- 20 feet above the runway, and then begin the flare as it settles. Airspeed drops down to 40 or so, before the nosewheel settles. BTW-- The real Van's RV6's that I fly, are the same. You can do very steep (diving like) approaches with a C/S prop, but the bottom will fall out from underneath you, if you don't arrest the descent properly with enough airspeed, and we usually carry some power throughout the flare. The RV is a two seat side by side, and it's even more nose heavy if just the pilot is flying, because half of our body is behind the CG, as our knees are over the spar. L.Adamson

There is a discussion in the ActiveSky forums about too much wake turbulence causing some issues, could this have something to do with it? I also noticed how it would stay in the air for so long before landing but am now going to fly with the change in Auto VAS frequency in the ASV options menu

Thanks Bob for the info. Best regards, Jeff

Alex ASV nor AS2004.5 have anything to do with this issue. I also don't believe two different .air files have been released from Carenado. If the developer themselves state there's a mix up with the FDE then that's what's going on. Some of you are just happy with a faulty FDE. This thing flies like the Flight1 PC12, the only difference being the PC12 responds correctly to drag. That plane doesn't just float along on final like a kite unless there's a very strong headwind.I don't care what Carenado is stating, changing the 'INDUCED_DRAG_SCALAR' to

never said I was happy with a faulty FDE! I just thought that could have been part of the problem, as I noticed a few other airplanes doing the same thing (floating on final near the runway) and read something about the issue with wake turbulance in ASV.Anyway I too am hoping for a speedy release, and heres hoping the sounds are upgraded as well. I'm still on the lookout for a complete aircraft, one that has all the VC bells and whisles (windshield wipers, clear gauges, etc) accurate FDE, great panel lighting at night NOT linked to other switches (still can't turn off the red light in the 182 without all the gauge illumination going out). Any suggestions ??