Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
64 bytes added ,  20:57, 6 February 2019
m
Line 153: Line 153:  
'''''I wonder why would the 182s be easier to fly than the c172p?'''''
 
'''''I wonder why would the 182s be easier to fly than the c172p?'''''
   −
Is it? A fdm is only so good as the datas available. The c182s-fdm uses real coefficient data where available, but not all needed coeeficients could be found. Where not available, pilot reports had been used. And they are from a subjective view of the pilot.
+
Is it? If you think the fdm is wrong: A fdm is only so good as the datas available. The c182s-fdm uses real coefficient data where available, but not all needed coeeficients could be found. Where not available, pilot reports had been used. And they are from a subjective view of the pilot.
    
'''''According to google, most pilots agree that the 182s is actually harder to fly than the 172p'''''  
 
'''''According to google, most pilots agree that the 182s is actually harder to fly than the 172p'''''  
   −
Not because of its flight characteristics. Though many pilot bends their firewalls on touchdown, due the nose heaviness of that aircraft.  But a lot pilot likes it more because of more power, more speed, higher possible altitudes, constant speed propeller and the IFR-equipement. And that`s the reason - due to that it is much more challenging than the Cessna 172. So FAA counts the Cessna 182 to the high perfomace aircraft. Imagine beeing in a crowded area like KLAX, approaching the airportwhile listening to Radio calls every few seconds, watching speed, altitude, manage the engine and prop speed, chasing VOR-needles and the traffic around at the same time in bad weather condition - challenging!
+
Not because of its flight characteristics. Though many pilot bends their firewalls on touchdown, due the nose heaviness of that aircraft.  But a lot pilot likes it more because of more power, more speed, higher possible altitudes, constant speed propeller, cowl-flaps and the IFR-equipement. And that`s the reason - due to that all it is much more challenging than the Cessna 172. So FAA counts the Cessna 182 to the high perfomace aircraft. Imagine beeing in a crowded area like KLAX, approaching the airport while listening to Radio calls every few seconds, watching speed, altitude, manage the engine and prop speed, chasing VOR-needles and the traffic around at the same time in bad weather condition - challenging!
 
You might wanna read this: [https://pilotbrian.blogspot.com/2009/05/stepping-up-to-c182.html Stepping Up to a C182 ]
 
You might wanna read this: [https://pilotbrian.blogspot.com/2009/05/stepping-up-to-c182.html Stepping Up to a C182 ]
    
'''''Is the C182S made easier to fly, instead of more realistic to fly?'''''
 
'''''Is the C182S made easier to fly, instead of more realistic to fly?'''''
   −
No. The authors uses real numbers, datas, coefficients and more where available, aiming to get everything realistic as it can be. As an example it matches all the numbers given in the POH, and uses real aerodynamic coeffcients ofr the fdm where available. If it doesn`t fly as you expect, you might be used to FSX?  
+
No. The authors uses real numbers, datas, coefficients and more where available, aiming to get everything realistic as it can be. As an example it matches all the numbers given in the POH, and uses real aerodynamic coeffcients for the fdm where available. If it doesn`t fly as you expect, you might be used to FSX? Just kidding...
 
Anyway, if encounter something you think it isn`t right, file an Issue-report [https://github.com/HHS81/c182s/issues here], and we will find out.
 
Anyway, if encounter something you think it isn`t right, file an Issue-report [https://github.com/HHS81/c182s/issues here], and we will find out.
  
866

edits

Navigation menu