Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
406 bytes added ,  21:50, 6 February 2019
m
Line 157: Line 157:  
'''''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, 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!
+
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 the C182 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 to fly 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 wathcing 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 ]
   Line 164: Line 164:  
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...  
 
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.
 +
 +
'''''Why has the C182S a smaller left push tendency than the c172p?'''''
 +
You propably uses a older version of the C182S, released before 6. february 2019. There was a single wrong sign used in the fdm, which reduced the left push tendency. The version released after 6. february 2019 has been fixed in [[FGAddon]] and in the [https://github.com/HHS81/c182s Dev-repo on github.com].
    
'''''At 3,000 ft, I can't get over 110 knots. MP: 23 RPM: 2450 FF: 14. What am I missing?'''''
 
'''''At 3,000 ft, I can't get over 110 knots. MP: 23 RPM: 2450 FF: 14. What am I missing?'''''
866

edits

Navigation menu