POST EDIT/UPDATE: Here is what I sent back to Nemeth after they told me my feedback was vague as of the morning of 6 AUG 2026.
Nemeth team,
Thanks for acknowledging the email. Here is what I’ve found:
*1. Flight dynamics: The aircraft seems to fly fine using any flap setting of 30 degrees or less. Flaps beyond 30 degrees, especially flaps 45, is where users are encountering extreme float and loss of maneuverability issues. The approach speed for this aircraft should be in the 240km/h range, however attempting to fly it anywhere even close to 200km/h with full flaps results in the need to pitch down severely while still climbing, unless you let the speed drop to below 150km/h. *
Test case: A good test to show the extreme impact of flaps 45 is to actually try to take-off with that setting. The aircraft wheelbarrows severely at less than 100km/h when initially starting a take-off roll. Now imagine dealing with that in the air. I believe a lift and drag setting in the flight dynamics (does it use CFD?) was written in error at this setting.
*2. Sounds. Simply put, the interior and exterior sounds do not sound anything like the real thing. The soundset sounds muffled, and more like a piston aircraft. Please reference the following. The first video is from inside, the next two are exterior, to include the third being an overhead flyby on approach with better sound quality. *
Well, the manual was not available right at launch, now it is on our website, but we include the note in that that using the flaps above 30 degree was forbidden on the real aircraft due to several serious accidents that happened because of the inconsistent behavior of the aircraft with flaps beyond that position. We still implemented the ability to put the flaps beyond 30 to 45 degree, because there were no any hard limiters in reality that would have prevented it. It was forbidden because it was dangerous.
The sounds were created by Dynamedion. We forward your observations to them, with which I have to agree, I must say.
yep - I think this plane is fixable, and I hope they do address the major issues… I’d really like to see more old soviet iron in the game.
I’m still not sure I buy the performance on takeoff - esp when the plane is empty.
I know DHC cautions against “normal” use of full flaps in the Beaver and maybe Twin Otter ( or at least the pilots do ) but I can’t imagine that 45 flaps in the IL-18 will put you 20-30 deg nose down while still flying forward.
TBH - they could just steal the soundset from the F27, double the volume and increase the pitch/treble
If I’m using for example flaps 15 and I trim back to 8 degrees aft it seems to lift off in a reasonable distance. I was doing patterns around Marsh Harbor, Bahamas and will revisit while being careful with flaps this time. The sounds though…ugh.
I’ll try again after work tonight… TBH I don’t know the real plane well ( who does? )
I did take off with 15 flaps, and I would have expected it to leap off the ground with no weight onboard… ( very first try was in Africa - hot and 3000’ field elevation, with no flaps… lol )
Did you at all mention the TO issues expressed in the thread or should that person report that to them.
There was mention of needing 8000ft to take off further up.
flaps 15, trim 6 up… took 3.2km / 10,000’ and finally lifted off at 140kts with me pulling all the way back on the yoke
landed, taxied back, took off again. 77% fuel now. flaps 15, trim 8 up… the plane lifted off by itself at 115kts at around 1.9km / 6,000’ down the runway.
restarted with 85% fuel flaps 15, trim 8 up… I was able to rotate at 110kts at around 1.4km / 4,600’ down the runway.
2 degrees difference in trim - that seems insane, considering trim is only relieving pressure on the yoke ( their manual says 1-1.5 deg nose up for take-off )
trim is also super twitchy on this plane - they need more granular adjustments otherwise you’re just bouncing the nose up and down
( I have serious issues with how trim is handled overall in MSFS, and it’s very inconsistent between devs - but that’s another rant / fix / wishlist item. )
tried 1.5 nose up trim, with 15 flaps and it took 2.7km / 8800 ft to take off at 140 kts ( empty )
also tried 8 nose up with no flaps and it got off the ground slightly sooner ^, but started to roll uncontrollably…
tried 8 nose up, with 15 flaps and it took as long as the first time, and when I raised the landing gear, there was a huge pitch change ( I did nothing else )
tried adding 70% passengers, and reducing fuel to 50% - it took off faster than empty with nose 8, flaps 15
added 90% passengers and left fuel at 85% - it took off a bit longer, then started to roll uncontrollably to the left… I was able to recover, climbed a bit and accelerated, raised the landing gear and it rolled over 90 degrees uncontrollably…
with 75% passengers and 85% fuel, I was able to get it to take off nicely at around 120kts with 8 nose up and 15 flaps
( the uncontrolled roll was probably my fault - I forgot it’s not a jet and should climb out super shallow like the DC-6, had the sound off, so wouldn’t have hear the stall warning - was just looking at airspeed )
Also, compressing the nose gear seems to have no effect ( supposed to give you +10-15 kph at Vr )
There’s definitely some weirdness going on, though. Weight should have a big effect on takeoff performance. You shouldn’t need 8 deg of nose up trim to get off the ground.
the cabin is the weakest ( and least important ) part of the 3D modeling
pax seats could be easily cleaned up, clipping fixed, geo adjusted and a few more polys added…
I would have hoped to see more detail in the galley and the entry doors…
There’s a chance this could actually be real. Have you done a weight and balance chart? I’m going to imagine that 3 has a very forward CG, so it could be well nigh impossible to take off in that configuration, at least perhaps not without a huge amount of trim to allow your elevators to have some authority. Raising the gear could make a huge pitch change as it may shift a relatively large weight as the wheels lift when the plane is empty.
Hence 4 could take off without issue, since the CG would likely move back towards its preferred position.
On a positive note - the exterior modeling is quite nice ( the cockpit is pretty good too ) …and I haven’t seen a lot of screenshots that do it justice, so here’s a couple
that’s a bit of a shame, the manual does show pictures of the cockpit without the 650 but nothing on how to dismount it which is weird. it looks like the 530 is there to take the place of the astronav kit and has a switch to turn it on/off (?) so might not be a huge deal if you can get rid of the dashboard unit (?)
