Carenado's Seneca, how is it?

[Brett_Henderson 5]

I have just about every payware, light GA model out there... have filtered through ank kept a good number of freeware light GA.. and have even built a few myself (C177RG, C310, Beech P35).. I'll vote for the Carenado Seneca...It's (IMO) the best combination of visual quality, realistic representation of the real-world airplane, and realistic, visual "feel" from the VC. It's not a runaway winner, as they are all very good (specifically the Duke), but if I HAD to choose just one.. it would be the Seneca... because most of my simming is based on my real flying... and I just don't see myself firing up a Duke, for relatively short, low-altitude touring... plus I cut my multi-engine teeth in a Seneca.. :( As far as the flight-dynamics go.. I've yet to find even a payware model that I didn't have to re-do. Even Carenado themselves have "patched" the Seneca's flight-dynamics. There are some built-in problems for light twins in MSFS. Probaly because they all use some variant of the Baron's Air-file.. I really don't know, but the default Baron is a mess in that regard. Another problem for MSFS aircraft, is the relationship for mixture control in turbo-charged engines. Put simply; you have to lean with altitude as though it were NOT turbo-charged, even as it holds relatively high MP. Since I rarely fly above 10,000msl.. I took the liberty of making my Seneca II, a Seneca I. Mainly that means swapping the Continental TSIO-360, for the Lycoming IO-360, and then modifying the MP-gauge, and Tach. They're both 360cubic-inch, aprox 200hp.. Main difference is that the Continental is a 6cylinder turbo-charged engine.. The Lycoming is a 4cylinder, normally-aspirated engine. The two Lycomings are enough to limp me over the Rockies,if need be... but most of my simming is done where I fly for real.. and Appalachian mountains are not a problem. I've regularly taken a real Warrior up over them :( In addition to the engine swap.. I just started from scratch for the aircraft.cfg, as though it were one of my models. I have a different CoG.. differently located weight stations; different MOIs.. and a modifed AIR file (gear-drag, CHT gauging (so that cowl-flap use is more realistic))..

[Brett_Henderson 5]

OH... and for a good meal AT an airport.. hop over to Jackson, MI (JXN).. A very nice restaurant right on the ramp. And then if you're energetic, hop down to Urbana, Oh (I74)... another restaurant where you can literally walk out of the cockpit, and into the dining room.. PLUS they have a B-17 restoration going on there... and they're very friendly about letting fly-up pilots into the hangar for photos and such.

[AWACS 12]

I have just about every payware, light GA model out there... have filtered through ank kept a good number of freeware light GA.. and have even built a few myself (C177RG, C310, Beech P35).. I'll vote for the Carenado Seneca...It's (IMO) the best combination of visual quality, realistic representation of the real-world airplane, and realistic, visual "feel" from the VC. It's not a runaway winner, as they are all very good (specifically the Duke), but if I HAD to choose just one.. it would be the Seneca... because most of my simming is based on my real flying... and I just don't see myself firing up a Duke, for relatively short, low-altitude touring... plus I cut my multi-engine teeth in a Seneca.. :( As far as the flight-dynamics go.. I've yet to find even a payware model that I didn't have to re-do. Even Carenado themselves have "patched" the Seneca's flight-dynamics. There are some built-in problems for light twins in MSFS. Probaly because they all use some variant of the Baron's Air-file.. I really don't know, but the default Baron is a mess in that regard. Another problem for MSFS aircraft, is the relationship for mixture control in turbo-charged engines. Put simply; you have to lean with altitude as though it were NOT turbo-charged, even as it holds relatively high MP. Since I rarely fly above 10,000msl.. I took the liberty of making my Seneca II, a Seneca I. Mainly that means swapping the Continental TSIO-360, for the Lycoming IO-360, and then modifying the MP-gauge, and Tach. They're both 360cubic-inch, aprox 200hp.. Main difference is that the Continental is a 6cylinder turbo-charged engine.. The Lycoming is a 4cylinder, normally-aspirated engine. The two Lycomings are enough to limp me over the Rockies,if need be... but most of my simming is done where I fly for real.. and Appalachian mountains are not a problem. I've regularly taken a real Warrior up over them :( In addition to the engine swap.. I just started from scratch for the aircraft.cfg, as though it were one of my models. I have a different CoG.. differently located weight stations; different MOIs.. and a modifed AIR file (gear-drag, CHT gauging (so that cowl-flap use is more realistic))..

Hi Brett, Thanks for the detailed response, I think I want the Seneca due to it being the ME trainer my school uses. Also, I think it's cool that you have a working knowledge of the .air and .cfg files, if you have time maybe you could share a few points on that as I want the control surfaces to act and respond as realistically as possible. p.s. Have you done any work with the default Baron's .air and .cfg files at all? I'd be interested in using your mods to fly the Baron for a bit.Jeff

[Geofa 108]

OH... and for a good meal AT an airport.. hop over to Jackson, MI (JXN).. A very nice restaurant right on the ramp. And then if you're energetic, hop down to Urbana, Oh (I74)... another restaurant where you can literally walk out of the cockpit, and into the dining room.. PLUS they have a B-17 restoration going on there... and they're very friendly about letting fly-up pilots into the hangar for photos and such.

I probably go to jxn twice a month-they improved it quite a bit a few years ago. Muskegon is a cut above dining wise, but doesn't have the nice view. I agree totally about Brett's view of the Seneca-there just is an intangible reality feeling all round that it captures extremely well. Jeff-I'll let you know next time I go to Mkg-good luck on your training!

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Hi Jeff.. Yeah.. I've tweaked the Default Baron.. but I've gotten so spoiled by payware models.. I don't ever fly it. I didn't even transfer my tweaked Baron after reinstalling FSX on a new computer... but I've got it saved somewhere.As for sharing Seneca tweaks.. let me know when you get it installed them PM me..

I probably go to jxn twice a month-they improved it quite a bit a few years ago. Muskegon is a cut above dining wise, but doesn't have the nice view. I agree totally about Brett's view of the Seneca-there just is an intangible reality feeling all round that it captures extremely well. Jeff-I'll let you know next time I go to Mkg-good luck on your training!

I only eat burgers and fries..lol.. but others have told me that the "dining" at JXN is not 5-star.. I enjoy the view.. ANOTHER great fly-in meal can be had over at Coshocton, OH (I40). On good weather (summer/spring/fall) weekends, they have an open-air bar-b-q.. it's a lot of fun.

[sargeski 16]

I just flew down to Urbana 2 weeks ago out of Bowling Green with a friend that owns a Cherokee to have brunch. I wish we would have been aware of the B-17 restoration taking place.

[ryanbatc 12,857]

I'd love the Seneca if it would fly properly. I don't know what else I can do control wise - I use a FFB2 joystick with CH throttle. Mine handles like a blimp...

[Brett_Henderson 5]

I just flew down to Urbana 2 weeks ago out of Bowling Green with a friend that owns a Cherokee to have brunch. I wish we would have been aware of the B-17 restoration taking place.

Check it out...http://www.b17project.com/Next time you're there.. it's the last hangar on your left, as you walk/taxi away from the cafe..