Hello all,I was fortunate enough to win my picking of any Carenado aircraft from the Honolulu fly-in last Saturday. I've narrowed down my choices to the Saratoga, Seneca, or Arrow.I usually fly either VFR around the Hawaiian islands or Colorado. I've heard the Saratoga is generally a slow-climbing, low-service-ceiling airplane, which is a bit concerning to me. (I get shivers every time I imagine trying to fly the default C172 anywhere above 5000 ft MSL, unlike how I can get up to 10.5k in real life in a C172 at KAPA).I've also read the handling of the Seneca isn't necessarily up to par, and reading the review here on AVSIM that prop pitch changes cause violent aircraft pitches (if this is true, this would really ruin it for me).I know everyone has their favorite but I'm pretty undecided here. Any comments would be welcome.Thanks!

I own the Arrow and the Seneca but not the Saratoga.I find myslef flying the Arrow the most of the two, It's an awesome bird to hand fly and I love the auto pilot on it as well for those longer hauls, The night lighting is awesome. But I'm more fond of single engines when flying G/A. I say get both and be glad you got them for half price :(

I suppose I'm leaning toward Seneca or Arrow but can anyone comment the prop/pitch problems on the Seneca or maybe how the Arrow performs at 8000-11,000 MSL?

Hello all,I was fortunate enough to win my picking of any Carenado aircraft from the Honolulu fly-in last Saturday. I've narrowed down my choices to the Saratoga, Seneca, or Arrow.I usually fly either VFR around the Hawaiian islands or Colorado. I've heard the Saratoga is generally a slow-climbing, low-service-ceiling airplane, which is a bit concerning to me. (I get shivers every time I imagine trying to fly the default C172 anywhere above 5000 ft MSL, unlike how I can get up to 10.5k in real life in a C172 at KAPA).I've also read the handling of the Seneca isn't necessarily up to par, and reading the review here on AVSIM that prop pitch changes cause violent aircraft pitches (if this is true, this would really ruin it for me).I know everyone has their favorite but I'm pretty undecided here. Any comments would be welcome.Thanks!

I have all three of these aircraft and also have the 172. First I should mention I have no problems getting Carenado's 172 up to 10.5k. One of my favorite flights with it is out of Minden, Nevada to the California coast using Tileproxy to generate photoreal scenery. I usually climb over 10K to clear the Sierra's over Donner pass.Of the three aircraft, the Seneca is certainly a treat. However I do see abrupt pitch changes when prop pitch is changed, in a fairly narrow band of pitch settings. I suppose to fix this someone would have to rework the table in the .air file. Flight dynamics as of late has been a weak point with several Carenado aircraft, but when it comes to eye candy their aircraft are somewhat hard to be beat. Most other issues with the Seneca's flight dynamics have been worked out. I like the Saratoga quite a bit--just having a six place single is rather nice. I guess I would pick it over the Arrow for that reason, but the Arrow is also nice. Hands down though, my favorite of the Carenado aircraft is the 172. If I ever transition from Light Sport to GA, chances are I will find myself owning a 172. The only thing a bit odd in most of Carenado's single place aircraft is I find (from a visual sense) that their rear seats generally have a bit too much leg room, so the aircraft appear bigger inside than they do IRL. Probably just a limitation of translating a 3D world to a 2D computer screen.Regards,John

I've heard of numerous complaints of certain aircraft not providing Autopilot. I own just the Saratoga and it supports pretty much everything ALT/Heading/Pitch hold. Might be important factor in your decision.

Hate to throw a wrench into your topic, but could you put your signature image on a diet? It does not meet (exceeds) our signature image size restrictions.

Hate to throw a wrench into your topic, but could you put your signature image on a diet? It does not meet (exceeds) our signature image size restrictions.

Removed.

I have all three of these aircraft and also have the 172. First I should mention I have no problems getting Carenado's 172 up to 10.5k. One of my favorite flights with it is out of Minden, Nevada to the California coast using Tileproxy to generate photoreal scenery. I usually climb over 10K to clear the Sierra's over Donner pass.Of the three aircraft, the Seneca is certainly a treat. However I do see abrupt pitch changes when prop pitch is changed, in a fairly narrow band of pitch settings. I suppose to fix this someone would have to rework the table in the .air file. Flight dynamics as of late has been a weak point with several Carenado aircraft, but when it comes to eye candy their aircraft are somewhat hard to be beat. Most other issues with the Seneca's flight dynamics have been worked out. I like the Saratoga quite a bit--just having a six place single is rather nice. I guess I would pick it over the Arrow for that reason, but the Arrow is also nice. Hands down though, my favorite of the Carenado aircraft is the 172. If I ever transition from Light Sport to GA, chances are I will find myself owning a 172. The only thing a bit odd in most of Carenado's single place aircraft is I find (from a visual sense) that their rear seats generally have a bit too much leg room, so the aircraft appear bigger inside than they do IRL. Probably just a limitation of translating a 3D world to a 2D computer screen.Regards,John

Thanks for the replies. I strongly favor flight dynamics over eye candy. I guess now I'm split between Arrow/Seneca/Skyhawk/Saratoga haha; though I am leaning to Saratoga.

Well I think I narrowed it down to the Saratoga. AVSIM's review says, naturally, the aircraft climbs slower toward its service ceiling. Can anyone comment on flight dynamics in general and performance between 8000-11000 ft?