Hi all,Does anyone has an opinion on how the Carenado version compared to the default in term of flight dynamics? Granted, the exterior and eye candies are great, but I begin to not trust the claim of tested by real pilots after seeing the comments on the C340II, which make the same claim, but then early buyers got hit with issues, which made me wonder what those pilots were testing. It sounds like Carenado got a few good hit like the Cessna 152II and the 182RGII and even with the Bonanza F33A, but when it comes to twin engines, I have some serious doubts. Thanks

Hi all,Does anyone has an opinion on how the Carenado version compared to the default in term of flight dynamics? Granted, the exterior and eye candies are great, but I begin to not trust the claim of tested by real pilots after seeing the comments on the C340II, which make the same claim, but then early buyers got hit with issues, which made me wonder what those pilots were testing. It sounds like Carenado got a few good hit like the Cessna 152II and the 182RGII and even with the Bonanza F33A, but when it comes to twin engines, I have some serious doubts. Thanks

The Barron is a solid release. I have yet to test engine out procedures (Single engine Takeoff, Landing, etc.). So far it looks ok.

Hi all,Does anyone has an opinion on how the Carenado version compared to the default in term of flight dynamics? Granted, the exterior and eye candies are great, but I begin to not trust the claim of tested by real pilots after seeing the comments on the C340II, which make the same claim, but then early buyers got hit with issues, which made me wonder what those pilots were testing. It sounds like Carenado got a few good hit like the Cessna 152II and the 182RGII and even with the Bonanza F33A, but when it comes to twin engines, I have some serious doubts. Thanks

The comments below are just my opinion about Carenado's aircraft, which I like.I think they fly fairly close to the actual aircraft considering FSX is just a game with limits. I haven't flown a BE-58 but have flown the T-42/BE-55; I haven't flown a C-340, but have flown/fly the C310/C441 and my current ride is a BE-35B. I just don't have any real complaints. If I wanted to get very technical I could talk about the BE-35 in a crosswind. All the V-Tail Bonanzas I've flown tends to rock around the yaw axis (a V-tail thingy I suspect) a little in a crosswind landing and I have not noticed that in the Carenado BE-35. This is not a deal breaker and certainly does not detract from the overall quality of the Carenado models. Unless a person has a significant amount of time in the various aircraft, I'm not sure most flight simmers would know the difference. Again just my opinon.Remember it's just a game. :)Bill

Having now flown the Carenado Baron a couple of times I'm impressed. I have a number of Carenado's aircraft and this one is really sweet. There are some issues others have mentioned with the AP, and I'm sure Carenado will get us a patch for that soon. This plane looks great (the FSX default one's proportions are off a bit. The nose always looked way too large), and more importantly handles great. The interior is really nice and this B58 is a fairly new one, probably the newest plane Carenado's ever done. I'd say it's as good as, or better than the Dreamfleet one we had in FS9. I have the C340 too, and have really had no problems with it. I find it's a solid performer. A lot of folks who have problems don't read what they need to before flying a new release. I know there are usually minor issues with each release, but Carenado's been really good at addressing them. Finally, I'll admit I'm not a real pilot, so I've never flown the real thing, but it does handle better than the default Baron, and sounds better, and looks better...you get the idea. I think it's worth it if you want a Beech Baron.

Thank you all for replying. In my opinion, FSX is not a game but a flight simulator with its limits (even the box says so, and I am sure many would disagree with the game label), being a simulator platform, the flight simulation is really in the way the air file is created and tuned. I own a few Carenado products, but never a twin engine from them, yet. I do own the RealAir Duke and is very impressed with its flight model. Furthermore, I also have the MilViz C310R, and like that plane and its flight model fidelity very much. After a while, what draw me back to certain aircraft in FSX is the way it flies and not so much the eye candies, and the fact that I don't either have the time or money to learn to fly a real aircraft, much less owning a real one. I am not after a fantasy here, but there is a tremendous appeal to be able to approximate the feel and sensation of flight.. After what I have seen with the Carenado C340II, I am very skeptical about the B58. Unfortunately, I can't spend the money first to find out, so I really appreciate all of your feedbacks and opinions. I will wait and see some more posts or review before deciding. One thing for sure, Carenado really excel in the visual model department.Vu

Thank you all for replying. In my opinion, FSX is not a game but a flight simulator with its limits (even the box says so, and I am sure many would disagree with the game label), being a simulator platform, the flight simulation is really in the way the air file is created and tuned. I own a few Carenado products, but never a twin engine from them, yet. I do own the RealAir Duke and is very impressed with its flight model. Furthermore, I also have the MilViz C310R, and like that plane and its flight model fidelity very much. After a while, what draw me back to certain aircraft in FSX is the way it flies and not so much the eye candies, and the fact that I don't either have the time or money to learn to fly a real aircraft, much less owning a real one. I am not after a fantasy here, but there is a tremendous appeal to be able to approximate the feel and sensation of flight.. After what I have seen with the Carenado C340II, I am very skeptical about the B58. Unfortunately, I can't spend the money first to find out, so I really appreciate all of your feedbacks and opinions. I will wait and see some more posts or review before deciding. One thing for sure, Carenado really excel in the visual model department.Vu

I like the Baron a lot better than the C340. It actually handles very nicely.Having said that, if it is "as real as it gets" you are after, the Duke and C310 are probably the two best FSX twins.

In my opinion, FSX is not a game but a flight simulator with its limits (even the box says so, and I am sure many would disagree with the game label), being a simulator platform, the flight simulation is really in the way the air file is created and tuned. Vu

Somehow I get the feeling that when I go through Recurrent Training next month it will not be in a FSX simulator. :-).Bill

Somehow I get the feeling that when I go through Recurrent Training next month it will not be in a FSX simulator. :-).Bill

Don't look back! We may be gaining on you.. :(

...so, are there any and what are the major/minor differences between the default stock B-58 and Carenado version?YairBTW I Was looking for some wight and balance data for the default B-58, and I found more then one version for the B-58, I wonder what model is the Default B-58 ????