Is this POH from Carenado supposed to look this trashy?

[Gaiiden 98]

Bought my first Carenado product, the V-tail Bonanza, and before I raise hell with them directly I figured I would ask first - do their POH documents normally look like this?The text is even faded out for the entire document. Looks like someone made a cheap scan and then just stuck it in a PDF document?? :(

[CoolP 283]

Sadly, the manuals show the good will of Carenado but the maybe lacking skill to render this nice addition more useful.A checklist shouldn't come with a thick border and small (scanned) text and a diagram should be clear enough to actually read some values, not to look at the graphic in a whole. You are right there, and the current offers all come with more or less unsharp scans so far.I'm no number flying pilot, but I wonder why they add such things when you can't really use them.Would be nice to see a future checklist text as real text in a window (and document) with small, "non-graphiced" boarders and also some real good scans of diagrams needed while not needed ones are just not there then.But the V-tail is a nice ship, isn't she? Bought her too. :(

[magentajim 10]

Yeah-Actually it looks like every RW POH I have seen for GA aircraft I have flown in. Keep in mind, a LOT of GA aircraft around today were built in the 70's and the POH's were not high quality. You should see the POH I have for the C172 I normally fly. Looks exactly like the OP's picture. So I would say that Carenado is being completely authentic in this regard, not slacking as suggested.

[CoolP 283]

I think he's not concerned about the graphics itself but their scan quality, rendering them, at least, hard to read if you want to get something out of those charts.(depends on the model)The idea to have the checklist ready as a popup is a good one, no doubt, just the details currently distract a bit.Here's an example for a nice text checklist but an awkward layout when getting used as a popup in the sim (which it does).Printing it will also need .. a bit of ink (if you don't cut and exclude stuff).

[Gaiiden 98]

I think I was just spoiled by the high-quality and depth of the Dodosim 206 manual. That was an excellent read!! :) For this I have to study stuff like variable-pitch propeller separately

[Gaiiden 98]

This is a bit more along the lines of what I was expecting from a Carenado product (again - based on what I got for the Dodosim. Haven't bought many payware aircraft yet...):http://www.fsd-international.com/Hangar/V35B/Pilot%20Operating%20Handbook.pdf

[Guest bstolle]

before I raise hell with them directly I figured I would ask first - do their POH documents normally look like this?

Raising hell because of realistic looking performance tables ?But of course it's up to you to exchange a 'trashy' POH with a 'trashy' plane and VC like the FSD Bonanza ;)I prefer visually perfect crisp planes and VCs like Carenados over a crisp POH anytime....

[David Roch 1,980]

Raising hell because of realistic looking performance tables ?But of course it's up to you to exchange a 'trashy' POH with a 'trashy' plane and VC like the FSD Bonanza ;)I prefer visually perfect crisp planes and VCs like Carenados over a crisp POH anytime....

Your comment is unacceptable coming from a commercial member in this forum.It's pure bashing (of a very nice product BTW) and blatant lack of respect for other devs.Another comment like this won't be allowed.

[Guest bstolle]

Your comment is unacceptable coming from a commercial member in this forum.It's pure bashing (of a very nice product BTW) and blatant lack of respect for other devs.Another comment like this won't be allowed.

Haven't you noticed the ;) at the end of my 'bashing'?BTW, threatening a company with 'raising hell' isnt' acceptable either IMHO.Furthermore as mentioned a few times I still don't know why I'm suddenly after a few years a 'commercial' member and I never intended to be one and I don't see myself as one.I'd highly appreciate if you could reset my status to a normal member!thank you

[dmaher 0]

Yeah-Actually it looks like every RW POH I have seen for GA aircraft I have flown in. Keep in mind, a LOT of GA aircraft around today were built in the 70's and the POH's were not high quality. You should see the POH I have for the C172 I normally fly. Looks exactly like the OP's picture. So I would say that Carenado is being completely authentic in this regard, not slacking as suggested.

Lol, that was my thought too.It's what POH's actually look like.... tattered, faded, and perplexingStill, maybe a scan with a gray scale would be more readable.

[avistudent 47]

I wouldn't call it "trashy"That what my REAL/Actual POH looked like for my Piper Warrior "Offically" reprinted from Piper.Remember, these charts annd graphs were published back in the 70s or 80s. And depending on the size of the POH, they have to resize it to fit accordingly.Avistudent

[Gaiiden 98]

BTW, threatening a company with 'raising hell' isnt' acceptable either IMHO.

I'm a paying customer. It's my right to do so when I'm dissatisfied..That said, you can take "trashy" as an outright insult or simple harsh criticism - I would prefer it to be the latter. Carenado should be happy that I hold their products to such high standards.I am satisfied with comments on the "realism" of the performance charts and understand that's how they may appear in actual pilot manuals. I guess then I'm disappointed more effort wasn't done to make sure people can use them effectively. Despite the apparent realism, I still find them very hard to read and I am a numbers pilot so this means a great deal to me.For the record this has not put me off from buying another Carenado product in the future. However it is something I would like to see addressed if possible.

[mikea76 184]

I'm a paying customer. It's my right to do so when I'm dissatisfied..That said, you can take "trashy" as an outright insult or simple harsh criticism - I would prefer it to be the latter. Carenado should be happy that I hold their products to such high standards.I am satisfied with comments on the "realism" of the performance charts and understand that's how they may appear in actual pilot manuals. I guess then I'm disappointed more effort wasn't done to make sure people can use them effectively. Despite the apparent realism, I still find them very hard to read and I am a numbers pilot so this means a great deal to me.For the record this has not put me off from buying another Carenado product in the future. However it is something I would like to see addressed if possible.

the pilots that fly the real planes manage to use them..

[Geofa 108]

the pilots that fly the real planes manage to use them..

Yep-and as a side note-the faa exams use some that are about like was posted here.I have to confess that for the exam I memorized the answer-as I knew there was no way I could get the correct answer reading a page like posted above-but that is what was given and you deal with it.

[avistudent 47]

the pilots that fly the real planes manage to use them..

I second that as well and thanks to my Piper POH's small and hard to read charts, I get accurate fuel burn calculations for my x-country from point A to B and back.Avistudent