Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest BeaverDriver

A 182TC?

Recommended Posts

I see Carenado has released some info on it's newest project - the TC 182 G1000. This one has me totally baffled, I must admit. Didn't Flight 1 just do that exact airplane last Spring? Don't we already have an outstanding Skylane (not TC'd or G1000'd admittedly, but F1's is)?With Orbx now pushing north to the Yukon and Alaska, wouldn't it make sense to do machines that are perhaps a bit more "bush" oriented, such as the Aztec, Navajo, 207, straight 208 on floats and wheels, Turbo Beaver or Turbine Otter (single)? Seems like there would be a LOT more of a market for those than a machine that was done just a few months ago by a highly reputable airplane maker (not saying better than Carendo, but certainly not a "weak sister"). I realize Carenado tend to do aircraft they have access to, and that's fair (and smart!). But there aren't many fields that don't have an Aztec or Navajo sitting on them. Yeah, the Turbo Beaver and Turbine Otter could be a bit tougher, but even the 207 is on a fair number of fields.I'm afraid I'm at a loss on this one. It's not a machine I can see purchasing myself I'm afraid, as much as I like the 182.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Also with the G1000 simulation, I would assume very basic functions and I can't see how one would update the navdata in any way. If you can't update the navdata then it is better to take the old 182 and use navaids. A lot more fun in the sim.I have the Flight1 182T but I don't like it that much. Hard on frame rates and I'm too used to the photorealistic look of Carenado VC's. The F1 model is drawn and cartoon. And no matter how much they say it is the most extensive G1000 for FS together with the Mustang, it is still very limited. They also like to say something like "some developers make aircraft with no modelled systems and release one every two months". Well, those are the ones that sell and being a real pilot, I still can't see the magic behind F1 aircraft.Anyway, although Carenado has gotten a lot better, they could still take a couple of extra months and make the aircraft systems a little more extensive and less bugs. Propably wouldn't hurt the sales that much....Br,Tero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Carenado would do a good job with it. But glass cockpits, no matter who's doing them at this point, really drag on frames, and you make a very good point about both modeling and being able to update the navdata. High end systems can probably run them ok I would guess. My issue though is, why do something that's already been done repeatedly (even by the same author) when there have been clamorings for so many other types? Even the "Wish List" that Carenado put up themselves doesn't have a G1000 182 in it that I can find (and maybe I just missed it). There have been many calls for other machines, including ones that should be readily available to Carenado, but they've all been passed over. While I'm only one voice, I rather now feel like saying, "Wake me when something comes out I can use." <LOL>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct. That is why I think they should've sticked to the analogue gauges. The EFIS is not the best option if you want to get the product out in say 4-6 months. You always have to compromise something, either functionality, optimization or both.Just my 2 cents...Br,Tero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 182TC??? You have got to be kidding me!!!! Guys, an AZTEC. That was the overwhelming plane asked for in a past poll here. Also, the 207, the plane that has NEVER been done, would be a good candidate. WHY on earth remake an existing plane? You want in my wallet and the wallets of many others, make the above two planes. The bushpounders will make it worth while. What's next, a 1971 Cherokee 140 with glass?Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to echo the above sentiments... When I heard there was a new product... i was excited, seeing it was a 182... mildly let down, but still excited to see a new one up to carenado's current standards, seeing it was glass, and not that original, other than the fact it was utterly plush and leather coated, I suddenly felt a little let down.Like the others I don't see much call for it, curiosity perhaps, but it seems like a wasted product, surely they'd be better off doing the more interesting aircraft that nobody makes? then they have the market share?My votes were with the 207 (Never done in fs, and sorely needed) or Aztec, if Carenado want to update thier older aircraft, how about the 206?they have the model to work with and build on, dynamics, a bit of work, gravel guards, tundra tyres, or straight floats... massive market potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not usually prone to responding to who's going to make this plane or that & jumping in the fray.I feel compelled here though. Why on earth Fernando & the group, would you go against what was responded to in your poll and make something just done by someone else?I and others as well, would very much appreciate the consideration and production of bush planes that are made to today's modeling standards.Looks like you are well into the 182. Just do not understand the thought process behind this decision. Why make a poll then treat it as if it does not exist?OK...I am done for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get where you guys are coming from but I AM looking forward to this. I didn't have the original 182s from Carenado and I was looking at getting the Flight1 model until I saw this today. Remember, the Carenado team only model aircraft that they can have access to. Also, stop complaining... nobody is asking you to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - I'm with the nay's on this one - just another 182... So many planes - so little time... I'd be up for the Aztec as well... Prefer analog to glass for the same reasons...Regards,Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, stop complaining... nobody is asking you to buy it.
Ummmm, "rossdh", correct me if I'm wrong, but this IS a forum, is it not? That means we have as much right to express our opinion as you do my friend. You do NOT get to tell us what we may or may not say.As I said in one of my posts, it is highly unlikely that there are no Aztecs on the field Fernando is at. They are on just about every other field you can think of, assuming a regional sized or larger airport. I don't buy that he doesn't have access to at least 2 of the planes mentioned above. And while he's working on yet another 182, the other machines that have been requested through his own thread are going begging.I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also not on the band wagon for a TC 182. That A/C won't be in my hanger. If I had my ' druthers', give me an Axtec or Cessna 208 on floats...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all take in consideration on where Carenado makes homebase. I am led to believe Chile is home for them. Perhaps having access to the aircraft "we" wish for, is like a diamond in the rough.I am all over them focusing on bush type planes, don't get me wrong. But they may be basing their subjects on readily available, accessable aircraft to them. It boils down to, like it? Buy it. Don't like it? Don't buy it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get where you guys are coming from but I AM looking forward to this. I didn't have the original 182s from Carenado and I was looking at getting the Flight1 model until I saw this today. Remember, the Carenado team only model aircraft that they can have access to. Also, stop complaining... nobody is asking you to buy it.
Actually, as a company producing a product, they ARE asking us to buy it... if they don't make something the customer wants, they don't sell it.In this case, there doesn't seem to be A, market for this product, or B, interest. thus, oops... get my drift?The whole 'access' argument is pretty flimsy really, any airfield that has a T182 with a g1000, caravans, c90s, malibus, mooneys, cessna singles, pipers , c340s, is going to have most of the planes people requestest, as they are in far higher circulation. Especially down in south america where they're work horses.I'm a huge fan of Carenado, always will be, I buy most of thier products, but I will not blindly support them, or buy the product simply because... I support them because they produce good products that I want, I haven't stopped supporting them, I just question the logic in this move...That and glass cockpits just annoy me. *whistle* (see this is the personal opinion bit, not the above)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would much rather an analogue Piper Navajo/Chieftan where I can go practise my NPA NDB approaches rather than a aircraft with a poorly designed G1000 suite which is based off the default suite... I will much rather fly the Flight1 model which supports terminal procedures, correct engine parameters and fuel options pages and also limited WAAS support....I am still waiting for a decent Commanche, Aztec or Navajo/Chieftan... and going by the other replies in this thread, I am not the only one!and one more thing.... I saw a post on the Carenado facebook mentioning the G1000 on the C182 as a testbed for the C90.... Well I god hope not cause I am yet to see a kingair with a G1000 suite...The closest that comes to a G1000 is the Collins Proline suite which a few kingairs have installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The C90 will not have a G1000. Just the 'classic' avionics layout as presently offered by Raytheon which means only a glass ADI and HSI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange decision, given that Flight 1 just did the same thing. Yeah, an Aztec or a 207. (Better yet, a radial Otter. :( ) I glass cockpit 182 doesn't appeal to me at all. Cheers,Fritz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...When I first saw the post my thoughts were "Have Flight1 just produced an excellent model for this..."Carenado usually get it right...but on this occasion I am baffled by their choice...Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would so love to see Carenado do the Viking turbine Beaver and/or a Caravan float plane - my fondest dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read several posts in the past on different forums where people complain that Carenado makes nice aircraft but they need to update their cockpits from the 1970's to modern standards. Now that they are making a modern 182 for us, some people still complain. I understand that their G1000 isn't the quality of the Flight1 Mustang's (which I own), but I don't understand the complaints. I am sure there are people who would like to fly a glass cockpit, but don't want the complexity of the Mustang's. If they make a product you don't like, don't buy it. Maybe if the new CT182T Skylane is a sales flop, it might tell Carenado to change their market focus.I agree there are other models I would like to see them instead rather than make the same aircraft over and over, but there are other companies doing the same thing. We have a lot of 737 models out there also because it is a popular aircraft. The difference is that each new release is better than the last. I really like flying my Carenado C182Q, but I am betting the new CT182T will be a better model than the Q.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you make a good point. They do keep improving and other companies do make the same machines over, that's true. I suspect that the people complaining that Carenado needs to update their cockpits are not the same as those complaining about them having glass cockpits though. Thus the discrepancy. I guess it's that it is others who are into the glass cockpits and modern airplanes, and for Carenado to duplicate that, especially so close on the heels of the F1 version, while machines that were very heavily requested on their own Wish List thread aren't being done, is what's not making sense to many of us. Some have said that they can only do aircraft that they have access to, and that's fair. But as Firekitten pointed out, chances are pretty good that if they have a 182 with a G1000 on the field, then the almost certainly have at least a Navajo and/or Aztec. Neither of those have ever been done for FSX, but there are more of those out there than there are G1000 182's IRL. We have gazillions of GA and airline machines in FSX, but not many planes you see commonly in the bush or more remote areas, and those are the same planes that you'll see at most airports - remote or not - so it's not like they would only sell a couple of them. If you look at the "Wish List" on this forum, you'll find a lot of people (not all the same person <LOL> ) have requested those bush machines. I think it's fair that the "bush babies" get something thrown their was as well. Of course, the final decision is Carenado's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all twelve pages of the Carenado request forum, including a post of my own for an aeromedical version of the C90, I will admit there seems to be a demand for the Aztec by some members. Several of the requests since 2009 were turned into new Carenado products like the Cessna C337, the Cessna 208 (two versions), the B58 Baron and the new Centurion. Other newer models were bush-type aircraft like the C172 and C182 with skis and floats.I think that Carenado is paying attention to forums like this for future development, so if we keep suggesting what models we would like to see, they will eventually produce them. Call me an optimist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have read several posts in the past on different forums where people complain that Carenado makes nice aircraft but they need to update their cockpits from the 1970's to modern standards. Now that they are making a modern 182 for us, some people still complain. I understand that their G1000 isn't the quality of the Flight1 Mustang's (which I own), but I don't understand the complaints. I am sure there are people who would like to fly a glass cockpit, but don't want the complexity of the Mustang's. If they make a product you don't like, don't buy it. Maybe if the new CT182T Skylane is a sales flop, it might tell Carenado to change their market focus.I agree there are other models I would like to see them instead rather than make the same aircraft over and over, but there are other companies doing the same thing. We have a lot of 737 models out there also because it is a popular aircraft. The difference is that each new release is better than the last. I really like flying my Carenado C182Q, but I am betting the new CT182T will be a better model than the Q.
Hi,This is probally due to Carenado modelling the C172N model which has an acient cockpit compared to say a C172R.. However the latter doesn't contain any glass cockpit at all (except the odd Bendix King GPS!) :)See the differences in the two pictures, it aint that hard! 26547_1305713487.jpg13538_1319686206.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites