A 182TC?

[Guest BeaverDriver]

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.

[t3ro 0]

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

Edited January 20, 2012 by t3ro

[Guest BeaverDriver]

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>

[t3ro 0]

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

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Amen to that!

[Donmo 6]

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

[Firekitten 0]

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.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Firekitten

[dusty_sourdough 8]

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.

[rossdh 0]

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.

[scottb613 1,187]

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

[Guest BeaverDriver]

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.

[carm 0]

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...

[Donmo 6]

Uh ...... NO, Ross. I won't.Don

Edited January 21, 2012 by Donmo

[TerribleT 0]

Me likewise Don :( Now an Aztec, when was the last one of those in FS My plastic awaits it ......

[ricky76 46]

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!