it looks sweet; check it out on youtube to get an idea, I don't own it. I have the bad a__ Malibu :( and the c340 and love them both!!

it looks sweet; check it out on youtube to get an idea, I don't own it. I have the bad a__ Malibu :( and the c340 and love them both!!

Carenado has a lot of aircraft, I think this is going to be a hard choice.

I reccomend you their Piper Saratoga. It's really easy to fly and a good choice to practice. If you're looking for a PMDG quality, Cessna Caravan or Piper Malibu.Cheers.Ignacio :(

Their Bonanzas, Baron, and 337 Skymaster are all good.

If you're looking for a PMDG quality, Cessna Caravan or Piper Malibu.Cheers.Ignacio

That's a tremendous compliment to Carenado.JBSent from my iPhone using TapatalkJB

Thanks for the suggestion guys! I'll look them up.

That's a tremendous compliment to Carenado.JBSent from my iPhone using TapatalkJB

They make lots of aircraft and release regular ones which is a nice bonus to the community. They offer a pretty lifelike simulation (feels as if you are in the actual plane, visuals are awesome) I have been more than impressed with Carenado latey; their stuff gets better. PMDG NGX is awesome too, but I must admit I have felt quite at home in their new Piper...maybe I need to get my ppl as I seem to be into props such as the piper or TBM series as of late. Been an airline boy most of my life. Really like the Piper Matrix! Its nice to see my scenery from a workable altitude for a change as well!

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by simon747

If you're looking for a PMDG quality, Cessna Caravan or Piper Malibu

The Caravan is very good, especially after the patch that fixed some flight- and performanc-model problems, but I wouldn't put it in the PMDG class. It looks terrific and it's fun to fly but it doesn't come close on system depth. I don't own the Malibu, so can't comment firsthand, but I'm not aware that it's a study simulation.BTW, I'm not one of the people who thinks that everything has to be of PMDG quality. There are definitely times when I don't want to be bothered with preflights and in-depth checklists and would rather just go fly. It just helps to know what you're getting into, one way or the other.

The Caravan is very good, especially after the patch that fixed some flight- and performanc-model problems, but I wouldn't put it in the PMDG class. It looks terrific and it's fun to fly but it doesn't come close on system depth. I don't own the Malibu, so can't comment firsthand, but I'm not aware that it's a study simulation.BTW, I'm not one of the people who thinks that everything has to be of PMDG quality. There are definitely times when I don't want to be bothered with preflights and in-depth checklists and would rather just go fly. It just helps to know what you're getting into, one way or the other.

I was thinking about that the other day. In real life you have to do all that stuff. Is it still fun to just press CTR E and just take off and slam it back on the runway somewhere? What about flight planning, weather at the destination, alternate runway options, victor airways, altitude/ terrain planning, not to mention if you truly want to do an IFR flight plan. forgetabout it. Many steps to do in order to take off fly and land safely at your destination in real life. Without the possibility of crashing and burning it's just easy to press CTR E and take off. However IMHO I think if you purchase a payware aircraft and use your own hard earned money and give that to someone else it better be realistic. Quite honestly the external of the airplane is not that important to me. What I see in the cockpit, systems, realistic wear, overuse failures, realistic sounds, and lighting are most important to me. I want to me surrounded by realisim. Since I can't afford to fly in real life and my wife says it's too dangerous I am stuck with Flight Sim. So I want it real.

http://www.flight1.c...product=f1t182t Check that out. The Carenado stuff is mostly eye candy.By the way, I love the November model 172!!! Even though the original engine was junk...

Lots will disagree with this statement. The recent stuff from Carenado is very solid.

How much system depth can you really get with a basic GA aircraft anyway?

Well, if you're talking about the Aerosoft/4X Katana, you've got realistic wear and tear, persistent maintenance, required preflight including walkaround, fluid check and cleaning, management of fuel and oil, and all systems fully modeled - down to individual circuit breakers.The Aerosoft Bronco and the Dodosim Bell 206 give you realistic turbine starts, with the risk of melting down your engine if you don't fuel it properly.In other words, the issue isn't whether the systems are as complex as an airliner's. The issue is whether the systems that are actually present are modeled realistically, such that you've got to take care of them the way you would in a real aircraft. The A2A Cub had hardly any systems, same as its real-world counterpart, but the engine start is affected by temperature and the engine will wear out faster if you don't treat it properly. The result - with any of these - is that you're taking a step beyond flying the airplane, toward actually being a pilot, whether owner or renter.On the other hand, how realistic is it to have to look after an entire 737-800 NG by yourself, without a first officer, a service crew, a dispatch office and a maintenance department? The argument could be (and has been) made that the Katana is a more realistic aviation simulation than the PMDG 737 if you treat the latter as a one-person show. FS2Crew, when released for the NGX, will address that question at least somewhat.The Carenados don't provide that level of involvement. They don't have to and they don't claim to, so there's no problem with that. But don't make the mistake of thinking that just because an aircraft is simple, the treatment of it has to be simplistic.Agreed about Eaglesoft's avionics, BTW.

Lots will disagree with this statement. The recent stuff from Carenado is very solid.

Each purchase I made from them (two) had a debilitating bug that was addressed months after release. I personally stand by what I say: Carenado produces mostly eye candy. I respect other's opinions, of course. If you like it, you like it!

Edited January 27, 201214 yr by ZachLW

Just FYI.Bernt Stolle has done some amazing FDE work on the latest Carenado aircraft.For those of you who have the 185, you can find his optional modifications here.... http://www.bushpound...t/downloads.phpAnd for those that have the 208, he is rebuilding the FDE for that with the help of an ex 208 driver. See the thread here....http://z13.invisionf...p?showtopic=868JB

Edited January 27, 201214 yr by Buzz313th

Ok I'll think about it.

Carenado produces mostly eye candy. I respect other's opinions, of course. If you like it, you like it!

+100,000. I have never liked their planes. They fly like a joke but have pretty visuals. Also, many tend to be loaded with glitches.