Is the Carenado C340 realistic? Look and you be the judge...

[cvearl 60]

What exactly are you comparing? No two planes fly identical. They may have different propellers or engines in different states. In the flight school where I rent planes they have multiple C152's which although they look almost the same fly completely different. The speed differences are around 20%. They behave differently in the air. On some of them you just need 2200RPM to maintain 95kt, on others it's 2300RPM. All of them are C152's and all of them are 100% realistic None of them flies as the charts in the POH say.

 

I was actually pointing out how closely it is modeled. And ya I know planes have some of their own personality traits but on identical models, many of the flight profiles (gear and flap position with various power settings) will yield very similar results. The plane I took shots from the video and the one from Carenado are very close to the same and to me see to match pretty good. I think Carenado did a good job on this one is all I am saying.

 

C.

[mikebxb 20]

Revisiting the Carenado 340 II. I THINK I have the latest engine upgrades. and use pop up GTN 750 on 2nd monitor. I'm still getting 60FPS. Like CVEARL I love the little twins and challenge myself using old analog(steam) gauges, NDB, VOR/DME's ( I admittedly use the GTN 750 for checks and balance sometimes AND its so much easier to work the radios)

Noticed a lag on mixture and prop when reducing more than other Carenado A/C. Found out just today the NDB DOES work as well as VOR2. The RADAR Alt gauge is useless.

I DID have the HSI get surely & not register proper headings on one flight.

As an FYI it helps (in my case) to reboot the computer for each flight. This clears out all things cached from previous flights. 

I would love to see Carenado update the 340 or offer a new Cessna 421C Ram with the analogue gauges and GTN 750 integration.

Once I mastered the Real Air Duke Turbine V2 it's almost TOO easy because everything works like its supposed to.