My Review of Carenado Phenom 100.Warning lots of pics!

[Stofvel 2]

Thanks for the review and the pics. These were instrumental (along with several other reviews) on inspiring me to acquire the Phenom. This is my first post in the avsim forums although I've been reading various reviews and posts for several months now. I am impressed.

 

The Carenado Phenom is an amazing aircraft - my favourites up until the Phenom were the F33 and A36 Bonanza, B58 Baron, TBM 850 etc. but the Phenom crossed a line for sim flying enjoyment. There was a bit of a learning curve but well worth the time spent.

 

I created a 5:00 minute video which may add to your review in conveying how much fun this aircraft is to fly. It is a landing attempt I made at Courchevel presented in much the same way as an actual sim flight, for me.

 

 

Again thanks for your review and hope this helps others.

 

[Fabs 15]

"I created a 5:00 minute video which may add to your review in conveying how much fun this aircraft is to fly. It is a landing attempt I made at Courchevel presented in much the same way as an actual sim flight, for me."

 

Hi,

I enjoyed watching your Courchevel video, although I'm not so sure that I'd want to be a passenger in your jet!

A while ago, a company used to fly passenger Dash-7's in/out of Courchevel LFLJ, so it shows what can be done, given short field capabilities, which the Phenom possibly hasn't got.

I saw that you just manged to run off the end of the runway, but if you install the following brilliantly detailed freeware scenery for LFLJ (it includes other French altiports), you'll have more of a chance because they have sloped runways like their realworld counterparts, and this should give you a fighting chance to stop before the mountain starts!

Good Luck, and keep us posted!

Fabio

 

File: altiports_alpesxv2.zip (Simviation)

[Stofvel 2]

Fabs happy to hear you enjoyed the video. The intent was to try a challenging runway in a scenic area and to convey the fun of flying the Carenado Phenom. It is indeed a blast!

 

"I'm not so sure that I'd want to be a passenger in your jet!"

 

Virtual Reality Air Sickness bags are provided and thank god for the runway buffer! Hitting either the runway at the wrong angle or going too far beyond the buffer zone forces FSX to issue a crash error. This is the beauty and misfortune of simulation specifically on the simulator reset. :(

 

In reality (so I read), the landing distance required (sans incline) for the Dash 7 is 3000 ft (915m) and for the Embraer Phenom 100, 2722 ft (830m). Indeed, since the runway at Courchevel is 1722 ft (525m) long, the stopping distance required would be less due to the gradient. Therefore, with a little more practice I could likely avoid the buffer zone .  In FSX there appears to be a gradient, but I cannot tell what effect, if any, it might have.

 

As I understand, this particular version of the Embraer Phenom 100 by Carenado does not have speed brakes or reverse thrust, unlike the Dash 7 which has the later.  Carenado designed their Phenom after the original manufacturer variant, however, one or both of these features were incorporated in a later version.

 

Thanks for the Simviation file information. I will give it a try... just need to make sure it doesn't conflict with my Orbx FTX install.

 

Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated.

[Fabs 15]

Hi,

I think there's an updated version of the Courchevel scenery floating around (if I find the file, I'll post an update).

It's a very testing airportenvironment, and I must confess that my Phenom landing attempt even on a sloping runway was considerably worse than I was hoping for, and I didn't even gather enough airspeed to takeoff downhill either.

With that in mind, I wouldn't want to be a pax on my own jet, LOL!

Good luck!

Fabio

[Stofvel 2]

Hey Fabio,

 

I finally got around to a take-off attempt from Courchevel (pre-scenery update). 

 

Not pretty...even backing up to the tree line created a pax mortem as well as captain and first officer result  

 

If you come across the updated scenery let me know...but don't sweat it.

 

Thanks for your input Fabio.

[Fabs 15]

Hi,

Still at Simviation: altiportsalpesxv2.zip

I have FTX Global/Vector and it's fine with those.

Do keep me posted, afraid I'm not having much luck even going downhill in a tuck position at Courchevel, but I can get the Phenom easily(ish) in and out of KAVX Catalina (exceptional taster freeware by Sim720; Aerosoft).

BTW, Courchevel with Winter textures looks utterly superb.

Good luck!

Fabio

[Flywheel47 0]

Hi Stofvel, fantastic video, thank you. Would not liked to have been sitting second chair. Lol

[Stofvel 2]

Finally finished up the most recent video using the LLH Courchevel add-on complete with 18.5º inclined runway. Added departure from Lyon - the scenery between Lyon and Courchevel is spectacular particularly with Orbx FTX Global (base). 

 

Thanks Flywheel47 for your comments. I am not so sure the inclined runway (in the latest video) will make you any less queasy on the landing compared to the default runway. 

 

Hope Fabio gets the link - it was the members in this forum and others that inspired the updated video with a most realistic Courchevel altiport. More and better to come. Did a test departure from Courchevel (again in the Phenom) went great including the V1 speed attained post runway . Amazing from the tower perspective.

 

Here is the link:

 

 

Thanks again, all.

 

Stofvel

[Fabs 15]

Hi,

What a fantastic video! It's amongst the very best that I have seen, with a great intro and story to it.

The scenery really is good, and the flight, well, what can I say?....

I'd be happy to be a passenger!

Best wishes,

Fabio

[Stofvel 2]

Thanks Fabio. It was great to fly and fun to put together albeit time consuming. Plan-G came in handy for the final. The intent of the video was to convey as much as is possible the feeling of being there from as many perspectives as possible.

 

There are two scenarios for the Courchevel add-on  - Winter and Summer.  Part 2 - Courchevel to Lyon will utilize the Summer version. Part 2 is only in planning stage until time becomes available - but it's on back burner.

 

Thanks again.

[peppy197 165]

I already have the Phenom by FeelThere

 

Is this one worth the substitution?

[Flyfox 114]

I also have the FeelThere Phenom and considered getting the Carenado as well. But following the posts here I came to the conclusion that the FeelThere version is better simulated and also less demanding on CPU power (good frame rates) than the Carenado. I still enjoy flying the FT Phenom quite much, in spite of some minor drawbacks.

 

Regards,

Felix

[Fabs 15]

Hi,

 

I just want to set the record straight from my perspective.

 

The Carenado Phenom has received much press, some of it good, and some of it bad.  It is a nice aircraft, as it will do what you want it to do, and it is full of eye candy, which makes it a nice place to be.

 

The fT Phenom is an older product, and with that in mind, it is no less accomplished and it is entirely representative of its day, for instance the switches in the VC are less polished than the fT. The fT Phenom has IMO better systems implementation but, like just like the Carenado, it doesn't have them all. Overall, the fT Phenom has fewer functioning buttons and switches than the Carenado Phenom. The G1000's in the Carenado are nicely done, not terribly deeply though, and they are a good match for the fT Phenom whose G1000's are equally good, but with less graphical candy. For instance, there's no weather radar in the fT version, but if you go grab Bryn's excellent freeware wx gauge, then you cans skirt around those troublesome clouds just as well.

 

Where the Carenado lacks lustre considering is in the development department, as the plane itself cannot be responsible for the attitude of the developers who choose to not model certain features despite the heartfelt pleas of their customers. Features such as the Take-Off config button are completely missing, and this is extraordinary IMO because it's practically a trademark of Embraer. The faults within the FLC system are IMO less important, as I have since heard that it's a very hard thing to get right, and all-in-all, it does it's job albeit in a roundabout way (i.e. autothrottle).

 

So, here's my tuppence worth; it's the attitude of the Carenado team that misses the mark, and since our protestations appear futile, to me, this has had a highly negative impact, plus it may have influenced future purchasing decisions. Carenado have chosen to not reach out and meet our expectations, and this is fine as it is their choice - equally, we have a choice too. Let's face it, Carenado are big in the marketplace, and deservedly so, and whilst I'd say that they are up there with the greats, I wouldn't say that they were up there with the greatest.

 

Therefore, if you want a beautifully modelled Enbraer Phenom, go get the Carenado, as it is undeniably gorgeous, flies nicely, and satisfies much appeal. If you'd like to save pennies and FPS, go fly the feelThere Phenom when it is on sale, as it is an excellent aircraft, should you be desperate for a FLC button that does as advertised, or need a T/O Config button.

 

However, the value of these two competitive products must also be considered, as one is a concurrent product, and the other is not. A respected reseller has both priced at the £24 mark, and whilst the Carenado is unlikely to be discounted at this time, the fT can sometimes be found at a reduced price (I got hold of it for £5).

 

Happily, I have both Phenom's, but this has not deepened my dilemma, it's made it easier. So then, allow me to answer an unasked question - I would not have purchased the fT Phenom had it not been discounted and disillusioned. And here's the answer to another silent question - I exclusively fly the Carenado.

 

If you accept the limitations of each and every model, then there can be no issues, and I would go as far as to say that nearly every single aeroplane in our simulated world has shortcomings of some sort - it's the nature of the game. If you want perfection, go fly for real, and even then I bet that you'd find fault with something, and that, my friends, is our human nature at work.

 

So then, enough of this "which is better?", and go-fly the aeroplane of your dreams because here we can.

 

Happy flying.

 

Fabio

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Very informative comparison Fabs. Don't forget the sound package, which is said to be much more accurate in the feelThere version.

[Fabs 15]

True, I'd forgotten that!

 

I use the fT Phenom sound package in the Carenado aircraft.