Is it worth buying? Good textures and so on?

I wanna have a really good GA plane to fly with.

Hello,

 

You'll find 2 reviews here:

http://www.simreviewshouse.com/?post_type=reviews&p=1408

http://xplanereviews.com/index.php?/topic/160-aircraft-review-piper-pa-46-malibu-mirage-hd-series-by-carenado/

 

I don't have the Malibu, but I'm glad about every X-Plane Carenado aircraft I have in my hangar.

Thanks =)

I have it for FSX and I enjoy it a lot. Carenado does great work.

Is it worth buying? Good textures and so on?

I wanna have a really good GA plane to fly with.

Love this plane ! Carendado quality as usual ! My only complaint is it has no DME.

I wrote a little blurb on why I like the FSX version.  I also talked about some of the bugs to expect.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/443610-malibu-mirage-350p-sounds/?p=3002115

 

 

 

Love this plane ! Carendado quality as usual ! My only complaint is it has no DME.

 

It has distance on the GNS530.  You can use that in lieu of DME.

 

Gregg

Has the FDE been improved over the FSX version (which unfortunately fly's like a toy because it does not require any manual rudder input in turns)

I have it for P3dv2 and I have to say the VC is the best I think I've ever seen!

 

 

Has the FDE been improved over the FSX version (which unfortunately fly's like a toy because it does not require any manual rudder input in turns)

 

I can't speak for the PA46, in particular, but the Piper Warriors and Archers I flew IRL didn't require hardly any rudder for coordinated turns.  

 

Gregg

Gregg, yea...the Piper 350 doesn't have a "rudder interconnect" mechanism though. In fact there are alot of Warriors and archers that don't have them either...dunno why really.

I did some Googling and found references to the fact that, at least some do.  Honestly, I always wondered why I never needed rudder except for on slips.  You've enlightened me.

 

Gregg

Actually the real Archer is well known for requiring a bit of opposite rudder on high power left-hand turns.

 

I don't know if the X-Plane 10 Carenado models this. My ELITE v9 sim did model this very well, not only in the Archer ( as you can see in a shot from a  review of ELITE I wrote a while ago ), and the A36 was practically feet-on-floor, just like the real thing....

 

Also found that, just like in FSX / P3D, the implementation of the turn & slip gauge in XP10 is not the top one. In FSX no one has been able to overcome the limitations of a turn coordinator that doesn't let you perfrom std rate turns, nor the problems brought by playing with sideforce due to sideslip. In XP10 there is way less visual displacement than there should be, although if we use the HUD view it is there... not up to the levels expected, but still more consistent.

 

Some authors add irrealistic rudder trim tab corrections ( to the left on CW rotating prop aircraft ) because they use way to much aileron trim settings to overcome the torque effects ( overmodeled as mentione ad-nauseam in this forum... ). I found this to be the case in at least one on the Carenados I owned ( the first release of the Baron 58, if I'm not wrong...)

 

Well, innacuracies we have to learn to live with :-/, but I did like the overall feel of the three Carenados I bought for XP10 ( never bought one for MSFS ).

Just bought the Mirage 350for XP. I'm trying it in v10.3b5...

 

No rudder movement required for turns...and as jcomm has pointed out I thnk they may have really over-done the characteristic laminar wing effects at low speed flight because this thing has zero ground effect when landing...i mean it just slams down on pavement once you drop below 75-80kts...you have to fly it all the way down with no throttle cut...even slow reducing throttle isnt really good enough...also feels as if theres too much dirty drag since the throttles with full flaps have to be kept quite high to maintain enough speed so you dont drop it onto the runway...it just feels REALLY "off" on approach and landings. Also on take-off it either leaps or sticks...no smooth in between for that. For me, it's not flyable and I won't be bothered using it this way.

 

On a much better note - I also purchased the B200 for XP and it turned out MUCH better than the Mirage350. There doesn't seem to be any real lag though for engine power spool up so that feels very wrong to me (almost like flying  a piston!). But it fly's alot better and sounds alot better than the Mirage350. The flight1 B200 for FSX seems to have way TOO MUCH power lag according to a write-up I found online awhile back...should be somewhere in the middle between the 2 versions I think.

 

Anyway...kudos to Carenado for their work on the B200...It's a "keeper" as far as Xplane is concernend...looks, sounds and fly's good. The Piper Mirage350 on the other hand feels totally rushed and thrown out there with no love for the sounds or flight dynamics.

Thx for the precious info and flight tests on the Mirage Dave.

 

The C90 was also very nice, if I still recall.....

The Piper Mirage350 on the other hand feels totally rushed and thrown out there with no love for the sounds or flight dynamics.

 

Sorry, but not surprised, to hear that the sounds were not improved for the XP version.  As noted elsewwhere in the forums, the soundset is one of the weakest pieces of the plane.  Thankfully, there's an Arezone soundset available for FSX which, though not perfect, is substantially better, but that doesn't help XP users.

 

Scott