Carenado's new one

[flyinpilot212121 724]

Hey evryone, Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on the stationair by Carenado. I personnaly think its going to be an awesome aircraft judging by carenado's C182RG.

[spilok 1,132]

Personally, I'm a little weary of all the GA aircraft. I have the Baron 36, The Beech Baron, The Skymaster, The 182, The 172, and other GA payware, and in some ways, they are all a bit similar. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy them all, and I don't regret buying them one bit. However, I'm looking for some new business jets. I'd love a Gulfstream that's payware quality....as well as a Hawker.....and I'm open to others that represent executive business jets. I'd probably buy another GA aircraft if it were made.... a Piper Cherokee 250...an old plane, but one that stirs memories of my first "airplane ride" when I was about 12. My neighbor was a Private Pilot and he had one. I would love to have a good "cowl view" in the next GA aircraft, but not a view necessited by moving up against the panel to appreciate. Cowl and wing views are important to me and I'd like to see more of these as aircraft are released.Oh well, there's a little discussion on your question.

[flyinpilot212121 724]

I totally understand what your saying, as I also think that mnay GA aircraft are similar( Mixture, Master, Primer, Starter.) I only own one payware GA aircraft which is there C182 and opted from purchasing other GA's(from other companies also, not just Carenado) because of that fact.However I find many payware GA aircraft look amazing, As this new one looks amazing but do not think I will purchase it.I have a Payare aircraft for all lenghts of flying I own the Carenado's 182, Aeroworx King Air B200, PMDG 737-600 700, LDS 767 and the RFP 747.Gerry

[Guest CWD]

I'm trying to get enough people to e-mail Carenado about it that they make a floatplane version, I've been wanting a 206 on floats for so long...

[Moose4 0]

I'll buy it. I own their C210 Centurion and the C182RG; the 210 is nice but the super-slow VC refresh makes it difficult for me to fly (I'm a VC nut). The 182, on the other hand, is a fantastic piece of work, and if the 206 is that good, it'll be worth purchasing.I kind of understand what folks are saying about "too much GA," but on the other hand, sometimes it seems like GA really doesn't get its due in FS and especially here on AVSIM. The big splashy releases always seem to be the jetliners. Heck, if you look at the screenshot forum here, it's 95%+ jetliners. GA posts in there, unless they're just jaw-droppingly amazing, drop like a Beaver with the engine cut off.I'd like to see a few more bizjets too. FSD's got a Jetstar and Mu-2 (fast turboprop) in the works, and hopefully Eaglesoft can add to their great line as well. Gulfstream apparently has been very hostile toward developers simulating their products, which is too bad because a payware Gulfstream would probably be a big seller.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

[ORN 1]

me, I'm looking for something else now!The Carenado Cessna 182 is very good, and then there's the Flight 1 Skyhawk and the FSD Skymaster, and some more Cessna's that I don't even remember who built, and theyr'e all fine. Dreamfleet has given us some fantastic Beeches and there's Pipers all over the place.I'm looking for a military trainer with the new gauge technology, be it RealityXP or RealAir tech!And how about a nice Herk at a reasonable price. Made by Dreamfleet, PSS or RealAir! I wanna fly a good payware Herk before i die, and I'm 44 ;)And please no more Boeings, there's still more Maddogs to be made, and the two developers who tried is just not up to it 100%. The Lago one had potencial I think, but the company went bananas. The other one seems like panels only, a lot of promises and no followup (correct me if I'm wrong!).(Maybe I should cut down on wine, it makes me say things I really mean.)

[FlyinIron406 3]

i own and enjoy all of the Carenado things! i wish they would do a twin, and maybe a newer model, but they do great work!

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

StanI go with your sentiments totally. I would really like to see some business jets to the quality and functionality of the Level D 767 and PMDG 747.While there are many biz jets which are visually good I know of none which are to the level of those two heavies mentioned above.I have flown the 206 real world and frankly find it a very stodgy lifeless plodder which wouldnt appeal to me although I have a lot of respect for the Carenado aircraft quality.Peter

[JimmiG 244]

A 206 on floats would be really nice and something different from just another high-wing Cessna.

[Guest ThrottleUp]

I agree - I would buy a payware bizzjet.Im waiting (impatiently!) for a Global Express ...yum yum!

[lcseale53 0]

Hi Peter,I must disagree -passionately- with your assessment of the 206. I have owned mine since 1978 and find it to be one incredible airplane. It may not be the fastest GA airplane on the market (but will cruise at 160 mph TAS at 8,000), but there are very, I repeat very few GA singles that will do what the Cessna 206 does best. It is a full six place airplane WITH full extended fuel. At a gross weight of 3600 pounds, and an empty weight of 1900 pounds, I can carry 84 gallons of fuel and six 200 pound souls. On one occasion we had six adults in seats, two children on the rear baggage bench (approved) and a baby in one of the passenger's lap...9 people on board. CERTAINLY NOT STODGY.Additionally, and according to the operators manual, at STP with 700 pounds of payload, a 20 knot headwind, and using 20 degrees of flaps, the 206 is airborn in 155 feet (page 6-3, Figure 6-3 of the 1971 Stationair Owner's Manual). CERTAINLY NOT LIFELESS.Now I personally have never tried that, but my wife and I, with full fuel fuel and baggage routinely depart my Dad's grass strip with about a 500' ground roll. The 206 has very impressive short field landing qualities as well...over the 80' tree line with full fuel and 2 - 4 onboard, and stopped in about 1500' with an OAT of 98 degrees F. I'm not sure about the 'plodder' comment, but according to Webster's second definition, it is, in fact, a 'steady worker'. Incidentally, the 206 has appreciated 450-500 percent during the time we've had the pleasure of using and enjoying one of the finest GA aircraft ever built.Best,Leon

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

LeonNo offence made to your aircraft :-) We all look for different things as with the different women we may have as girlfriends wives ;-)We look for different qualities to suit our tastes.What suits one doesnt another.I flew a fairly newish aircraft and new doesnt mean better and flew the aircraft on about 4-5 trips.Yes their strong points are the amazing weight carrying capability and docile handling.I too flew this one off a grass strip and remember the takeoff position for the rudder trim to combat the torque effect.all the bestPeter

[lcseale53 0]

None taken Peter,I very much enjoy your posts in this forum - always learning something. Yes, the new 206 is 300-400 pounds heavier than the older model and this likely shows up in a loaded airplane. And you are correct about the take-off torque. If one is not leading the power application with some heavy right foot, one will find themselves standing on that rudder pedal in short order to stay out of the ditch.Regards,Leon

[Arklight1 140]

I actually like all the GA aircraft available.One thing I can do without is more airliners. Go to FL350, fly for hours upon hours, land. Rinse and repeat. Ack.

[lcseale53 0]

It appears that we're getting some pretty good GA coverage now with the top-rated producers, and I'm really anxious to 'fly' the new 206. Carenado was fairly close to performance expectations with the 210 (at least compared to my limited 210 experience). But I'm a little more tuned in to the 206, so I'll probably be a little more critical.I must admit though, I'm somewhat intrigued by the procedural demands of the heavy stuff. I enjoy the planning and execution of a flight - I just keep it to an hour or so.Regards,Leon