Meh. It's quick, easy cash for them. Most of the work is already done, probably. There are probably a substantial number of people who wanted a fixed-gear 182 after their 182RG came out. Still, I'd much rather see a fresh model. Hopefully this won't take them long and they can move on to something more "interesting." I'm somewhat perplexed by the suggestion they do a C-17 or DC-8, though. This is Carenado we're talking about. Airliners and other big jets aren't their thing. They're about GA light planes, always have been, and (I'll wager) always will be. I doubt they'll come out with newer, glass cockpit GA planes, either. They've always done older planes, and I for one appreciate that. Glass cockpits are nice, but the vast majority of GA planes flying don't have 'em.

Thats why they should do redo their Tomahawk! :) I know there have been loads of people requesting for them to update it. Theres the Just Flight one.. I tried the demo and wasn't impressed.

If redo , I would vote for remake of theirs Cessna 172N Skyhawk II. Hehe , I know this is another high wing Cessna but I love'em :9I wonder if Carenado will ever do a twin...

I would actually love to see them re-do their C210M Centurion and bring it up to the standard of the C206. The 210's gorgeous, and flies great, but the cockpit, especially the VC, is just not up to the standard of their two latest projects (the 182 and 206). And for some reason it's far, far harder on my framerates than the newer Cessnas. Maybe a turbo model of the 210 while they're at it. :)Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

Didn't Carenado have a Saratoga way back when? Must have been fs2000 days. I just remember it being a fun plane.

I would liked to see Carenado make the C185, don't need another 182.

I concur on the 185! A surprisingly neglected plane.Dave

Looks sweet. I thinkk I'll be checking it out.Rob MorrisonFS Enthsiast

i second the 172. preferably SP or R, but really - any 172. i would kill for a carenado 172:-)

So would I, absolutely. In the mean time I have updated mine with an assortment of Reality 'stuff', and still enjoy flying the aircraft. Problem is the view from the VC, its a tough one to see everything you should. I have a raise/lower view option assigned to a toggle on my yoke which makes things a bit better.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/150550.jpgAs far as frame-rates, not really any worse than some other aircraft I have, but would love to see this bird updated, and turbocharged as well as a pressurized version.

This stuff is gorgeous, I have no clue as to how this is done, but have to give these developers a lot of crdit for what they provide.........does anyone else find they spend most of their computer time on just reading the forums and not having time to turn on FS?? I am sure I spend 80/20 time reading vs. doing!! But want to keep current;( RRL

yep, a 172 is what we need from Carenado if they're going to bring out another Cessna. No doubt I'll probably buy this one though. After buying the 182 and the 206 (and I have to say that the 206 is possibly the best plane I've flown in FS to date), I now have a lot of faith in what these guys can produce. A tad disappointing that they haven't gone for something a bit different, but heck, it still looks good enough to spend a few measly quid/dollars/euros on if you ask me. And these Carenado planes are are very easy on the old FPS. In fact I'll buy this plane just out of my sheer appreciation for the hours of enjoyment they've given me with their previous planes... 'nuff said... :-)

We definitely need more good taildraggers on the FS market.I would love a PA-18 or Cessna 180/185 made by Carenado.

Just get the RealAir Scout, and you probably won't need another ;)

What I can't understand is why they can't decide whether to give any of their airplanes a stack of KX-165s or RT-385s. Why the mix? At least make the 165s the #1 radio. To tell you the truth, I'd like a -385 stack, to give it that "original" feel.