Carenado C182Q vs. C206!

[Guest CrazzlY]

Greetings,I have a few questions regarding the C182Q from Carenado.First and foremost, it feels like it's a little "sportier" than the 206.However, I wonder what the BIG difference is between these two aircrafts?They are in the same size, not sure about the difference in engines though?I also wonder what the wire connecting the wing with the "rear-wing" is all about, on the C182Q?The ONLY part I hate with the C182Q must be that cable - and I really wonder if it's possible to remove it in one way or another?Some of you may have noticed my other thread about my journey around Europe at this time.The C206 and C182Q are the two competitors at this moment, and if it'd be possible to remove that wire - the C182Q would be the winner!Still, if someone could tell me what role that wire has, and if it's possible to remove it aswell - I'd be happy! :)Best of Regards,Christer Fredholm

[Guest]

Hi there!I cannot explain the "cable" question to you, sorry.But I'd like to admit that having both products I personally like the 182 a bit more. I like the panel more plus the mood it creates though, of course, it is quite a personal view. What's more I somehow dislike the 206's sound (reminding me a driller) no matter how realistic it is.But f course, both products are excellent.I'm also planning a very long multi-stage FS journey and, most likely, my choice will be the 182.Best regards,Rafal

[1mikel151 71]

I prefer the 206 more, if for nothing else, a slight performance edge.Here's a comparison206http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=147182http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=145Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/ambanner.jpg

[G7USL 117]

>Still, if someone could tell me what role that wire has, and>if it's possible to remove it aswell - I'd be happy! :)>>>>Best of Regards,>Christer FredholmHow about the radio aeriel, remove it and lose your comms?

[barryward12345 0]

Aircraft are meant for more than just flying - they are meant to transport things and people. The 206 can seat 6 people and has big double side doors to allow loading of cargo. The 182Q only seats 4 and is not really suitable for cargo.In terms of flying them in the Sim, they are similar in that you can fly them - but in real life , they have differnt purposes.Barry

[Guest RiddlePilot]

I'm lucky enough to have flown both a 182, 182RG and 206 in the real world. There are many differences than initially meets the eye. First, the engines. The fixed gear 182 has an O-470 rated at 230 HP. The 182RG has an O-540 rated at 235 HP. The 206 (non-turbocharged, what I fly and to keep the comparison equal) is an IO-520 rated at 300 HP. As you can see, the 206 is the only of the 3 with fuel injection (I designation in the prefix). On top of all that, 300 HP (maximum 5 minutes; thereafter 285 HP for continuous operation) is much more than 230 or 235. You can really feel a kick in the pants when you let it rip on the runway also, especially if lightly loaded. The 206 that I fly can get off the ground in under 500 feet with just me and a half a tank of fuel when using 20 degrees of flaps.On my first flight in the 182, I thought there was alot of torque, but you haven't felt anything til you fly a 206. The rudder trim is there for a reason, and if you don't use it correctly, you'll end up taking out the left side runway lights quicker than you can think about what happened. If you don't stay on the rudder as you transition from climb to cruise, you'll quickly find yourself in uncoordinated flight. I find myself adjusting the rudder trim all the way down final as I make power and speed adjustments. While the flight starts off with the trim near the center position on the indicator, I usually land with it 2/3 to 3/4 of the way over to the left stop. In the event of a go-around, you had better have some strong thigh muscles in your right leg. None of this was ever really a factor in the 182s that I flew.All in all, cruise speed is pretty equal in all 3. You're going to burn a slight bit more fuel for an hour of flight in a 206 or 182RG because of the higher displacement of the cylinders. Cooling is not usually an issue with any of the normally aspirated engines in a Cessna, although I did catch myself eyeing the CHT gauge during a steep power off descent in the 206.The next point of emphasis is the flight characteristics of the airplanes. If you're used to a 152 or 172, get ready to fly a brick. The 182 and 206 both come down like rocks, but the 206 can be alarming if you're simulating a power failure in the pattern. The general rule of thumb in a 172 is 3 miles glide for every 1000 feet AGL. You better plan on half or less of that in a 206. I've seen a nose down pitch of 8-10 degrees with 20 degrees of flaps and idle power to maintain best glide of 85 MPH (yes, MPH, its a 1972 airframe) in the 206 that I fly. Pitch trim is a must. They are heavy aircraft to begin with, having a 3100 and 3600 lb max gross takeoff weight, respectively. You can surely feel the weight of the elevator through the yoke as you yank on it to point the nose upwards with no prop wash over the horizontal stabilizer during the flare. My rule of thumb is to crank in 2 or 3 full turns of nose up trim as I begin to pull the power back on short final.Any other questions, feel free to ask.

[Guest RiddlePilot]

Oh yes, I forgot to touch on the "wire thing".Thats the ADF sense antenna.I'd suggest Googling "ADF Antenna" for an indepth description of the ADF system if you're interested in further reading.

[Moose4 0]

I'm not a real-world pilot, but I have to say that IMO Carenado did a great job of simulating the mass of a 206 with their product. Especially when loaded, it really does have something of a "truck-like" feel to it. And even after months flying it around in the sim, I still have trouble getting the landing angle correct, and occasionally land nose-wheel first. I shudder to think how many virtual firewalls I've bent or buckled. That nose-down approach angle really takes some getting used to!The 182RG and 182Q have some "heft" to them, but nothing like the 206. The Stationair reminds me of an old International Travelall that a friend of mine used to have. Big, massive, heavy, powerful, built like a tank and handles about like one too. And it'll haul anything you want.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

[Guest Rockcliffe]

Thanks Travis for taking the time to share your experiences with the real aircraft. I have both the Carenado 182rg and the 206 and was interested to read your rw comparisons.BlairCYOW

[Guest CrazzlY]

Uhm, thanks alot guys for your replies!However I think you misunderstood a little.All I want to do is 'hide' the wire in FS9.Maybe it's possible if you edit the cfg or something?Or is there any patch or anything like that?Best of Regards,Christer Fredholm

[Guest RiddlePilot]

You can't hide it, its part of the aircraft model that was created in gMax or the like. And quite frankly, why would you want to? Its on the real airplane, so why wouldn't you want it on the sim airplane?

[Guest CrazzlY]

Hi again!I've spent quite some time in the two planes by now.I must say it's a frustrating choice though.The 206 MAY be a little more suited for my kind of journey.However, each time I look at a single picture of the 182Q, the wall between the 206 and 182Q goes down to bits and pieces:http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?Loca...&ImageID=137661Is there anyone else who is about to do a journey almost like me in one of these two GA:s?I just *CAN'T* make up my mind! *sigh*Please help me in any way possible!?

[Guest RiddlePilot]

In regards to real world flying, I'd rather do a long journey in a 182. The 206 only has a left/right fuel selector, which a) takes some getting used to, and :( causes a constant fuel imbalance. The 206 would require constant attention in the roll department if you were to fly it long distances without an autopilot (which is the ONLY way to do it : P)

[lcseale53 0]

Hi Travis and all,With respect to cross country travel in the 206, I do a couple of 500-600 mile trips a year in mine and the roll imbalance is really a minor issue if you change tanks every hour or so. The comfort level, though, I think is improved over the 182 on long trips. I can actually station my wife at the controls and step back (okay, squeeze back) into the middle row of seats and lounge/stretch somewhat, or she can do the same adding greatly to the comfort.As to the OP's original comment concerning size; while the 206 shares a wing with the 182 (at least the early models did), the fuselage is significantly larger with 6 full size seats and a bench in the baggage compartment that will hold 120 pounds of kids. Total useful load on the spartan model stationair with full fuel is a little better than 1200 pounds.While I'm here I'll also add a comment for those with the Carenado model. They do a fair job reproducing a heavy aircraft feel, but while the Carenado rendition will continue to hold altitude with a significant power reduction, the real 206 will drop like a rock when the power is reduced just a few inches. With 30 degrees of flaps on final you need around 20 inches of manifold pressure to keep your rate of descent below 500 fpm. Regards,Leon