Don't say I never do anything for you...

[Nyxx 6,993]

2 hours ago, Chock said:

Right, so a comparison with the nearest default aeroplane in the sim...

As everyone knows, the 182 Skylane is basically a more powerful and (typically) more sophisticated version of the 172 Skyhawk, although it does also share some elements of the 210 Centurion and the 206 Stationair, the latter was on even occasion marketed as the Super Skylane. However, the 172 and 182 do have some aerodynamic differences too, with the 182 sharing a little bit of commonality with the 206. so they should not feel the same, but similar.

The gist of why someone would choose a 182 over a 172, assuming they were not concerned with the fact that the 182 is more expensive, is that the 182 is a better long distance IFR aeroplane than the 172, because it can lift a bit more payload. And being heavier, theoretically at least, the 182 should penetrate the air a bit better and be slightly more 'pointy' in the air than the 172 because of the additional weight and the fact that it has an adjustable prop.

So, the closest default MSFS aeroplane to the new Carenado 182, is the 172 with the glass cockpit, although there is a steam gauge 172 as well if you get the super-funky version of the new sim. In comparing the two glass cockpit aeroplanes, right off the bat I can tell you the Carenado one has a better cockpit for the sim; not only does it look better than the default 172, it is also more usable since the PFD is more readable, having larger and clearer digits on the display than the default 172. This is important if you are running at 1080x1920, since it means you can have your view further back and still read the data in the Carenado 182.

Both of them have about the same throws and deflections on the controls, however, the 182's nose appears to wander around a bit more on the air. I think this is because being faster, in the simulated air mass, it is 'covering more ground' and going through more air mass per second. This I think could do with a tweak, because being heavier and having more inertia should mean the nose wanders around a bit less. Nevertheless, it does convey the  feel of being heavier than the 172, and it is considerably more speedy. There's not much in it when it comes to take offs and landings, they are both easy to land, although if I had to pick a difference, I would say the Carenado 182 comes off the runway just a little bit nicer than the default 172.

Where the differences will count most, is that more readable PFD, espceially for those not running 4K, and the better lifting capacity if you use something like Air Hauler when it eventually makes it into the new sim. As it will be a better box hauler.

Externally, both models hold up well, thus the outside view is pretty much a draw in terms of scoring them both.

So is it worth the price of entry when you have a 172 already? I'd say yes, but it's not a resounding yes and if you only have 24 quid to spend on one thing, then you might buy some scenery instead and not worry that you are missing out on some hidden 'must have' gem. I like it and I'm pleased to have it because of that PFD's clarity and readability and a nicer cockpit overall, but I'd stop short of saying it was an essential purchase. Although if you would prefer a four seater Cessna prop which can 'shift a bit', then you wouldn't be disappointed, because with that turbo injection, it's noticeably faster than the Skyhawk.

Hi Alan,

What I would be very interested in hearing is the G1000 in the 182 v the default 172 G1000. 

Simple question really does the 182 have more functionality? 

Also I hear a lot of complained about the sounds in the 182, thoughts? 

I gave you 2 thumbs Up BTW as I want my children to be hung well lol...well the boy anyway lol

Edited August 20, 2020 by Nyxx

[hangar 660]

4 hours ago, Chock said:

Right, so a comparison with the nearest default aeroplane in the sim...

As everyone knows, the 182 Skylane is basically a more powerful and (typically) more sophisticated version of the 172 Skyhawk, although it does also share some elements of the 210 Centurion and the 206 Stationair, the latter was on even occasion marketed as the Super Skylane. However, the 172 and 182 do have some aerodynamic differences too, with the 182 sharing a little bit of commonality with the 206. so they should not feel the same, but similar.

The gist of why someone would choose a 182 over a 172, assuming they were not concerned with the fact that the 182 is more expensive, is that the 182 is a better long distance IFR aeroplane than the 172, because it can lift a bit more payload. And being heavier, theoretically at least, the 182 should penetrate the air a bit better and be slightly more 'pointy' in the air than the 172 because of the additional weight and the fact that it has an adjustable prop.

So, the closest default MSFS aeroplane to the new Carenado 182, is the 172 with the glass cockpit, although there is a steam gauge 172 as well if you get the super-funky version of the new sim. In comparing the two glass cockpit aeroplanes, right off the bat I can tell you the Carenado one has a better cockpit for the sim; not only does it look better than the default 172, it is also more usable since the PFD is more readable, having larger and clearer digits on the display than the default 172. This is important if you are running at 1080x1920, since it means you can have your view further back and still read the data in the Carenado 182.

Both of them have about the same throws and deflections on the controls, however, the 182's nose appears to wander around a bit more on the air. I think this is because being faster, in the simulated air mass, it is 'covering more ground' and going through more air mass per second. This I think could do with a tweak, because being heavier and having more inertia should mean the nose wanders around a bit less. Nevertheless, it does convey the  feel of being heavier than the 172, and it is considerably more speedy. There's not much in it when it comes to take offs and landings, they are both easy to land, although if I had to pick a difference, I would say the Carenado 182 comes off the runway just a little bit nicer than the default 172.

Where the differences will count most, is that more readable PFD, espceially for those not running 4K, and the better lifting capacity if you use something like Air Hauler when it eventually makes it into the new sim. As it will be a better box hauler.

Externally, both models hold up well, thus the outside view is pretty much a draw in terms of scoring them both.

So is it worth the price of entry when you have a 172 already? I'd say yes, but it's not a resounding yes and if you only have 24 quid to spend on one thing, then you might buy some scenery instead and not worry that you are missing out on some hidden 'must have' gem. I like it and I'm pleased to have it because of that PFD's clarity and readability and a nicer cockpit overall, but I'd stop short of saying it was an essential purchase. Although if you would prefer a four seater Cessna prop which can 'shift a bit', then you wouldn't be disappointed, because with that turbo injection, it's noticeably faster than the Skyhawk.

What's it like doing a 1nm slide-slip with each of them in a direct 10kt crosswind?

Will both hold it reasonably well? Does one stand out above the other for any reason?

[darem 84]

9 hours ago, AntillesFlyer said:

I love how it's not looking like it's just driven out of the showroom floor!

Where, apart from the ingame store, which doesn't work for me, can I buy it?

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, darem said:

Where, apart from the ingame store, which doesn't work for me, can I buy it?

How come the in-store method doesn't work? I should think that needs sorting.

[captain420 3,099]

5 hours ago, rampa said:

Compared to the default FS2020 planes the cockpit of this Carenado masterpiece is looking cartoonish. My oculist has my same opinion.

You're blind then.

[Claudius_ 323]

5 hours ago, HighBypass said:

@rampa Terrible cockpit??

Looked like mighty fine textures to me, especially on the backup gauges below the screens. Screens which appear to be easy to read..

Do you not like the ergonomics? Then blame Cessna, not Carenado..

What is wrong with the engine management? Please explain. Are the settings wrong for manifold pressure and prop rpm? I don't have the product, but I am curious as to why you think this.

I do understand that Carenado planes need the flight models tweaking out of the box - there are plenty of forum posts on that aspect.

I'd say: What is "missing" with the engine management? To manage a prop engine is not simply pushing a throttle, see the A2A planes and you have a real good product to learn how to fly in a flight simulator. Also, the cockpit textures are cartoonish, this indicates that this "plane" is simply a porting from previous flight simulators and not a new product especially dedicated for FS2020.

Also Carenado left in past a lot of their potentially good planes unfinished and bugged.

Anyway, I can understand that some people needs of arcade planes because they are new to the flight simulators or they just don't want bother with deeply simulated systems.

[darem 84]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

How come the in-store method doesn't work? I should think that needs sorting.

It might be because of my country, Austria. Prices are still shown without taxes, and when I click on the buy option, the button greys out and nothing happens.

[Chock 17,769]

Have you contacted MS/Asobo about it?

Probably worth reporting it. You know software companies, if there's a bug, they might fix it, but if there's a bug which prevents people spending money, they'll be right on it in a hot minute.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Chock

[darem 84]

I will, but in the meantime: all other stuff can be purchased anywhere, but not Carenado? Strange.

[ShawnG 1,823]

53 minutes ago, rampa said:

I'd say: What is "missing" with the engine management? To manage a prop engine is not simply pushing a throttle, see the A2A planes and you have a real good product to learn how to fly in a flight simulator. Also, the cockpit textures are cartoonish, this indicates that this "plane" is simply a porting from previous flight simulators and not a new product especially dedicated for FS2020.

Also Carenado left in past a lot of their potentially good planes unfinished and bugged.

Anyway, I can understand that some people needs of arcade planes because they are new to the flight simulators or they just don't want bother with deeply simulated systems.

So you don’t have it then, and are simply regurgitating opinions that you've been nurturing for a long time.  Thanks, your response has been noted and added to the log.

[Chock 17,769]

I've had a look around and I couldn't find anywhere which was selling it externally. Normally Just Flight, SimMarket etc are places you can buy Carenado stuff a couple of days after launch. Be interesting to see if this changes. 

I wonder if maybe changing your location on your system or some such might kick it into routing the purchase through another place where the tax payment element gets sorted?

Edited August 20, 2020 by Chock

[HighBypass 2,339]

1 hour ago, rampa said:

To manage a prop engine is not simply pushing a throttle, see the A2A planes and you have a real good product to learn how to fly in a flight simulator.

I know and understand that rampa I have A2As Connie for FSX:SE and some other aircraft where one needs to manage prop rpm , but there are both variable pitch and mixture controls provided in this 182 which do appear to do something. Will mismanagement cause the engine to go bang? Probably not in the case of a Carenado, but performance settings could be followed.

Admittedly I leave mixture management to the flight engineer in the Connie, or use the auto-mixture setting in the sim (FSX:SE), but I do modulate rpm and manifold pressure according to what I need to do in flight, so you got me on "ignoring" the mixture control 

However, thank you for the detailed reply regarding the engine management side. 🍻

[Chock 17,769]

3 hours ago, rampa said:

Also, the cockpit textures are cartoonish, this indicates that this "plane" is simply a porting from previous flight simulators and not a new product especially dedicated for FS2020.

Mmmm, okay, if you say so...

[carmined 132]

On 8/19/2020 at 8:19 PM, Chock said:

Good of some git to downvote the video already for no apparent reason, really helps my YT channel to not grow when people do that and encourages me to not bother. Must be someone with a big heart. 🤣

Fudge those people Chock!  Remember, the average IQ is 100 and misery loves company.  Just keep doing you, and the ones with dignity and respect will be there for you and argue properly with you.  I see them as people in my rearview mirror.  YES, it is annoying to have a tailgater, but they disappear when you tear off the rear view mirror, turn up the music and slow down while you enjoy the scenery in front of you! 😉

[carmined 132]

19 hours ago, Chock said:

And I might just sit here opening and closing the doors, just because I can. 😄

I am literally on the fence to purchase MAINLY BECAUSE the doors open!  BUT I also like the idea to have a variable pitch 1xx Cessna except I have more than enough glass cockpits and the sounds are horrid to me so most likely I will restrain until I can't takes no more and give in.