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.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by Chock

Great thank you for the excellent summary Alan.

32 minutes ago, Chock said:

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.

This sounds promising for me, since I am big on aesthetics. The default modeling and texture detail on the default in MFS look absolutely stunning that I am still in awe every time I fly in the cockpit. I was scared that the Carenado wouldn't be on par, but since you said it's even better than the default when it comes to graphics fidelity, then I'm definitely going to consider repurchasing this plane. Sucks that this will be the 3rd time, since I have already bought it for FSX, P3D and X-Plane. 

The only thing left that bothers me is the sound quality doesn't seem to match the quality of the plane's overall graphics, and another big one is the G1000 doesn't support synthetic vision and lacks the airport diagrams that are supported in the default G1000 inside MFS. I really hope they can add those features into the G1000 and redo the sounds then it would be a no brainer purchase for me.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by captain420

Thank you for taking the plunge and buying this aircraft and also for taking time to do a review for us. Really enjoyed the video and have subscribed. Looking forward to the tutorial.

 

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by Dazkent

1 minute ago, Dazkent said:

airfraft

Yes, Carenado built a truly beautiful "airfraft" 🤪😄

10 hours ago, 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. 🤣

People project their anger / hate on MSFS on your content. I feel with you.

This Carenado object is terrible as usual: terrible sounds, terrible engine management, just acceptable flight model, terrible cockpit. It's on the top of the arcade plane. However the default planes in FS2020 are a lot better than this Carenado C182.

6 minutes ago, rampa said:

This Carenado object is terrible as usual: terrible sounds, terrible engine management, just acceptable flight model, terrible cockpit. It's on the top of the arcade plane. However the default planes in FS2020 are a lot better than this Carenado C182.

So have you bought the Carenado C182 and flown it in MSFS?

I had some Carenado arcade planes in FSX, Xplane and in P3D, but I have no intention to buy similar arcade planes for FS2020. 

9 hours ago, Stoopy said:

Dang, it's so ugly that you had to film it at night?  Thanks...I guess?  

😄

That's Liverpool for you I guess  

15 minutes ago, rampa said:

terrible cockpit.

From the looks of the reviews I've seen, the cockpit textures and modeling look very good and high quality. They are on par or just a tiny bit better than the default planes that we get in MFS. If you can't see a difference, then you need an eye exam or a better display.

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

I guess it doesnt add any functionality to the cockpit over the default airplanes. By the sound of it, it actually subtracts (ie synthetic vision not included). I dont see a reason to buy it. If it had steam gauges, sure that would be interesting. 

@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.

41 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

That's Liverpool for you I guess  

Fair call, but maybe he could have just covered it in snow or something? 🙂