I somehow completely missed the fact that there’s a ‘Normal Procedures’ document in the aircraft root files which you can print off to use as a checklist! *DUH* (It would still be nice to see the in-game interactive checklist feature utilised though 😛)
Most aifcrafts in msfs ard too much sensitive. The Cessna are winged bricks, and jn MSFS yoh have to work hard with settjnfs to achieve a decent feeling with the aircraft. Nk sutptise thst Carenado aircrafts are all made this way, wonderful 3D and texture, but nothing more. It is a shame but ..... they don't invest time in a decent flght model and Microdoft/Asobo are not xplane for what concern flight model. XP11 is far way better than MSFS expecially in landing you feel the difference. Flare.... what is flare for Asobo? However for VFR practice around the world is very good...
There is a comprehensive checklist for normal operations included in the documentation , and it is 19 pages long. There are some checklists also in the yoke tablet if you click the arrows.
You’re absolutely right about the normal procedures checklist, no idea how I missed that! Can’t seem to find more than two pages on the in-game iPad though, just the visual elements and the cockpit state settings.
Cannot understand why they don't have a steam guage version of this aircraft. It'll be the version that most of the actual pilots running the sim will have flown in and at least all the guages would be working properly, unlike the glass screens! Roll on A2A getting their act together because from what I see here, the instrument panel, in general, leaves a lot to be desired.
I think the majority of T182Ts sold in real life will have the Garmin panel (2000s design remember) so perhaps it was an effort to represent the real aircraft better? Most of us who have flown 182s have been knocking around in versions from the 70s and 80s! In fact I think the 182 is *only* offered with a G1000 these days...
@@FlyFromHome I must admit, as you can probably gather from my comment, I've been 'flying' the C182T from A2A Simulations since they released it in both FSX and P3D and for me it's just about the most perfect aircraft, albeit alongside the Just Flight Arrow III, especially since I now fly that in MSFS. According to A2A the G1000 has been available in the 182T since 2005. It is a pity though that the glass screen version is the only one offered in MSFS. Until (and perhaps even if) A2A release a MSFS friendly version, I suppose I'll just have to bite the bullet!
Not that I’m in the market for an aircraft, but if I was, I wouldn’t want a G1000 after the disservice shown to it by Asobo in MSFS. I’m completely turned off by the 1000.
@@obriets You haven't tried the NXI mod have you? Totall life saver of the G1000. Works awesome on all aircraft and modded aircraft aswell like the TBM mod
Are you sure about the wonky deck angle of this model? When you look out the back window from inside, you are looking at the ground behind the aircraft. I was in a 182 many years ago and I don't remember anything like that. Moreover, when you look at the model from the outside, it certainly doesn't appear that someone inside looking out the back would be staring at the ground. I think that Carenado have somehow used a taildragger model for this aircraft.
My prevailing feeling from taxiing the real one was that it sat quite nose-high, but yes I don’t think you’d be staring at the ground out of the back. The viewpoint forward does seem about right in this aircraft at least.
@@FlyFromHome I don't agree. Because of the deck angle, I have to raise the eye point looking forward until I can just see the cowling. Then, when I turn to look out the left side window, I am looking at the wall above the window. Have another look.
I remember my eyeline being about level with the top edge of the side window. It’s an awkward plane to look out of imo (unless you’re looking down), but it’s been three years at least since I was last in one so I might be mistaken.
@@FlyFromHome It happens in your video about 28 minutes in when you are doing the runup. You have raised the eyepoint so you can see out the front but you look out the left window and see the wall. Have a look. What do you think?
@@jcallum Sorry, found this video late- In my experience in 172s, a comfortable flying position puts your eye point above the top of the side windows. If you want to see the bottom of the wing for example, you need to duck your head slightly. You are also quite a bit further forward than you would imagine as well. The 'A' pillar nearly obscures the wing strut from your natural view point. I think that because of the limited field of view on a monitor we're used to having a compromised lower eye point in the sim than you would in the actual aircraft so that we can see the panel as well as outside. In the 172 I could quite easily see the top of the glare shield, the window combing and the engine cowl from the flying position.
Nice looking plane but good grief that engine whine would drive me insane. Must be one of the least pleasant engine sounds i have heard in FS2020 so far. Thanks for the video.
You still fine tune things with the red lever, but the engine is what’s called ‘altitude compensated’, which means it won’t ever rich or lean cut due to density changes with altitude. The most modern aircraft don’t even have a red lever, it’s all controlled by an electronic ECU as in a modern car.
When descending in autopilot you have to hit the ARM button above the altitude setting knob on the AP controller. It will then display VS and take you down to the altitude set. I think. I got to test that out but I believe I have seen the VS being displayed. Been flying the Pelican so much I have forgot. Our flight school has a 1982 Cessna T182 RG, which is a turbo charged retractable gear variant. It has the legacy autopilot controller like this one and it behaves the same. But it's my favorite trainer. You would be amazed (or not) how much drag is eliminated when you get that gear tucked up into the frame. I would wager it is worth an additional 15 knots of airspeed. But they also charge $175/hour vs the normal $145/hour for the 172 and the Cherokee Six.
The default MSFS autopilot which this plane uses doesn't have a working 'arm' feature (or didn't when I made this review!) The Da42 I fly at work has a similar system so I'm familiar with how it should work. I'd love a go in an RG Cessna high-wing, the mechanism is really cool to look at. Best of luck with your training and thanks for the comment!
I'd love to see a weight and balance 'manager' sort of addon. Not being able to precisely set the weights breaks the immersion for someone like me. Great video, great plane as well!
There is a sound glitch that makes the plane sound like a lawnmower at times. I love the C182, but I wish it was a bit more polished. Carenado, please update the plane some more. 🙁
Why the hell do they make these cessnas lean backwards so far when on the ground with the nose sticking up so high? Whenever I see 182s, 206s, etc, in real life they don't lean back so far...you should be able to see over the nose and straight ahead with the aircraft fairly even.... this thing looks like it has hundreds of pounds all in the rear.
Carenado could do a lot worse than let you have preview copies before release. But given that this still have not sort out issues after 6 months, doesn’t look they are to worried about giving study level or realistic aircraft so I guess anything you might have to say will fall of deaf ears. A comparison between the 2 companies PA28 would be good now that JF has issued a couple of updates.
I bought this when it came out after MSFS released. I owned a real 182 for several years, albeit a much older 182Q and flown several others through the years. To be entirely honest, I tried this a few times but it really does not resemble the one I owned through any stage of flight. Nothing about this aircraft in MSFS brings back any sense of familiarity despite how it looks. The handling of it feels completely different than any 182 I have ever flown. Disappointing really. The flight model needs a rework and what is going on with that ridiculous inclined angle on the ground? A modeller there thought it was conventional geared? Anyway, have not touched it since, and likely never will again great shame. Carenado aircraft always look great of course.. but accuracy or any attempt to simulate the real thing is not done. Which is why I won't buy any of their aircraft since this one.
Yeah I get the sense that this might have been a quick cash grab for the release of the sim. It's disappointing that they haven't updated it to improve things though because their Seneca and Cessna 337 are genuinely good and prove that they can produce quality products.
hi their ,just watching your and no vs climb or descent thats because mate you have too press alt twice too change from alt too vs ,i had the same prblem until i looked on you tube....
meh, I'm over garmin mania at this point, dont' think I"ll buy a plane that essentially looks the same as the 5 other garmin laden planes int eh base game
I own the real aircraft. It's not bad but the autopilot is a total wreck. It doesn't work. They have the same model for X-plane and the autopilot works fine. I have alerted Carenado but no response and no fix even though MSFS has been updated many times since this was put on their marketplace.
Yeah I've noticed this plane has been a little left behind by Carenado. Very few updates or changes since it came out on launch day. I wonder if the new G1000 being developed by Working Title will sort some of the issues?
In POH T182T FFLOW GPH indicator range 0-26. Carenado T182T for fs2020 0-22, in other sim`s 0-26. Fuel burn does not match perf tables. Damn, I bought it for long (400-600nm) flights. Next time I will be more wary of buying aircraft from Carenado. I'd rather buy a Piper Turbo Arrow.
Yeah this one does seem to miss the real world performance data by quite a bit. This was one of their first aircraft for the sim though and the recent ones have been much better, especially the Seneca.
@@FlyFromHome Seneca doesn't suit me, because of the engine nacelles blocking horizontal and downward visibility. I love to look around. I bought a Piper Turbo Arrow and didn’t regret.
I somehow completely missed the fact that there’s a ‘Normal Procedures’ document in the aircraft root files which you can print off to use as a checklist! *DUH* (It would still be nice to see the in-game interactive checklist feature utilised though 😛)
Most aifcrafts in msfs ard too much sensitive. The Cessna are winged bricks, and jn MSFS yoh have to work hard with settjnfs to achieve a decent feeling with the aircraft. Nk sutptise thst Carenado aircrafts are all made this way, wonderful 3D and texture, but nothing more. It is a shame but ..... they don't invest time in a decent flght model and Microdoft/Asobo are not xplane for what concern flight model. XP11 is far way better than MSFS expecially in landing you feel the difference. Flare.... what is flare for Asobo? However for VFR practice around the world is very good...
Hearing aid beige is my new favourite colour
Great review. Thanks! Very pleased to see the POH come out.
I wish they'd do the Turbo Skylane RG version.
Yeah or the 177 RG. Love that main gear swinging back and up, very unique.
There is a comprehensive checklist for normal operations included in the documentation , and it is 19 pages long. There are some checklists also in the yoke tablet if you click the arrows.
You’re absolutely right about the normal procedures checklist, no idea how I missed that! Can’t seem to find more than two pages on the in-game iPad though, just the visual elements and the cockpit state settings.
@@FlyFromHome ah yeah, I must have been mistaken on that pad thing. Carenado has added checklists on it, on its newer aircraft. Sorry about that one.
@@FlyFromHome hey there super late comment but do you know how to get the ipad to work though? i click on it and nothing happens
You're getting free stuff now?
Is this what the big leagues look like?
Cannot understand why they don't have a steam guage version of this aircraft. It'll be the version that most of the actual pilots running the sim will have flown in and at least all the guages would be working properly, unlike the glass screens! Roll on A2A getting their act together because from what I see here, the instrument panel, in general, leaves a lot to be desired.
I think the majority of T182Ts sold in real life will have the Garmin panel (2000s design remember) so perhaps it was an effort to represent the real aircraft better? Most of us who have flown 182s have been knocking around in versions from the 70s and 80s! In fact I think the 182 is *only* offered with a G1000 these days...
@@FlyFromHome I must admit, as you can probably gather from my comment, I've been 'flying' the C182T from A2A Simulations since they released it in both FSX and P3D and for me it's just about the most perfect aircraft, albeit alongside the Just Flight Arrow III, especially since I now fly that in MSFS. According to A2A the G1000 has been available in the 182T since 2005. It is a pity though that the glass screen version is the only one offered in MSFS. Until (and perhaps even if) A2A release a MSFS friendly version, I suppose I'll just have to bite the bullet!
Not that I’m in the market for an aircraft, but if I was, I wouldn’t want a G1000 after the disservice shown to it by Asobo in MSFS. I’m completely turned off by the 1000.
@@obriets There are some great free mods for it being turned out by the community right now. Could be the saviour of the G1000 in MSFS!
@@obriets You haven't tried the NXI mod have you? Totall life saver of the G1000.
Works awesome on all aircraft and modded aircraft aswell like the TBM mod
a lot of people add deicing boots to wing surfaces to counter icing at high attitude
Yep, lots of aircraft have those or at least some form of anti/de-icing if they’re designed to perform at high altitude. This one sadly doesn’t 🥲
That´s one beautyful Cessna. Too bad Carenado did not decide to bring a steam gauge version.
Yes, although I believe this version is only available with a G1000 in real life 🤔
Are you sure about the wonky deck angle of this model? When you look out the back window from inside, you are looking at the ground behind the aircraft. I was in a 182 many years ago and I don't remember anything like that. Moreover, when you look at the model from the outside, it certainly doesn't appear that someone inside looking out the back would be staring at the ground. I think that Carenado have somehow used a taildragger model for this aircraft.
My prevailing feeling from taxiing the real one was that it sat quite nose-high, but yes I don’t think you’d be staring at the ground out of the back. The viewpoint forward does seem about right in this aircraft at least.
@@FlyFromHome I don't agree. Because of the deck angle, I have to raise the eye point looking forward until I can just see the cowling. Then, when I turn to look out the left side window, I am looking at the wall above the window. Have another look.
I remember my eyeline being about level with the top edge of the side window. It’s an awkward plane to look out of imo (unless you’re looking down), but it’s been three years at least since I was last in one so I might be mistaken.
@@FlyFromHome It happens in your video about 28 minutes in when you are doing the runup. You have raised the eyepoint so you can see out the front but you look out the left window and see the wall. Have a look. What do you think?
@@jcallum Sorry, found this video late- In my experience in 172s, a comfortable flying position puts your eye point above the top of the side windows. If you want to see the bottom of the wing for example, you need to duck your head slightly. You are also quite a bit further forward than you would imagine as well. The 'A' pillar nearly obscures the wing strut from your natural view point. I think that because of the limited field of view on a monitor we're used to having a compromised lower eye point in the sim than you would in the actual aircraft so that we can see the panel as well as outside. In the 172 I could quite easily see the top of the glare shield, the window combing and the engine cowl from the flying position.
Love the format!
Nice looking plane but good grief that engine whine would drive me insane. Must be one of the least pleasant engine sounds i have heard in FS2020 so far. Thanks for the video.
Is it really true that with a modern fuel-injected plane you don't need to lean the mixture at higher altitudes?
You still fine tune things with the red lever, but the engine is what’s called ‘altitude compensated’, which means it won’t ever rich or lean cut due to density changes with altitude. The most modern aircraft don’t even have a red lever, it’s all controlled by an electronic ECU as in a modern car.
@Brandy Balloon In the most modern aircraft, yes that's how it's set up.
When descending in autopilot you have to hit the ARM button above the altitude setting knob on the AP controller. It will then display VS and take you down to the altitude set. I think. I got to test that out but I believe I have seen the VS being displayed. Been flying the Pelican so much I have forgot. Our flight school has a 1982 Cessna T182 RG, which is a turbo charged retractable gear variant. It has the legacy autopilot controller like this one and it behaves the same. But it's my favorite trainer. You would be amazed (or not) how much drag is eliminated when you get that gear tucked up into the frame. I would wager it is worth an additional 15 knots of airspeed. But they also charge $175/hour vs the normal $145/hour for the 172 and the Cherokee Six.
The default MSFS autopilot which this plane uses doesn't have a working 'arm' feature (or didn't when I made this review!) The Da42 I fly at work has a similar system so I'm familiar with how it should work.
I'd love a go in an RG Cessna high-wing, the mechanism is really cool to look at. Best of luck with your training and thanks for the comment!
@@FlyFromHome Cool. I have been flying so many different planes I get them all mixed up. Liked and subbed
Whenever I fly this plane, It seems to rotate on its own. I hope another version of the Cessna 182 comes out on flight simulator 2020.
I'd love to see a weight and balance 'manager' sort of addon. Not being able to precisely set the weights breaks the immersion for someone like me.
Great video, great plane as well!
Do you know if the Working Title G1000 mod is compatible with this aircraft?
According to Working Title’s own website, the mod only affects the default aircraft. Can’t say for sure though since I haven’t tested it!
@@FlyFromHome Thanks. Completely missed that info, though I was looking for it.
There is a sound glitch that makes the plane sound like a lawnmower at times. I love the C182, but I wish it was a bit more polished. Carenado, please update the plane some more. 🙁
Yeah they seem to have abandoned this plane a little. The Seneca has had a number of updates but this has nothing despite being a lot older.
That warning placard (top left panel) still has a typo. Should read “advisories” not “advisiores”. Great video.
😂
On the ground, about 4 degrees of pitch. Why is that?
The real aircraft does sit a bit nose high on the ground, but this one is a bit exaggerated. As to why - dunno, ask Carenado!
where is the download location?
It's in the MSFS in-game store.
Why the hell do they make these cessnas lean backwards so far when on the ground with the nose sticking up so high? Whenever I see 182s, 206s, etc, in real life they don't lean back so far...you should be able to see over the nose and straight ahead with the aircraft fairly even.... this thing looks like it has hundreds of pounds all in the rear.
Carenado could do a lot worse than let you have preview copies before release. But given that this still have not sort out issues after 6 months, doesn’t look they are to worried about giving study level or realistic aircraft so I guess anything you might have to say will fall of deaf ears. A comparison between the 2 companies PA28 would be good now that JF has issued a couple of updates.
We’d be more than willing to help out if they asked.
The two Arrows are not really comparable, as they're totally in different price categories.
I bought this when it came out after MSFS released. I owned a real 182 for several years, albeit a much older 182Q and flown several others through the years. To be entirely honest, I tried this a few times but it really does not resemble the one I owned through any stage of flight. Nothing about this aircraft in MSFS brings back any sense of familiarity despite how it looks. The handling of it feels completely different than any 182 I have ever flown. Disappointing really. The flight model needs a rework and what is going on with that ridiculous inclined angle on the ground? A modeller there thought it was conventional geared? Anyway, have not touched it since, and likely never will again great shame. Carenado aircraft always look great of course.. but accuracy or any attempt to simulate the real thing is not done. Which is why I won't buy any of their aircraft since this one.
Yeah I get the sense that this might have been a quick cash grab for the release of the sim. It's disappointing that they haven't updated it to improve things though because their Seneca and Cessna 337 are genuinely good and prove that they can produce quality products.
hi their ,just watching your and no vs climb or descent thats because mate you have too press alt twice too change from alt too vs ,i had the same prblem until i looked on you tube....
meh, I'm over garmin mania at this point, dont' think I"ll buy a plane that essentially looks the same as the 5 other garmin laden planes int eh base game
Yep, I figured that would be the case for a lot of people.
I just want a six pack man I’m old school
I own the real aircraft. It's not bad but the autopilot is a total wreck. It doesn't work. They have the same model for X-plane and the autopilot works fine. I have alerted Carenado but no response and no fix even though MSFS has been updated many times since this was put on their marketplace.
Yeah I've noticed this plane has been a little left behind by Carenado. Very few updates or changes since it came out on launch day. I wonder if the new G1000 being developed by Working Title will sort some of the issues?
The engine sounds are so high you can't understand what you are saying. Makes listening hard .
Yeah I realised that. We’ve got some better software for recording now which allows us to adjust the levels more accurately.
In POH T182T FFLOW GPH indicator range 0-26. Carenado T182T for fs2020 0-22, in other sim`s 0-26. Fuel burn does not match perf tables. Damn, I bought it for long (400-600nm) flights. Next time I will be more wary of buying aircraft from Carenado. I'd rather buy a Piper Turbo Arrow.
Yeah this one does seem to miss the real world performance data by quite a bit. This was one of their first aircraft for the sim though and the recent ones have been much better, especially the Seneca.
@@FlyFromHome Seneca doesn't suit me, because of the engine nacelles blocking horizontal and downward visibility. I love to look around. I bought a Piper Turbo Arrow and didn’t regret.