Carenado Rockwell Commander 114

[Uberscrew]

Hi Guys just wanted to make use of your combined knowledge and experience if I could. I have struggled to find a decent review of this aircraft so I turn to the people who would know. Does anyone own or has flown the Carenado Rockwell 114 in FSX. I am looking for a follow up to the Cessna 172, something with just a few more systems in and can be flown a little faster so I can build up my experience with variable pitch prop GA aircraft etc.

If anyone can suggest a better alternative or if you think that making the transition to the Commander may not be the best way to go I would love to hear from you. Any thoughts?

[Ronny Eicher]

IMO going from a 172 to the Commander is kind of a big jump. Maybe the 182RG or if you want to fly a low wing the Piper Arrow. Also the C210 is great if you want more preformance.

[T-Bone]

I'm only a simmer, and have no experiance with a real 114, so I can't comment on how how they comapre. However, I love this Carenado bird. It's one of my favorite planes to fly, and my favorite Carenado piston single. I love everything about it from the looks, sounds, lighting, & flight characteristics. I now fly this 114 more then all my Cessna's combined, and I have many.

I wanted to mention, did you go to the Carenado 114 webpage? They have links there for 3 different reviews of this A/C. If I remember correctly the German one is quite extensive with lots of big pics and the text automaticlly changes to english on my puter so I can read it.. Anyway between the 3 reviews there, that should give you a pretty good idea.

[Uberscrew]

Thanks for both of your inputs gentlemen. I have to say the aircraft does look pretty amazing and I will definately check out the three reviews, funnily enough it's the German link I have yet to try. I think Ronny may have a point though - I just wonder having just got to grips with the Cessna 172 whether the systems supporting the variable pitch propeller are just too complex to make the leap from an out and out trainer to the commander. Still your advice has made me think that I need to do a little more research but a purchase will be required at some point in (I hope) the not too distant future. Thanks for your time.

[urbinized]

I own Carenados 182 RG for fsx and its slightly aged. It shouldnt be a huge jump into the cammander. Just do some research on fixed, variable and constant speed Propellers. But the 182 is quite similar to this aircraft in my opinion.

[Iain Emms]

Yes i like the 114 a fine little plane indeed, you might want to wait a bit though and get the new 182 skyline thats coming it looks fantastic and should be a real fine flyer.

cheers

Iain

[Markon]

I own Carenados 182 RG for fsx and its slightly aged. It shouldnt be a huge jump into the cammander. Just do some research on fixed, variable and constant speed Propellers. But the 182 is quite similar to this aircraft in my opinion.

I agree with Urbinized, the Carenado 182 RG is a little aged but probably a fine first step from the C172.

I must admit to being a little biased as when I did my constant speed and retractable endorsement in the 1990's, I did it in a C182 RG, VH-JHJ at Moree Aero Club.

Having about 60 hours real world flying in this type, I must admit it was the first payware model I bought, its flight model is very good and it is still one of my favourites to fly in FSX.

[Uberscrew]

Wow some wonderful advice guys. I am very glad I asked for some opinions...this gives me lots to think about. I think I am going to go away and do some research into fixed, variable and constant speed props and then make some decisions after that. Thank you all for your valuable time and input.

[urbinized]

Hey Uber look up some info on engines as well. Look for naturally aspirated engine,supercharged and turbo charged. These usually accompany constant speed and variable pitch propellers. As far as the Retractable gear iv read that the weight and maintenance of the system often makes retractable gear undesirable, I believe that is why the Cessna Corvallis doesn't incorporate it (power to weight ratio). Im really enjoying the Orbx Lancair. Its a jump from the 172 but not far off a 182 rg, the difference being its pressurized to fly at altitude and turbocharged with a constant speed propeller AND IT CRUISES WELL OVER 250 knots AT 26000 ASL. If you haven't heard about the new 182 by Carenado its a fixed gear,turbocharged single with a glass cockpit. To be honest the glass cockpit turns me off, I know they usually eat up fps and they can be difficult to interact with while flying. hope that helps

[Uberscrew]

Urbinized I'll take a look at some articles on the topics you suggest. I have done some research now into constant and variable pitch props and although a little confusing I think I understand the basic principles.

The Lancair looks like a fine aircraft but I decided today to go for the Carenado CT210M and have to say I am well impressed not only by the textures but also the overall increase in relative complexity and I think it will take quite a wile for me to get a hang of the increased speed and control systems. It has given me the chance to test out the theory with the constant speed prop but let's just say none of my circuits this evening were worthy of putting onto the video forum!!!

Thanks for your continued help and support I am really enjoying my basic education in the world of virtual aviation - praise the developers like Orbx that make this world so close to the real thing and you guys who make a potentially daunting hobby so much more inviting.

[Iain Emms]

Very nice choice there im sure you will have lots of fun with this one a fine aircraft.

cheers

Iain

[urbinized]

Good to hear another simmer is taking things seriously.

[TalbotFlyer]

I learned on the 152, when I was instrument rated I bought a used 172, flew it IFR for a few years than bought a 182 Skylane. I never went beyond the skylane, it did everything I wanted.

In FSX I have both of Flight 1's 172 and 182. I like both planes, very real in my opinion and great in Orbx scenery.

The Flight 1 T182T is like being in the real plane (execpt I did not have Garmin 1000). It has a variable prop and handles great. The Garmin 1000 is terrific, I wish I had G1000 in the real cockpit.

Just my 2Cents, but I get the most immersion flying in what I know I can fly.

[Ronny Eicher]

Urbinized I'll take a look at some articles on the topics you suggest. I have done some research now into constant and variable pitch props and although a little confusing I think I understand the basic principles.

The Lancair looks like a fine aircraft but I decided today to go for the Carenado CT210M and have to say I am well impressed not only by the textures but also the overall increase in relative complexity and I think it will take quite a wile for me to get a hang of the increased speed and control systems. It has given me the chance to test out the theory with the constant speed prop but let's just say none of my circuits this evening were worthy of putting onto the video forum!!!

Thanks for your continued help and support I am really enjoying my basic education in the world of virtual aviation - praise the developers like Orbx that make this world so close to the real thing and you guys who make a potentially daunting hobby so much more inviting.

Great Choice!! Have fun!

[Frankie_2]

If you want a skylane, you might have a look at this airplane made by Flight1, it's $40 instead of 50 this week...

[Uberscrew]

Once again many thanks for the additional input - your comments are greatly appreciated. It's interesting to note that some of the community make a point of using simulation to mimicking real life experiences and indeed stay with general aviation. So much of the glamour surrounding the hobby appears to be in flying the complex 'big iron' but I have to say that seems light years away right now. When I consider what a struggle it is to pull together the most basic of manoeuvres right now with a training aircraft!!!

Somebody please tell me it all comes together in the end through practice and determination. But even in the getting it wrong I am having a lot of fun and I guess that is the point right?

[Iain Emms]

Sure does and the main thing for me anyway is having fun as you say a lot of the planes are very complex as i have learnt myself and i dont fly these very often because of allways having to adjust thimgs and get things right this can be a full time job in itself, but i know a lot of you love this part of the flying expierence and full marks to you for this thats why i mostly use GA i find them less taxing on my limited brain.

cheers

Iain

[Uberscrew]

Yeah thanks for the honesty Iain I think I am with you on that one : )

[TerribleT]

Gday Uber ilooks like you're following the Cessna training plan which used to follow this progression:

C172 for ab initio;

C182 for constant speed, faster flight conditioning, STOL training, introduction to autopilot and basic Navaids;

C206 for advanced Navaids & ILS, advanced weight & balance training (often missed and replaced by the next two aircraft);

R182 for retractable and advanced Navaids & ILS, faster flight conditions;

C210 for all the previous, faster flight conditions and advanced weight & balance training.

Completion of this progression then led to twin training.

It's a great road to travel if you can get hold of the manuals and you learn a lot about all aspects of aviation.

Cheers and good luck

[hightman]

did rockwell ever make a high wing single engine airplane called the commander

[Iain Emms]

did rockwell ever make a high wing single engine airplane called the commander

Have a peek here.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/commander/commander.htm

cheers

Iain

[Uberscrew]

Wow TerribleT that's an impressive line up of aircraft and is exactly what I was looking for. I have trawled the internet looking for some links and advice on which aircraft types allow for the correct level of progression from basic training up through VFR and onto IFR and nothing was leaping out and it became quite frustrating. I am more than happy to take the Cessna route especially if they are all as good as the Carenado models. You have now provided me with the perfect road Map for moving forward. Many thanks kind sir...now where have I left the wallet?

Sorry to multi-post but why we are on the subject of aircraft types and training does anyone know of where I could get a copy of the Cessna Centurion T210M Pilots Operating Handbook - just as a reference against the PDF from Carenado?

[teecee]

"Uber, I recommend their CT210M it is a small plane, wheels retract and has a great cockpit with an ND to follow flight paths"

seconded... big time.. Teecee.

[TalbotFlyer]

Gday Uber ilooks like you're following the Cessna training plan which used to follow this progression:

C172 for ab initio;

C182 for constant speed, faster flight conditioning, STOL training, introduction to autopilot and basic Navaids;

C206 for advanced Navaids & ILS, advanced weight & balance training (often missed and replaced by the next two aircraft);

R182 for retractable and advanced Navaids & ILS, faster flight conditions;

C210 for all the previous, faster flight conditions and advanced weight & balance training.

Completion of this progression then led to twin training.

It's a great road to travel if you can get hold of the manuals and you learn a lot about all aspects of aviation.

Cheers and good luck

Depends on where you learn, we went from 182 into muti engine, actually not a big leap if you have the same instructor from license to license. All the pieces go together the further you progress.

.

[Uberscrew]

Thanks teecee I think I have made the right choice. Everyone's input has been invaluable.

[Heiko Glatthorn]

Yes i like the 114 a fine little plane indeed, you might want to wait a bit though and get the new 182 skyline thats coming it looks fantastic and should be a real fine flyer.

cheers

Iain

Just had a look at those Skyline preview pics, it looks truly fantastic

[Uberscrew]

Just had a look at those Skyline preview pics, it looks truly fantastic

Heiko where are those preview pictures at...do you have a link?

[Maurice_King]

I have most of the Carenado Aircraft and prefer these for online tuition as they are just like their real life counterparts IMHO,

My initial training was in a Piper Tomahawk then a Warrior, 172, 182 and 206.

I have flown in a 210 but not actually flown one but my impressions are it's a 206 on 'roids there are Turbo injected Pressurised versions but they are the Trucks of the GA world.

The Mooney, Lancair and Commander on the other hand are the Sports cars of the GA Aircraft scene. Fast Sleek with their own little quirks,

[Heiko Glatthorn]

Heiko where are those preview pictures at...do you have a link?

Sorry, i can't link it but on the front page you can see 'Incoming Projects'.

[tttocs]

I have most of the Carenado Aircraft and prefer these for online tuition as they are just like their real life counterparts IMHO,

My initial training was in a Piper Tomahawk then a Warrior, 172, 182 and 206.

I have flown in a 210 but not actually flown one but my impressions are it's a 206 on 'roids there are Turbo injected Pressurised versions but they are the Trucks of the GA world.

The Mooney, Lancair and Commander on the other hand are the Sports cars of the GA Aircraft scene. Fast Sleek with their own little quirks,

I've no logged time in the 114, but I did seriously consider one for purchase way back when, have spent time in one and I would definitely not lump it in with the Mooney or Lancair. The 114's big claim to fame was comfort. It had a cabin that was considerably wider than most comparable GA planes, and to sit in one was an absolute joy when compared to the typically cramped single engine cockpit. But that big wide cabin came at a price, and the 114 was really not that fast considering the 260HP engine you fed gas to. Consider that the 114 cruise is listed at about 157 kts, while a Mooney 201 cruises at 172 on 60 HP less, and the difference is obvious.

The 114 was stylish (in its day) and comfortable, but it was no hot rod.

Scott

[Uberscrew]

Thanks Heiko I'll check it out.

[moonman]

Interesting topic here Uber!

And great to read all the replies here!

Gday Uber ilooks like you're following the Cessna training plan which used to follow this progression:

C172 for ab initio;

C182 for constant speed, faster flight conditioning, STOL training, introduction to autopilot and basic Navaids;

C206 for advanced Navaids & ILS, advanced weight & balance training (often missed and replaced by the next two aircraft);

R182 for retractable and advanced Navaids & ILS, faster flight conditions;

C210 for all the previous, faster flight conditions and advanced weight & balance training.

Completion of this progression then led to twin training.

It's a great road to travel if you can get hold of the manuals and you learn a lot about all aspects of aviation.

Cheers and good luck

You may also have a look (or two ) at Caranedo’s A-36 Bonanza.

I think it’s a very interesting plane (in fact it’s the one i use most often whenever i consider to jump into a Carenado plane, which i have to admit though is not that often currently, but anyway ... back to topic)

The A36 offers some interesting avionics and yet is not all too hard to be handled properly.

And although one of the faster planes it can also be easily used on rather short runways – something quite important in my opinion when keeping in mind how many great smaller airports there are to be explored in ORBX-lands!

And when the day comes where You want to move on forward to some twin-engine training i can just highly recommend good old RealAir's Duke...

It demands some time to handle it correctly, but does offer:

A great amount of instruments for IFR practice, which all work wonderfully well and are also really well readable (something i found out to be in fact far more important than i thought it to be when i began IFR flying within FSX at first )

Good looks ...

and:

It does in fact require proper engine management, so: You will really learn to get used to and familiar with Your engine instruments and even offers some training of – if You want that – engine failures!

And last but not least:

It's a real "system-friendly" add-on plane and does therefore not ask for too much from Your PC!

But no matter which- or whatever plane You choose Uber: Have fun and enjoy flying then!

[Uberscrew]

Hey moonman thanks for the great reply...when I first muted the topic I never new I would get so much wonderful advice...it just shows what an amazing community ai have become a part of and what a wealth of knowledge and experience there is out there. The A-36 is not one I had considered so thanks for the tip. But you really have peeked my interest with the Real Air Duke...although I am way of with that type of airplane just yet I will definately be looking to that model when I do feel confident enough to progress, it sound like a belter.

Once again thank you and it's great to here everyone's preferences in what can be a bewildering virtual world for a newbie like me. : )

[urbinized]

RealAir just made a Lancair Legacy, and they have a Cessna 172 in production. It seems that RealAir is close to A2A's accusim products with vibrating cockpits and sounds. I love carenado VC's and for a time never flew any other planes but I find Carenado lacks the immersiveness that A2A and RealAIr provide through their products.

[Uberscrew]

Urbinized thanks for the heads up - I must admit I have been after a reason to get into real air products for some time. I'll check it out.