TBM 850 Review

[V1VrV2 44]

Great review, Seth - Thanks very much for your expert opinion. It's very telling of the sort of "quality control" we've become used to from Carenado - but alas, the visuals really are stunning on this one. Here's looking forward to a service release!

[HawkDsl 50]

It's about function - or the lack thereof.

 

I understand that, and that's 100% true. For myself, I don't mind the information the plane has is what was shipped with FSX. That was

short sighted on MS part (but I'm sure they were thinking new versions would keep up... and we all know what happened there). Even

though I love the Malibu, the fresh off the Piper line Meridian would have been better.

 

It looks great, flys great, and the systems will let me fly my plans.... I'm good!

 

So.. one more to go.. MilViz 350.. and my fleet is done. Everything after that is just gravy.

 

Jumped in it for a spell.. Oh yea, its a winner.

[BilboBaggins 82]

Sounds about par for Carenado now.

 

I bugged them about the 182T Aux page on the SR22 and they did fix it in a patch; it's surprising they'd make that mistake twice.

 

They are casual, pretty sims, not hard-core serious attempts at systems or full-on accurate FDE; that's clear.

 

Still not going to stop me from purchase; slow me down maybe, though.

 

 

[iflygary 17]

 

 

G1000

-Well.....yes, you CAN manually manipulate a flight plan from within the unit, BUT....unfortunately you can not add departures or arrivals. Only waypoint to waypoint. This is a step in the right direction but is still VERY far from being remotely 1/2 way functional. Very simplified port of the Cessna 182T G1000. Think I'm kidding....go into the the MFD (AUX page, tab 5) it says that the airframe IS the Cessna 182T . They literally pulled it out of one sim and pasted it into the TBM, put a fancy TBM home page on it and called it done. They would have been much better off modeling a TBM 700 or early model 850 with the older avionics and allowed for the RXP import, similar to the King Airs and PA46

Ouch!!!!!!!

With all of the "beatings" Carenado constantly receives on their planes with glass panels, why don't they just go back to steam gauges and stick with them??? I have every plane they've made because of their visually stunning exterior and interiors with the exception of this model. No one, and I mean no one can touch them there! Also, for the price of their planes, you can't go wrong there as well.  But, ever since they started putting glass panels in their planes, you can do google searches all over the net and find response after response where users just aren't pleased with these newer glass panels.  From tremendous hits on FPS to limited or incorrect functionality of flight planning mode.  I just don't get it.  Don't they read these posts on these forums???? It's pretty obvious their forte is creating visually stunning aircraft. They've improved tremendously on their flight dynamics, so hey Carenado, quit while you're ahead and go back to steam gauges!!!!

 

Gary

[Nathan3219 113]

Thanks for that review Seth. Seems unfinished. The G1000 sounds especially troubling and I'm hearing from several people that the cruise speeds are way off the mark. All or none switches creating confused annunciators?

It will need a favorable patch before I'll shell out $40. Shame...it's one sexy plane.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Hey, John - sorry, but I have to disagree on this one. I'm exclusively a GA guy, but that doesn't mean that accurate systems don't matter to me. My favorite GA planes generally get what systems are there correct or close to correct, particularly those that offer RXP integration.

 

As Carenado has moved to G1000 planes, I've moved away from Carenado. I know there are those who'll disagree, but I also know many who are in exactly the same position as I am.

 

You're right that many will buy who are less picky about systems, but there are airline guys who prefer simpler tubes as well and want to "just fly". Those of us who are picky about GA care about things working correctly too. GA does not mean systems aren't important.

 

Scott

 

No doubt.  What systems they model should work right.  Carenado is noted however for having a lot of "dummy" switches that don't do anything.  I've been shying away from Carenado too since their move to G1000 aircraft.  I miss the steam gauges.  There's also been comments about the '850 being too slow.  One of the most appealing things about the 850 is it's supposed to be a fast Turboprop.  I hope others weigh in on their experience with the flight model.

 

Regards,

 

John

[Nuno Pinto 1,407]

Wow the 182 and G1000 thing is quite astounding....

 

Specially when they ask a relatively high price for such a 'simple' aircraft. Simple as in they simply copied the G1000 over...

[Guest JetFueler]

Modern planes rock just fine.  But a G1000 plane is valuable because of what the G1000 offers.  If it's just pretty pictures with little depth underneath, it's not a modern plane.  I can't do WAAS?  I can't do SIDs and STARs?  The data depicted is years out of date with no way to update?  That's not modern.

 

For me, it's not about steam vs glass.  It's about function - or the lack thereof. 

 

Scott

 

What people always seem to lose sight of is that any FS9GPS based navigation system really does is display exactly what is in your scenery folders.  Make a fictional airport in the middle of the Sahara and it will show up.  Same for any navaid or procedure.  It will always be just as up to date as your sim is.  Of course, it has no knowledge of SIDs or STARs and generally won't do anything that the default GPS500 won't do with out a lot of work around coding added in.  And I say 'FS9GPS' because that is exactly what it is- basically an internal FS GPS display system that was put in place for FS9 and refined for FSX. Look at the SDK, it's all right there.

 

Flight1 and RXP have developed their own custom systems, Flight1's being a complete ground up original simulation using the Navigraph database. Compare that one with a Carenado G1000 and you will see many differences particularly in the terrain mapping.  That is always a dead give away that an aircraft has a 'default' G1000 as opposed to something like what Flight1 has produced.  Looking at that, then, I know what to expect or more importantly what NOT to expect from a G1000 equipped FS plane. 

 

The FS9GPS system can be very cleverly disguised these days but it is what it is and there are some limitations in its display and handling that will always show up and be a dead give away.  I give the coder at Carenado a lot credit for working the FS9GPS system to the limit and the TBM will probably be the first Carenado G1000 plane I buy, but I do so knowing what I am getting.

 

What I don't understand is why a group like Carenado doesn't work with Flight1 and license a custom G1000 for their aircraft.  OK, they were competitors on the T182T thing but I swear I saw somewhere once that Flight1 would be willing to customize their system for licensed use in other developers' aircraft.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but FWIW, I would pay 10-15 dollars on top of the Carenado cost if it had a Flight1 G1000 in it.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

And I say 'FS9GPS' because that is exactly what it is- basically an internal FS GPS display system that was put in place for FS9 and refined for FSX. Look at the SDK, it's all right there.

 

Ian, I think most of us understand this.  And that's why, for my part at least, I can't get very excited about, or think of as "modern", any of Carenado's G1000 based planes.  They end up being of less capability than older planes that offered RXP integration, and that just doesn't work for me.  Even with the P46T, the RXP's take up the slack so the G500 is actually fun to play with, even though it doesn't do that much.

 

I keep hoping they'll bite the bullet and do more or find someone to partner with (F1 or whoever) - and if they did those efforts could be amortized across a number of planes.  If they offered G1000's at about the level of Flight1's - even though it's not complete, it's good -  I'd be one of the first in line for this plane and the SR22, and yes I'd be willing to pay more as well.  As it is, I've gone from being a regular Carenado customer to a non-customer.

 

OK, I'll stop beating the horse.

 

Scott

[Guest JetFueler]

Ian, I think most of us understand this.  And that's why, for my part at least, I can't get very excited about, or think of as "modern", any of Carenado's G1000 based planes.  They end up being of less capability than older planes that offered RXP integration, and that just doesn't work for me.  Even with the P46T, the RXP's take up the slack so the G500 is actually fun to play with, even though it doesn't do that much.

 

I keep hoping they'll bite the bullet and do more or find someone to partner with (F1 or whoever) - and if they did those efforts could be amortized across a number of planes.  If they offered G1000's at about the level of Flight1's - even though it's not complete, it's good -  I'd be one of the first in line for this plane and the SR22, and yes I'd be willing to pay more as well.  As it is, I've gone from being a regular Carenado customer to a non-customer.

 

OK, I'll stop beating the horse.

 

Scott

 

Some people do get it, but I know I've explained many times why a Carenado G1000 doesn't function like a Flight1 model or even the RXP GNS units.  Hell, I've had people argue with me about it like I was completely wrong.  There is a degree of internal FSX knowledge required to fully understand the differences and not everyone is totally up to speed with what is really going on behind the scenes on these things. 

 

I, however, am with you on the current state of the Carenado products.  I was really looking forward to the TBM even though it did have the G1000.  I figured I could live with its short comings due to the fact that the aircraft would shine in other ways but reading some of the initial impressions and reports of cruise speed discrepancies I am holding off to see what happens.  A TBM with out its awesome speed is just a PC-12 with less payload really.

[Guest BeaverDriver]

Just a quick update on my earlier post - apparently there is a flaps setting marked "850". In order to get the cruise speeds advertized, you do need to make sure your flaps are set there. I'm not sure what this is exactly as I don't have the aircraft, but my friend who does did find this setting and his cruise numbers now seem to be in line with the real airplane.

 

Also on the G1000 being borrowed from the 182 - this actually isn't cheating per se. I'm an Avionics Tech and our company installs these in airplanes fairly frequently (I don't - I work on Dash 8 equipment, but I'm constantly chatting with our installers who do these). A G1000 is a G1000 is a G1000. So you can install that unit in any number of aircraft that are G1000 capable (or can be made so). What sets a G1000 in a 182 apart from one installed in a TBM (for instance) is in the software coding. All G1000's come with various options (tachs vs. torque gauges, etc.) that you enable on install, and then the software programming done after that is what sets the actual parameters based on that aircraft's data. The hardware looks identical and the display (except maybe for engine displays) are also identical. So the fact that Carenado has borrowed this unit from the 182 isn't a problem; but if he has any 182 data left over in the display, well that's a whole 'nuther story. Don't get me wrong - I'm not exactly a Carenado fan (was once, but that was quite a while ago - whether it's $30 or $10, I don't like paying for sloppy and/or unfinished work), so I'm not defending them here, but the display unit (again assuming there are no indications left over from the 182) isn't one of the things you need to worry too much about.

 

Hope that helps.

[SirStiggie 63]

Just a quick update on my earlier post - apparently there is a flaps setting marked "850". In order to get the cruise speeds advertized, you do need to make sure your flaps are set there. I'm not sure what this is exactly as I don't have the aircraft, but my friend who does did find this setting and his cruise numbers now seem to be in line with the real airplane.

 

Also on the G1000 being borrowed from the 182 - this actually isn't cheating per se. I'm an Avionics Tech and our company installs these in airplanes fairly frequently (I don't - I work on Dash 8 equipment, but I'm constantly chatting with our installers who do these). A G1000 is a G1000 is a G1000. So you can install that unit in any number of aircraft that are G1000 capable (or can be made so). What sets a G1000 in a 182 apart from one installed in a TBM (for instance) is in the software coding. All G1000's come with various options (tachs vs. torque gauges, etc.) that you enable on install, and then the software programming done after that is what sets the actual parameters based on that aircraft's data. The hardware looks identical and the display (except maybe for engine displays) are also identical. So the fact that Carenado has borrowed this unit from the 182 isn't a problem; but if he has any 182 data left over in the display, well that's a whole 'nuther story. Don't get me wrong - I'm not exactly a Carenado fan (was once, but that was quite a while ago - whether it's $30 or $10, I don't like paying for sloppy and/or unfinished work), so I'm not defending them here, but the display unit (again assuming there are no indications left over from the 182) isn't one of the things you need to worry too much about.

 

Hope that helps.

The issue is not whether the G1000 is different from aircraft to aircraft but rather Carenado's lack of attention to detail that allowed this to pass through their QA process. Just seems a like it was rushed out the gate and its not quite finished. Hopefully there will be a service pack soon to fix the issues which, surprisingly, are not that many nor do they appear to be major.

[HawkDsl 50]

It's funny that they didn't edit the T182 label out of the TBM, but all the info the G is displaying is for the TBM. If I was a developer, I surely would "re-use" code that took hours to write in the first place. No need to re-invent the wheel. It worked for RealAir (Duke panel to Legacy), so no biggie.

 

A RW pilot glowed on how it flew. I got two hours in it, and I believe it is the single best AC by Carenado ever.

 

 

 

apparently there is a flaps setting marked "850". In order to get the cruise speeds advertized

 

We all hate manuals... that still doesn't explain the human brain damage that allows us to complain about something we know nothing about.. with authority!

[SirStiggie 63]

We all hate manuals... that still doesn't explain the human brain damage that allows us to complain about something we know nothing about.. with authority!

Agreed  :biggrin:

[hangar 661]

I already mentioned in another thread that the "850" flap detent will still not get you up to published speeds.

Until a real/official fix has been implemented you can edit the cfg by turning up the Propeller Thrust Scalar to 1.2 (was originally 1.0). Just keep in mind this is a very quick and dirty way of going faster but it will also have an effect on climb performance as well, and while the original climb performance may be a bit sluggish this fix will make it a little too over-zealous :-).

The plane should be capable of maintaining over 2,000fpm climb all the way into the 20's (initially its rated for almost 2,400fpm)...but it's air speed during climb shouldnt be as fast as it is now with this quick edit.

It's still slightly slow at cruise, but alot better than it was...it's only "off" by about 5kts now I think. Don't forget your engine settings boys :-)

Flaps: 850
RPM: 2,000
TRQ: 121%

This should get you approx:

19,000msl - 293-295TAS

20,000msl - 299-300TAS
26,000msl - 308-310TAS depending upon weight