Piper malibu mirage or piper cherokee 180?

C

clmooring

Charter Member
Like most of us, I have a limited budget for fax addons .... but I do love them. I could spend my pay check on them.


Right now I am torn between the carenado piper Malibu 350p or the a2a piper Cherokee. I know they are different planes and different type of flying, etc. I like both types so; I am still torn. I was hoping some folks might have experience with them and can answer a couple of questions:

a2a Cherokee:
I have the a2a Cessna 172 and love it! But it kind of fills the low and slow mode; unless there Cherokee brings some significant simming related advances beyond the 172. I know it has fuses that can be removed and pop out. Are there other things I am missing? Does it fly more real world than the 172? Are the graphics magnitude better?


Carenado Malibu:


I know it supports xp reality 530 GPS. But are the other systems simulated very well. I know it is not accusimmed, but does it seem to fly right and do the gauges do what the gauges are supposed to do?

One of my favorite GA aircraft is the carenado commander. But the a2a 172 avionics, especially the a2a radios, are so much better than the commander's.

One more question about the Malibu; is there any shake, rattle and roll stuff going on with the Malibu like there is with the realair lancair and the a2a products? The commander is the carenado product I have purchased so I don't know how far Carenado has come.

Thanks for any feedback and comments.
 
Everyone's different, but this one's a no-brainer for me: A2A Cherokee (I already own it) would be my choice over the Carenado Malibu (I would never buy it).

But Carenado makes pretty planes, and if you want something that fits the profile of the Malibu, then it's an obvious choice. I can't comment of any fidelity or systems depth on the Malibu, since I don't own it, but in my experience with Carenado products, I wouldn't expect much. That's not really a bad thing, unless you're looking for depth. Not everyone is, and that's fine.

However, I can comment on the A2A Cherokee as I bought it on release. It's extremely polished, and miles ahead of most everything else in terms of fidelity. I personally find it has raised the standard from their 172, while being a pleasant contrast to it. Having both is worthwhile, not redundant, since they're both done to a level where a difference in handling is apparent. Also worth mentioning is that the 172 had a few issues and bugs on release; the Cherokee however, has had a much smoother release. It's an excellent plane, and really not one to be missed by anyone who loves GA.

But in the end, you're looking at two very different planes here, and the best choice is likely to be whichever fits the type of flying you do.
 
I would say it all depends on what exactly you are looking for and what type of simming you do. For me, it would the Cherokee hands down. I simply can't stay out of it since purchase. I was already a supporter and client of A2A, but the 180 is one of the most immersive package I have had the pleasure to sim with since 1989.

I won't repeat what so many are saying so close after te initial release, but it is just an amazing product. It's got an incredible "feel" to it, that makes a planned 30 minute vfr flight turn into a 90 minutes one (and thus being late for an appointment). I never thought any other GA release would pry me out of the a2a 172 (and even swore I would not get the 180) but it's simply superb. At least, for the type of flight I do, and that I enjoy.
 
I cannot say anything about the Carenado Malibu. Because I do not have it. A2A on the other hand I have all their Accusim products including their C172 and now their Cherokee.
I have tried and compared the Carenado C172 with Accufeel, and it does not even come close to competing with the A2A C172 with Accusim.
The A2A Piper Cherokee comes with the Accusim. Where the Malibu has little to give it a true to life feel like the Cherokee.
So for me it was the A2A Piper Cherokee hands down.
The Carenado Malibu is cheaper to buy. And the A2A Cherokee is more expensive, so if money is a big issue, then the Malibu is right, if you don't mind spending a little more, then the Cherokee would be a good choice.
With the Cherokee you have the feature of the Fuses, and the ability to maintain your aircraft, so when you finish flying one day and shut down and come back a few days later, you plane is not just as you left it, I have left the Cherokee sit for 3 days, and came back and had less fuel then when I left it, their was a fuel leak and a flat tire. I don't have this feature with any of my Carenado aircraft, so this does make for a very nice feature with A2A.

Best advice is to read the reviews, and watch the videos from the companies. Compare what they say and show, and chose which is right for you.
Good Luck on you choice.
Craig.
 
I'll take an A2A product over a Carenado any day. The Cherokee is the best plane A2A has done.
 
The Cherokee also supports the RXP GNS 530. The installer automatically configured it as one of the three GPS units you can choose from while sitting in the cockpit (which is a very cool feature!). You can shuffle between the three, and it goes right in the dash seamlessly. The only caveat is that if you have just the 530 (like me), then you will need to download and install a modified aircraft.cfg file that can be found on the A2A forums. I kept getting crashes to desktop when selecting the plane until I figured that one out, but the A2A forums were very helpful. I found things like the walk-around and maintenance hanger to be great fun and really added to the immersion factor. I highly recommend it!

Sorry, no opinion on the Malibu.
 
Get the A2A Cherokee. I love Carenado's aircraft, but having spent a couple of days with A2A's latest, there simply is no question. Everyone who loves flight simulation, and wants to own and operate a virtual aircraft, should get the A2A Cherokee - it's nothing less than a masterpiece.
 
Thanks for all of the comments. They are obviously pro A2A. I have the A2A Civilian Mustang and their 172 and love both of them. I am currently flying the 172 more than any other plane.

With everyone's feed back, I will probably go for the Cherokee. The only thing I am a litter disappointed about is that I understand that normal landing and taxi lights are used from the cockpit because of the problem they had with the 172. I wish they could resolve that. I really like the newer lights (I forget what that style is called at the moment)

Thanks for all of the feed back.
 
Correction to my earlier post regarding the 530 integration - you need to grab an updated panel.cfg from the A2A forums.

As for the taxi/landing lights, they may not be exactly like the Shockwave versions, but I didn't notice that big a difference. Just my 2 sheckles.
 
I would go for the Cherokee hands down too. It is an excellent plane, and while it is in the same category as the Skyhawk, it is about as similar as an A320 is to a 737. Different procedures, different quirks, different flying 'feel', vintage 60s GA cockpit and instrumentation compared to modern GA. Sure it isn't a speed demon, it is a Cherokee after all. Like the Skyhawk, it is a great owner/operator simulator. Besides, you already have the Civil P-51 for speed.:mixed-smiley-010:

I don't have the Carenado Malibu, but have some of their other releases...pretty looks and some have good FDEs, but every flight in one becomes like every other flight because there is no wear and tear simulated.

Cheers
TJ
 
I was able to make a few short flights in the 180. It is a great add-on. All the stuff that is right about it is too numerous to detail. I will say that I am a little disappointed in the execution of the external lights. As mentioned they are pretty much the normal FSX lighting system which is ok. But they have the normal fax quirk of the illumination points detaching from the aircraft frame..... but for that, certainly the a2a Cherokee would be about perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top