I was going to go out and buy a joystick, but then i saw the yoke. I like the joystick better, but which is better? I dont play combat only regular flight in the Microsoft Flight Simulator.

>I was going to go out and buy a joystick, but then i saw the>yoke. I like the joystick better, but which is better? I dont>play combat only regular flight in the Microsoft Flight>Simulator.I am a long time licensed pilot and I cannot stand flying with a joystick. To me, it makes MSFS feel like an arcade game. If you are flying combat aircraft or Helicopters, then a joystick is the way to go in my opinion. To fill it out, after you get a Yoke, get some rudder pedals to go with it. Amazon.com has the best CH yoke and pedal prices I have seen.

Hi,I second Bob, Yoke is the way to go, adds to the realism no end.(unless you fly airbuses I suppose :-) ) . Steve

If you're looking for a cheap yoke, as Bob said, CH's are the best. Personally, I don't like them beacuse they feel too light and flimsy, which is why I dumped mine off on Ebay a while back. Plus, in real life, I fly with one hand on the yoke and one on the throttle most of the time anyways, so a joystick for my left hand and my throttle quadrant in my right works for me. That's not to say that I wouldn't like having one, though. This is the bad boy that I'm saving up for.http://www.avsim.com/pages/1202/afcs/afcs.htmlSo, IMO, I would say that getting rudder pedals would be more important than a yoke, and learning how to fly coordinated will make you a better pilot. Again, just my opinion. :-)

The best thing to do is to find a local electronics store that had demo models you can try. This is such a personal decision, nobody can tell you what is right. I fly with a joystick. The CH yoke was too flimsy for me, and it just didn't give me very good control, especially with the elevator axis. A lot of people swear by it, but it just didn't work for me. I would love to try a more expensive yoke, but that isn't in my budget right now. I currently use the Saitek X52 which gives me good response. It just feels more firm than anything else I've used. For me, it was a good value for the money. I added the CH throttle quadrant and CH rudder pedals to round out my controls. Again, this all comes down to opinion and personal taste. I've gone through dozens of combinations trying to find the one that works. What I found is that I have to settle for something decent unless I want to break the bank and spend a lot more money.

On my home setup I have the CH throttle quad and the Cirrus Jetliner Yoke. The yoke was very pricey but there is no comparison. I used the CH yoke for years and had to upgrade it was worth it. (Of course my wifes opinion may vary.) :-lol

I use both. A CH Yoke and a Logitech Force Feedback joystick.Why use both you ask?I use the joystick in all aircraft the normally would not be equippedwith a yolk ie: fighters, J-3 Cub, Porter Pilatus,etc.Anyone who has ever flown an aircraft with a stick as opposed to a yolkwill tell you how intuitive it is to fly with one.Even the Airbus uses a sidestick.The only reason they ever put yolks in aircraft as far as I know is tomake them more automobile like.Craig

I've been using my trusty Microsoft Sidewinder 2 joystick for many years now. I love it. Too bad Microsoft doesnt make them anymore.

I use both too. A PFC floor-mounted Jetliner yoke, and a tricked-out Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar with a CNC-machined gimbal and Hall-Effect sensors in place of pots.Quality flight controls are money well spent.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

>The only reason they ever put yolks in aircraft as far as I>know is to>make them more automobile like.I have to correct this sentence since it touches the very core of the difference between Airbus and Boeing. The real reason is much deeper. Boeing adopted so called "soft" flight envelope protection and Airbus adopted the hard limit protection (for exact definition of these terms you may search these forums - has been discussed multiple times). Anyway, the choice of the "soft" envelope protection forces you to use the yoke. It is impossible to get soft protection with a sidestick due to simple fact that there is not enough movement range in the stick to emulate all the necessary ranges of deflection. It is all very much connected with a discipline called "human factors".It is a common misconception that Boeing could adopt a sidestick if it only wanted to do so. This is not so since it would have first to completely redesign/reprogram its flight control computer (and make it Airbus-like) before it could use a sidestick.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

I doubt the yoke is there to make it "more automobile like". Please note that the first large aircrafts and the Zeppelins tried to replicate the sealiners: so they had a wheel, sometimes as large as those used in ships. Even the uniforms used by the first aviators were very similar to those used by seamen.The current yoke was derived from the wheel.Regards,

>Anyway, the choice of the "soft" envelope protection forces you to >use the yoke.Or it can be seen in another way: the choice of using sidesticks forces you to use "hard" envelope protection. :)Marco

>Or it can be seen in another way: the choice of using>sidesticks forces you to use "hard" envelope protection. :)Correct.Michael J.

>>The only reason they ever put yolks in aircraft as far as I>>know is to>>make them more automobile like.>>I have to correct this sentence since it touches the very core>of the difference between Airbus and Boeing. The real reason>is much deeper. Boeing adopted so called "soft" flight>envelope protection and Airbus adopted the hard limit>protection (for exact definition of these terms you may search>these forums - has been discussed multiple times). Anyway, the>choice of the "soft" envelope protection forces you to use the>yoke. It is impossible to get soft protection with a sidestick>due to simple fact that there is not enough movement range in>the stick to emulate all the necessary ranges of deflection.>It is all very much connected with a discipline called "human>factors".>>It is a common misconception that Boeing could adopt a>sidestick if it only wanted to do so. This is not so since it>would have first to completely redesign/reprogram its flight>control computer (and make it Airbus-like) before it could use>a sidestick.>>>Michael J.>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpg>http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpgWhich means, if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going :)

>I am a long time licensed pilot and I cannot stand flying with>a joystick. To me, it makes MSFS feel like an arcade game. If>you are flying combat aircraft or Helicopters, then a joystick>is the way to go in my opinion. To fill it out, after you get>a Yoke, get some rudder pedals to go with it. Amazon.com has>the best CH yoke and pedal prices I have seen. Of course we all have different opinions. As a pilot and long time member of the Experimental Aircraft Association, I know many, many present and retired commercial pilots who now fly high performance experimental kit built aircraft with sticks. Some are very expensive, very sleek looking, very fast, and just plain high performance. But non-the-less, they use STICKS!!! :D I use a Saitek X-45 with seperate throttle control, because it somewhat massive and solid. The newer X-52 is a good one too.For a yoke, I'd have to have one of those $400.00 metal jobs.L.Adamsonedit: I use the stick and rudder pedals. I don't like twist grips or the Saitek's rocker switch for rudder.