Sign in to follow this  
Guest Nealoc187

Choosing between the Aerosoft Cheyenne and Dreamfleet Baron

Recommended Posts

I'd like to pick up a nice general aviation twin, it's just about the only thing missing from my stable. I've got a plethora of top quality singles, and I've always been extremely impressed with Flight1's latest offerings. I've got the F1 ATR, PMDG 744 and 737, Maddog 2006, LDS 767, etc. Only thing missing now is an in depth general aviation twin.I think I've narrowed it down to the Dreamfleet Baron B58 and the Aerosoft Piper Cheyenne. I'm only concerned with the quality of the simulation, it's immersion factor and it's replication of the real world operational characteristics of the planes. I'm open to other suggestions as well that fit into this category, are there any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Haven't tried the Cheyenne but I can say without fear of contradiction that the DF Baron will give you a lot of pleasure. I fly it on triple monitors- one of my jolies is to set visib. to 1/2 mile, then kill an engine right after liftoff and make a safe return.The Baron will do this- if you do the right things. I can also maintain altitude +-100' with throttle alone. Excellent flight dynamics. Also very easy on FPS. The pic tells the tale.Alex ReidDF Baron- lining up R28R KSFOhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/183234.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a tough call. The Baron is kinda slow (~200 KTAS) and kinda low (16,000 to 18,500, usally flown much lower). The Cheyenne is fast (up to 260 KTAS) and high (up to 31,000 feet).Both planes handle extremely well, so flight dynamics aren't an issue there. The Piper Cheyenne still has a few bugs with the GPS and it's probably the only real shortcoming of the plane. The Cheyenne uses a text-based Trimble GPS and has a few CTD problems when messing with it. Other than that, it's my favorite non-scheduled fast and high flying twin. The Baron incorporated the Reality XP GPS (GNS 530) which most people adore, but some don't like. If you're familiar with the RXP GPS, then you know it's perfect, IMHO. You won't have small uncontrolled airports, or grass/dirt/gravel strips in the database, but the GPS is still a perfect unit. They are based on the real trainer, so they work as the real ones do.The Baron also has the Reality XP Sandel EADI, and it's another wonderful product without a FPS hit. It adds a lot of life to the panel. You can still use an analog ADI if you want too. If you get the lite version you won't have the Reality XP GPS or Sandel though.If I had a complaint about the Baron, it'd be that the 2D panel is either flood or no lights at all. The Cheyenne can be gauge lit. Both have good VCs. Both climb like maniacs, especially the Piper. On landing, the Baron requires you hold the power through the flare, whereas the Cheyenne employs the usual FDE that allow you idle into the flare and land perfectly. A lot of people complained about Baron when it first came out because they thought it bounced too often on landing. If you hold the power all the way through the flare and use the correct Vref, you will land fine. My very first landing with the Baron was perfect (no bounce), but I had the A36 from DF to learn this method with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Wow, that's a tough call. The Baron is kinda slow (~200>KTAS) and kinda low (16,000 to 18,500, usally flown much>lower). The Cheyenne is fast (up to 260 KTAS) and high (up to>31,000 feet).>>Both planes handle extremely well, so flight dynamics aren't>an issue there. The Piper Cheyenne still has a few bugs with>the GPS and it's probably the only real shortcoming of the>plane. The Cheyenne uses a text-based Trimble GPS and has a>few CTD problems when messing with it. Other than that, it's>my favorite non-scheduled fast and high flying twin. >>The Baron incorporated the Reality XP GPS (GNS 530) which most>people adore, but some don't like. If you're familiar with>the RXP GPS, then you know it's perfect, IMHO. You won't have>small uncontrolled airports, or grass/dirt/gravel strips in>the database, but the GPS is still a perfect unit. They are>based on the real trainer, so they work as the real ones do.>>The Baron also has the Reality XP Sandel EADI, and it's>another wonderful product without a FPS hit. It adds a lot of>life to the panel. You can still use an analog ADI if you>want too. If you get the lite version you won't have the>Reality XP GPS or Sandel though.>>If I had a complaint about the Baron, it'd be that the 2D>panel is either flood or no lights at all. The Cheyenne can>be gauge lit. Both have good VCs. Both climb like maniacs,>especially the Piper. >>On landing, the Baron requires you hold the power through the>flare, whereas the Cheyenne employs the usual FDE that allow>you idle into the flare and land perfectly. A lot of people>complained about Baron when it first came out because they>thought it bounced too often on landing. If you hold the>power all the way through the flare and use the correct Vref,>you will land fine. My very first landing with the Baron was>perfect (no bounce), but I had the A36 from DF to learn this>method with.Thanks for that comparison. I am leaning a little bit towards the Baron for a couple reasons now. The RXP GPS I've read is supposed to be a fantastic representation of the real GNS530/430, which I just happen to be fluent in in real life. Second, it most closely resembles the Piper Seneca V which I'm about to start working on my multi engine rating in. Lastly, I already have the F1 PC12, which, while a little simplistic, is sortof in the same performance category as the Cheyenne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both but prefer the Baron.The Piper in comparison is ear damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,i'm going to be a little pain in the *** right now,cause i would chose the Aeroworx B200 as my twin GA.I allready have for quit some time and still enjoy and learn everyday while flying this plane.I find it very accurate as to performance and "system" managment and a neat thing is you get a mechanic with the addon,which tells you (or lets you see) what parts need repairs or if you need to change your oil.:)You can use the B200 for low/high flights,fast/slow,even for some bush flying.So practically fits the job for any GA flyer :).Just my 0.20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob- the clipboard is just an ordinary masonite clipboard cut down to size, painted flat black and stuck to the yoke with double sided tape! Cheap & simple- but so useful!The throttle is a hollowed out bit of hardwood secured to the CH throttle knob with setscrews. A 2 1/2" metal extension arm is screwed to the block and 2 plastic sewing thread spools are cross bolted to the arm. The CH throttle itself is not modified. The extra arm length enables very small throttle adjustments. Makes hand flying fun!Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HelloDont forget about the aeroworx Beechcraft B200Fantastic aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are near perfect addons. The Cheyenne SP3 is days from release, which is great. It really depends on which plane fits your flying better. Which one would you rather fly in real life? Go with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While all three are top notch add ons, I would also go with the Aeroworx King Air over either the Dreamfleet Baron or the Aerosoft/DA Cheyenne, based on the following opinions and logic. Although one might choose the Cheyenne based on a similar evaluation due to preference. The King Air is a prettier plane than the Cheyenne. I also think it sounds much better, and Aeroworx did a great job replicating every detail. The Baron is a light twin, so slower and not very complicated to operate. Still uses a lot of runway so doesn't have the benefit of a bush plane. If you want systems management, you'll be less entertained by the Baron than either the Cheyenne or King Air. The Baron model is also fairly hard on frame rates, even as the gauges are super smooth and efficient.I would consider as well that most of the fs2004 airport add ons are large airports and a good number are GA airports with runways too small for the Baron. The Cheyenne and King Air are not out of place at large and even international airports, and can get between them faster. The King Air has the most interesting systems of the three, especially engine management. Sounds of course complement this. But the Cheyenne has an accurate Trimble gps, unlike the King Air's simplified KLN. Personally, however, I would get the King Air and pair it with the super realistic Reality XP 430, using the flight plan export button to load it into the WXR-270. Because the Cheyenne already costs 35 or 30 (without VAT) euros, which is 51 or 44 dollars. The King Air only costs 30 dollars. The Reality XP 430 costs 30 dollars, BUT you can add it to any plane, so the value is great. The more recent Garmin is also less of a pain to use and has more functions than the Trimble. So you either save 21 or 13 dollars or spend an extra 9 or 16 dollars and get a lot more.The King Air's WXR-270 has no weather radar function, but nor does the fs2004 Cheyenne have it (maybe a later purchasable expansion, not part of the coming service pack.) http://digital-aviation.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3976Both the Cheyenne and the King Air come with more than one variation. Yet I think the Aeroworx EFIS and Analogue versions have more extensive differences. The Medevac King Air is also really cool. The analogue version gets great frame rates, given the complexity. The King Air seems more stable than the Cheyenne, which for some has CTD and texture loading hiccups. Maybe the new service pack will address these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting analysis- thank you. I take one exception: you say DF Baron is hard on FPS- I find it opposite. Of all my add ons, Baron is gentlest on frames for me. That's kind of intriguing because with triple mons & 3 views displaying on a nearly 5 year old 'puter, I'm grasping for every FPS I can get! (Yes- Reality display quality is set to high.)(And "slow" isn't all bad when you're doing IFR circuits in 1/2 mile visibility! Feathering a prop, adjusting pitch/mix and airplane trim for engine out after takeoff, and still keeping the bird airborne while navigating to the nearest ILS runway is complexity enough for me!)(sometimes even leaves me with sweaty armpits!):)Cheers Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Alex, I would say that because you fly using the 2d cockpit, you're not going to see as much of a hit from the 3d model itself, despite the fact that you use three monitors. The realityxp gauge programming is extremely efficient. It's not that I think the frame rates are bad, not at all. Just that on my system (and I have read others say the same) the baron vc is kinda taxing for what is a relatively simple aircraft, in comparison with other add ons. I can retrofit a number of Carenados, amazing looking cockpits for the most part, with aIl the realityxp gauges I want and still get significantly better frame rates, almost always in the 30-40 range at the most complex airports. So maybe it's an issue of polygon count, and Carenado do more with less, relying heavily on textures? Regardless, the Dreamfleet Baron is still a great add on. It's just that I'd rather suffer a similar fps hit for more complex systems.Shane, with that 3.0ghz dual core I wouldn't expect you to have issues with frame rates at all. Except when flying fsx :) Anyway, both the advantage and disadvantage of a baron or any light twin add on, depending on one's point of view, is that one is more likely to be able to fly it in real life, because it requires less experience and is cheaper to rent.And I love King Airs, they have so much character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weenie---: enjoyed your posts here- way back when, I had hoped to put the Kingair in my hangar. But it never was released on CD and also has some issues that weigh against multi monitors. So my loss. It does look like a great plane however.I think now is the time to say thanks to AVSIM for the forums where we can bat around ideas and info like this.Thanks AVSIM !Alex Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'd like to pick up a nice general aviation twin, it's just about the only thing missing from my stable......"You may wish to take a look out our Piper Twin Comanche...a little smaller than the other two but real twin drivers seem to like her a lot:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"I'd like to pick up a nice general aviation twin, it's just>about the only thing missing from my stable......">>You may wish to take a look out our Piper Twin Comanche...a>little smaller than the other two but real twin drivers seem>to like her a lot:-)>>I will definitely check it out - I have your Columbia 400 and have flown your SR22 as well that my buddy has and enjoy them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"I'd like to pick up a nice general aviation twin, it's just>about the only thing missing from my stable......">>You may wish to take a look out our Piper Twin Comanche...a>little smaller than the other two but real twin drivers seem>to like her a lot:-)>>I have 1000's of hours in the real Twin Comanche and I can confirm the Eaglesoft bird is a winner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this