I have a Saitek throttle quadrant (1 throttle/prop/mixture), and am thinking of either adding an additional Saitek quadrant to get enough levers for full twin operations, or getting a CH quadrant which will give me 6 levers that I can program in the same way. I have the CH yoke and rudder pedals, and the existing Saitek quadrant seems “flimsy” in comparison, although with nothing else to compare it to it may be the way the CH quadrant is too.

If anyone has experience with both products, can you recommend one over the other? What I do like about the Saitek product is it’s full 90 degrees of lever motion, from horizontal to vertical. The CH product, just from the diagrams I have looked at, doesn’t appear to have that, it seems to have a lesser range of motion- although it may not matter for throttle/prop/mixture lever realism.

Thanks, Bruce.

I can't offer any advice between the two because I recently purchased the Saitek Cessna Pro Flight System plus one additional Saitek throttle quadrant (TQ) for the same reason you have - proper twin engine ops. I like the system so far, but calibrating the mixture on the additional TQ has been a pain to date. It isn't the fault of the TQ because the digital values coming out of all three levers match each other when you use the Saitek program via Device Manager. However, I want to use FSUIPC for all of my calibrations and configurations and that's where I run into the problem.

 

When you run Mixture 1 lever from detent to maximum, the value is 0 to 16383 and back to 0.

 

WHen you run Mixture 2 lever from detent to max, the value is -16383 to 16383 and back to -16383. FSX sees the disparity and the levers end up physically misaligned when viewed and used in the FSX sim.

 

I have no doubt I'll find someone who has corrected this as I continue my search today. But, I ran across your post during my search and I wanted to make you aware of the issue.

 

As far as the physical strength of the Saitek TQ - yes - it is flimsy. I don't know if the CH is any better or not. I'd love to have a better unit, but this suits my needs for now. Especially if I can find a fix for this calibration issue. It isn't a simple matter of performing the FSUIPC cal - been there, done that - no help.

 

Good luck,

 

Mark

Thanks Mark- interesting that when you get two levers that should match up physically, they don't (I too have the registered version of FSUIPC, so could also fix this issue as you describe).

 

My CH yoke has a "simple" throttle/prop/mixture control and I use the throttle to directly access the FSX throttle control for some add-ons that don't play well with FSUIPC (the F/18 that I have, plus any Airbus aircraft where the designer is attempting to emulate the real AB throttle modes). In comparing the 'simple" CH controls to those on the Saitek quadrant, I note that the later has more noise spikes that inadvertently make FSX see the position of the controls when you don't it to. I can solve this by pushing the saitek throttle full forward when engaging auto-throttle, but it's a noise issue that my CH throttle (on the yoke) doesn't appear to have.

 

Thanks again, Bruce.

Bruce,

 

I was able to get everything calibrated in the manner I had wanted. I'm using FSUIPC 4.827 Registered to handle everything dealing with my Saitek system and the related assignments and calibrations.

 

However, there are a couple of things I'd prefer to cover with you using the messenger, so be looking for an AVSIM Message shortly.

 

Mark

I can't offer any advice between the two because I recently purchased the Saitek Cessna Pro Flight System plus one additional Saitek throttle quadrant (TQ)

 

I also recently went to the Saitek Cessna Pro Flight system. I can find nothing in the product information that indicates how a second quadrant connects. The first is via a DIN type plug to the yoke. Is an additional quadrant simply USB? or is there some Y adapter that allows it to connect like the first one?

My second TQ is a USB connection.

 

I was able to achieve the TQ calibration results I wanted for multi-engine aircraft. Hooray.

 

The key to success for me was to disregard the numerical readouts. I followed the "CALIBRATING MULTIPLE THROTTLE, PROP & MIXTURE AXES TO "LINE UP" procedure without any deviations and was finally able to cal for multi-engine with the physical levers arranged as they should be.

 

Before, I would seethe numbers weren't reading what I thought they should and I would quit and start troubleshooting that issue. Once I realized that the procedure itself seemed to disregard the numbers, I did the same.

 

I have a Saitek Cessna Pro Yoke and the associated TQ, Cessna Rudder Pedals and one additional TQ. The latter connects via USB directly into the computer.

 

One item worth mentioning; the FSUIPC Manual states to connect all USB devices directly to the computer or via a "powered" USB junction box. That's their decision to use quotes around powered - not mine. I agree, because the passive USB J-boxes have been an issue for many of my computer acquaintances.

 

Let me know how things go after you get hooked up.

 

Good Luck,

 

Mark

I can find nothing in the product information that indicates how a second quadrant connects.

 

The second quadrant is USB. I've had no problem calibrating mine with FSUIPC to closel match - my issue has always been that the two quadrants have dramatically different feel. The original quadrant which came with my yoke has nice resistance, if a bit of a raspy feeling, with solid detents. The add-on quadrant is smooth with little resistance and almost no detents. I like it far less. Still it was easy to get them to work for multi-engine configs in terms of output even if the feel doesn't match well.

 

Sorry, I've no experience with the CH products.

 

Scott

Hi Bruce,

 

I've been using a CH quadrant for years and I like it a lot. It's quite sturdy although when of the lever shafts broke when the quadrant fell from a shelf. I was able to glue it back together and it's been working good ever since.

After some years I an see that the pots become less accurate. For example, thrust reverse was configured as a range so I could have a degree of reverse power. The accuracy has become less making me change the thrust reverse more of a on/off thingie.

<br />One item worth mentioning; the FSUIPC Manual states to connect all USB devices directly to the computer or via a "powered" USB junction box. That's their decision to use quotes around powered - not mine. I agree, because the passive USB J-boxes have been an issue for many of my computer acquaintances.<br />

 

I have to agree with that direction/directive. My experience was however with issues when I had the Saitek MultiPanel (USB) connected to a USB port in the Saitek Pro Flight Cessna Yoke. It (multipanel) would lose power partway through a flight. The Yoke and Saitek Pro Flight Cessna pedals were both connected directly to the computer. I purchased from Amazon the separate Saitek power supply for the yoke and tried connecting the MultiPanel again. This time, incredibly, the Multipanel clearly received less power. Yes! Less power! It was lit up, but significantly dim compared to being hooked up to the yoke when the yoke was NOT externally powered! In addition to being dim, the multipanel's features were inoperative. I then tried connecting the multipanel to what I believed to be a powered USB port on the side of my monitor but also had random incidents of it going inop. I then began connecting it direct to the computer and have had no issues since then.

 

I contacted Saitek support about the issue with the yoke's accessory power supply and unfortunately got what I would describe as a "menu selection" pat response advising me that Saitek recommends connecting the Multipanel to a powered USB hub. I wrote them back a scathing message about not properly reading my clearly written problem description, and asking them what the H the yoke power supply was supposed to do, but never got any follow up response.

 

I am very satisfied with my Saitek Pro Flight Cessna Yoke and Pedals, and with the Multipanel. I too appreciate the stiffness of the quadrant that comes with the yoke (DIN connector) and with the quadrant's detents. I am disappointed to learn that a separate additional quadrant (USB) would have such a different feel to it. That's a deal breaker for me and for the time being I will stick to the one quadrant.

 

I'd be interested if anyone else can confirm Scott's experience with the second (USB) quadrant, or if anyone has had a different experience. i.e. not disputing Scott, but wondering since the Pro Flight Cessna line of controls is a newer line, if perhaps production of the USB quadrants has caught up to the new standard. You would think Saitek would over time strive for parts commonality to keep unit costs down.

I have CH tq. Works good with fsuipc. Seems good. The only thing is that, for reverse thrust (below the detant) I had to program it to press the f2 key repeatedly to get it to work. I was getting the button press but no change in axis values. Not ideal but certainly acceptable.Î

Ive used both over the last few years.

 

Two issues with the Saitek. First of all I dont think that you can get an adjustable reverse signal behind the the detent whereas you can with the CH Pro. Secondly the potentiometer became defective on one of the levers causing th PMDG NGX to suddenly go to max thrust at certain settings. Chatting to a friend, he had a similar problem occur.

Thanks for all the replies, everyone. A question for those that have the CH quadrant- what is the range of motion of the levers (it looks like 30-45 degrees max from what I have seen from photos, which may be distorted); and when the levers are fully forward, are they vertical, or are they forward of vertical? Any info would be great.

 

Thanks, Bruce.

CH has about 60-70 degrees of motion...30 degrees forward and thirty degrees back. Plenty of motion.

i.e. not disputing Scott, but wondering since the Pro Flight Cessna line of controls is a newer line, if perhaps production of the USB quadrants has caught up to the new standard.

 

 

From my experience, it may be the other way around. My yoke and quadrant with PS2 connector were purchased first and had the solider (is that a word? :-) ) quadrant. The newer quadrant seemed of lesser quality. FYI, in a previous discussion here, my observation confirmed someone elses. That said, with a sample size of two, I'll freely admit that I've no idea if my sitation is the norm or if other changes have been made since I bought mine late last year. And in truth, they still work OK and as previously written I've had no problems with calibration for use as a multi quadrant. In the "heat of flight" I don't get overly bothered over the difference.

 

Scott

Ive used both over the last few years.

 

Two issues with the Saitek. First of all I dont think that you can get an adjustable reverse signal behind the the detent whereas you can with the CH Pro. Secondly the potentiometer became defective on one of the levers causing th PMDG NGX to suddenly go to max thrust at certain settings. Chatting to a friend, he had a similar problem occur.

 

My Saitek Quadrant did similar.. Two petentiometers hit the bricks TWO DAYS after I bought it. It went from idle to 50% power moving it just a sliver. No amount of calibrating fixed it. Complete waste of money and further reading afterwards around that this isn't uncommon.