What is The Best Twin?

[Lawyer+Pilot 126]

+1 for the Majestic Q400. It even eclipses the NGX in terms of quality, flight dynamics and immersion, in my opinion. Of course, we should give PMDG the benefit of the doubt given that the Q400 came out almost 2 years after the NGX. We'll see if PMDG takes it up a notch with the 777.

 

Q400 all the way!

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Q400 all the way!

 

That's a leetle bit bigger than the upper size limit of a KA the OP set, don't you think?  :mellow:

 

Scott

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Hmmm that 310 looks nice.  I'd been recommended to check out the RA Duke as well and had thought I was going to get it, the STOL capability of the turbine version really had my interest peaked.  It's sounding like the 310 might be a little better overall package though? (and a bit cheaper too)

Cheaper, maybe, but better?  The original premise that the Duke is the best GA twin still stands IMHO, and I would also go with the C337 as an interesting alternative.  Either way, get a RealityXP GNS530 - it fits in both aircraft.

 

Personally, I like the piston Duke better than the Turbine version, but others may disagree..

[Delta747Man 9]

Wow, thanks to everyone for the answers. I am getting both the Dukes. I will research the Milviz as that seems to be a good aircraft. I have their F-15E and love it, though I am still learning a lot of it, as I only received it 2 weeks ish ago now.

[stans 702]

I have both the MilViz C310 and the Carenado B58.  MilViz's depiction of a Cessna 310R is awesome and if you don't like the radios, they give you a model that has a blank space so you can install whatever radios or gps you desire.  What I don't like about it is that it is a Cessna 310, they just are not that popular anymore and getting passengers into the back seats is a pain.  But MilViz's depiction of the 310 is incredible, right down to flight modeling.

 

I bought the Carenado B58 because there seems to be a lot more Barons in the air than C310's these days.  The external model is spot-on, the interior was very well done too.  Avionics, you have a pair of Garmin GNS-430's for nav, comms, and GPS, no other choices.  The transponder is a Garmin 330, but has only the most basic of transponder functions, yet there is a free-ware version that has far more features.  I found that swapping in the free-ware transponder was easy.  What has proved to be impossible is proper back-lighting for the radio selector.  It has none, so to see it at night you turn on the dome light, not particularly realistic.

 

Oh, how is MilViz's cockpit lighting?  Back-lights are controlled by a dimmer switch, one for the pilot's panel, another switch for the co-pilot's panel.  Very clever those MilViz chaps.

[kaloska 0]

And what is the problem with Casenado C340 ? You are not have said too many positive from it in this topic .

[Nurmblitz 59]

I wonder the lack of recomendations with C340 from Carenado as well. Obviously it has not sold well as it has only few repaints available. Yet I like it a lot.

 

With Milviz Baron I have mixed feelings. I think its under utilized. With the two-blade propeller option I would have a perfect retro-style twin, but it has those stupid GPSes glued to dashboard, which, furthermore, is painful to read and use without Track-IR. It also consumes more fps than usual. So why provide a old model and leave the cockpit modernized? A cockpit option with default ADF etc. would have been the easiest thing to do. It has many exciting repaints available. I just cannot grasp its virtual design philosophy.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

And what is the problem with Casenado C340 ? You are not have said too many positive from it in this topic .

The 340 was one of Carenado's first panels with 3d gauges - not as visually pleasing as their later airplanes..

[Q_flyer 766]

The 340 was one of Carenado's first panels with 3d gauges - not as visually pleasing as their later airplanes..

mmmm, I have to totally disagree. :smile:

 

I am no fan of Carenado these days (there was no-one better for GA back in FS9 days), but the only two aircraft I fly by them are the C208B and the 340. The 208B has slightly better VC visuals, but the 340 flies nicer (without lot's of aftermarket tweaks). Although I fly the C208 more because it has such a diverse mission, I would say that the 340 is probably the best all round plane that Carenado have made IMHO. Excellent frames/performance, the best sound I've heard in a Carenado offering, the best FDE (from a very hit and miss selection), and the VC visuals in my opinion are nautical miles better than the likes of their KAs, SR22, C210, B58, etc.

 

It's not quite the MilViz C310 in terms of 'convincingness', but the Carenado 340 is certainly a 'black horse' and highly under-rated. It and the C208 are the only Carenado aircraft I'd heartily recommend.

[stretch1365 40]

Hi all,

 

I don't fly GA twins much the only one I do use is the Carenado Cessna C340, it doesn't seem to get much mention these days but I like it,I guess that's because it something a little unusual and there aren't many around in the real world either.

 

I couldn't tell you if it's accurate or not, but it flies nicely and sounds wonderful. Only thing I have found is it floats a bit over the runway on landing but apart from that I like it.

 

Happy flying.

[kaloska 0]

What I have seen in the youtube, the C340 realy good looking plane, the panel lighting is very good too. The FDE is realistic ? Slide slip is available ? I am always testing the FDE with this maneuver .

[pilottj 198]

The easiest way to test the FDE on a twin is to test it's engine out handling. Loosing an engine in a twin right after takeoff is a real 'oh sh*t!' scary moment, requiring split second decision making. The biggest part of a Multi engine checkride/oral exam is engine out knowledge and handling. So far the Milviz 310R has been the only one that has really felt like a twin in that regard.

 

Cheers

TJ

[Holdit 551]

The easiest way to test the FDE on a twin is to test it's engine out handling. Loosing an engine in a twin right after takeoff is a real 'oh sh*t!' scary moment, requiring split second decision making. The biggest part of a Multi engine checkride/oral exam is engine out knowledge and handling. So far the Milviz 310R has been the only one that has really felt like a twin in that regard.

 

Cheers

TJ

 

I believe I read a real-world pilot on here saying that the FSD Navajo was very good at engine out handling also. Unfortunately, its visuals are up to the same standard as some of the other candidates mentioned in this thread.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

With Milviz Baron I have mixed feelings. I think its under utilized. With the two-blade propeller option I would have a perfect retro-style twin, but it has those stupid GPSes glued to dashboard, which, furthermore, is painful to read and use without Track-IR.

 

The B55 has a "Free Radio" option like the 310, which takes the Garmins out of the stack, so they're not really "glued" there.  You're welcome to remove and replace them if you'd like to, but "stupid"?  Really? You will need to have something to replace them with, but there are options.

 

The two-blade props are actually the most common/correct configuration for the engines/cowlings modeled regardless of avionics, and are what I always fly with.

 

 

 

So why provide a old model and leave the cockpit modernized? A cockpit option with default ADF etc. would have been the easiest thing to do.

 

As mentioned above, it's not really an "old model", it's the most correct one.  The plane has an ADF and an RMI which work well, so I'm not sure what you're missing in this regard.  And I certainly wouldn't term the cockpit "modernized".  One of the things I like about Milviz' treatment of this model is that the upgrades are done in a realistic, real-world way.  Most real-world GA panels of this vintage are a mixed bag of original and upgrades, and that's exactly what they modeled.  The panel is very much old-school Baron, with an updated radio stack and vestigial pieces left behind.

 

The design philosophy was reality - this is based on a real aircraft.

 

Scott

[Nurmblitz 59]

There is a fde update somewhere in the net for that 340 floating effect, sorry I can't remember where I found it.