What is The Best Twin?

[mi17 1]

Hello,

 

I would highly recommend Digital Aviation's Piper PA31T Cheyenne. 

It's too bad that no one ever mentioned her in this topic. Although she isn't as young and bright as some Carenado stuff, but I still love her. Nice visuals inside and out, nice avionics (Including an old-school Trimble GPS), great flight model and a high level of immersion.

I've never understood why she is so underrated in the FS community.

 

So as a GA twin fan I consider her as a "Must Have".

 

Yeah, and don't forget the RealAir Dukes with RXPs.

 

 

Tamas 

[KingGhidorah 209]

Hello,

 

I would highly recommend Digital Aviation's Piper PA31T Cheyenne.

It's too bad that no one ever mentioned her in this topic. Although she isn't as young and bright as some Carenado stuff, but I still love her. Nice visuals inside and out, nice avionics (Including an old-school Trimble GPS), great flight model and a high level of immersion.

I've never understood why she is so underrated in the FS community.

 

So as a GA twin fan I consider her as a "Must Have".

 

Yeah, and don't forget the RealAir Dukes with RXPs.

 

 

Tamas

 

I know that others have praised the flight model of the Cheyenne, but I always felt there was something very strange about it. A neat plane with a good cockpit for sure, and I found it enjoyable on a number of levels, but I could never fully accept a certain toy airplane feel to its controls. When the Dukes came out, I stopped using it completely, mainly for that reason.

[mi17 1]

I know that others have praised the flight model of the Cheyenne, but I always felt there was something very strange about it. A neat plane with a good cockpit for sure, and I found it enjoyable on a number of levels, but I could never fully accept a certain toy airplane feel to its controls. When the Dukes came out, I stopped using it completely, mainly for that reason.

It's always interesting to read different opinions on flight dynamics. I do not have any real life experience on flying turboprop twins (only gliders and helos), so I'm may be wrong but I consider the Cheyenne's flight model quite authentic within FSX limits. I'm really enjoying the Dukes as well (actually I fly them a bit more frequent), but I don't feel the Cheyenne any worse.

Could you highlight what are the points you didn't like?

 

Regards

 

Tamas

[coondoodle 1]

I like Aerosoft's twin Otter, but can't wait for the new one

[KingGhidorah 209]

mi17, on 27 May 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

 

It's always interesting to read different opinions on flight dynamics. I do not have any real life experience on flying turboprop twins (only gliders and helos), so I'm may be wrong but I consider the Cheyenne's flight model quite authentic within FSX limits. I'm really enjoying the Dukes as well (actually I fly them a bit more frequent), but I don't feel the Cheyenne any worse.

Could you highlight what are the points you didn't like?

 

Regards

 

Tamas

I'm probably not going to do a good job describing it, but when flying the Cheyenne by hand it reminded me of the NGX when in the control-wheel-steering autopilot mode! Flying planes like the Duke or the Milviz 310 has a certain feel to them, but the Aerosoft Cheyenne had a pitch/power coupling that just felt intuitively off. If any plane ever felt like it was on rails in the sky, it was this one.  I know that is a big exageration, and for all I know the real plane feels like that compared to other twins, but I found it hard to believe. I didn't like the roll and yaw much either, nor the engines. The ball would always be centered and the plane always coordinated, and you could fail an engine on one side, and it wasn't convincing to me. It's an overall good plane, excellent fps, with many enjoyable hours spent in it, and maybe I'm wrong about it all, but I think that better flight dynamics have since come along. I found the Trimble interesting, but in practice a real pain to use with the mouse, and I could never get any of the Realityxp products to fit well, or look good, in the Cheyenne's panel. Finally, I felt the behavior of the turboprop engines was more simplified compared to recent offerings, and they fostered some bad habits because there was no consequence to exceeding their limits. I actually think that the turbine Duke is much less of an interesting plane than the Cheyenne, perhaps even a bit bland by comparison, but I'm convinced it is a more realistic rendition of a GA turboprop.

[Arklight1 140]

The Milviz Baron is nice, but the B55 and E55 having the same visual model is a little off-putting. The E55, IIRC, is about a foot longer and has a few other visual changes as well.

 

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[tttocs 301]

 

 

The E55, IIRC, is about a foot longer and has a few other visual changes as well.

 

Hmm... This seems like an "is the glass half empty or half full" thing to me.  I view having a second flight model as a small plus - basically 1.5 for the price of 1 - though see below.

 

There are a few minor visible differences, but I don't think the length is any different - someone please correct me if I'm off on this.  You may be thinking of the 58 Barons.  If you showed most people a picture of a B55 and then an E55 (not side by side) they'd most likely think them to be the same model.  The most obvious missing visual clue is probably the engine cowlings, as I believe the E55 should have an intake scoop atop the cowling that's not there in the Milviz model.

 

I haven't flown the E55 since the true B55 came out (was that the first SP?) as the B was the model I was familiar with and wanted to sim, so I guess I never worried about it much.

 

Scott

[Arklight1 140]

 

 

The E55, IIRC, is about a foot longer and has a few other visual changes as well.

 

Hmm... This seems like an "is the glass half empty or half full" thing to me. I view having a second flight model as a small plus - basically 1.5 for the price of 1 - though see below.

 

There are a few minor visible differences, but I don't think the length is any different - someone please correct me if I'm off on this. You may be thinking of the 58 Barons. If you showed most people a picture of a B55 and then an E55 (not side by side) they'd most likely think them to be the same model. The most obvious missing visual clue is probably the engine cowlings, as I believe the E55 should have an intake scoop atop the cowling that's not there in the Milviz model.

 

I haven't flown the E55 since the true B55 came out (was that the first SP?) as the B was the model I was familiar with and wanted to sim, so I guess I never worried about it much.

 

Scott

 

I do believe the E55 has the longer nose you would see on the 58.

 

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[tttocs 301]

 

 

I do believe the E55 has the longer nose you would see on the 58.

 

Ark, I stand corrected - you're right.  The windshield slope is different, and the nose does appear to be lengthened.  Looking at both side by side, the difference is fairly obvious.

 

Thanks,

 

Scott

[Milviz 919]

Seeing as this has come up again, I will deal with it forthwith...  the E-55 came about because we didn't want to release the plane with two very different FDE's.  So, we (the team) decided that we would do another FDE with the E-55's curves and flight dynamics.  The reasons behind having two different FDE's are complex and internal and will not be discussed here (or anywhere else for that matter).

 

We did not, will not, redo the external model of the B-55 to be an E-55.  When we released the plane it was a B-55 plain and simple.  We then, on releasing the SP1, gave you the option to fly one or the other but, we made it 100% clear (as I am, again, doing) that we were not (ever) going to remake, remodel and or fix the external of the B-55 to be that of the E-55.

 

So, given that you might (some of you) complain about paying for two and getting one... in fact, you're paying for one and getting, as someone else said, one and a half.  So, the alternative is... for us to remove all mention of the E-55 in a new SP and that's it.  Or we can all just accept that it's what it is.

 

Your call...

[Fox-Bat 31]

Have to second DA Cheyenne - one of the best twins ever, if not the best. Despite it's age I flew it far more than the Duke. This thread is the first time I've ever heard about it having a toy feel. It's Trimble and radar are a welcome and interesting addition while newer payware still likes to slot the standard glass and gps into planes.

[Q_flyer 766]

Agreed.   I really cannot 'get' the comments earlier about the FDE of the Cheyenne;  Digital Aviation are very strong in this area, and I always considered it one of the best hand flyers around.    But of course, each to their own.

[Kaboki 437]

Since no one has mentinoned Aerosofts Catalina i'll throw her into the discussion. Don't know so much about FDE's and stuff since i'm not a real pilot, but this plane certainly has character. It simulates failures and stuff wich most of the other planes mentioned don't have. How realistic or not, im not the right one to judge but they are  nice indeed B)

[mi17 1]

I'm probably not going to do a good job describing it, but when flying the Cheyenne by hand it reminded me of the NGX when in the control-wheel-steering autopilot mode! Flying planes like the Duke or the Milviz 310 has a certain feel to them, but the Aerosoft Cheyenne had a pitch/power coupling that just felt intuitively off. If any plane ever felt like it was on rails in the sky, it was this one.  I know that is a big exageration, and for all I know the real plane feels like that compared to other twins, but I found it hard to believe. I didn't like the roll and yaw much either, nor the engines. The ball would always be centered and the plane always coordinated, and you could fail an engine on one side, and it wasn't convincing to me. It's an overall good plane, excellent fps, with many enjoyable hours spent in it, and maybe I'm wrong about it all, but I think that better flight dynamics have since come along. I found the Trimble interesting, but in practice a real pain to use with the mouse, and I could never get any of the Realityxp products to fit well, or look good, in the Cheyenne's panel. Finally, I felt the behavior of the turboprop engines was more simplified compared to recent offerings, and they fostered some bad habits because there was no consequence to exceeding their limits. I actually think that the turbine Duke is much less of an interesting plane than the Cheyenne, perhaps even a bit bland by comparison, but I'm convinced it is a more realistic rendition of a GA turboprop.

Thank you for sharing your opinions about the Cheyenne. I have to agree with you on some points, it is a bit too stable around all axes, and flying single engine seems to be quite unrealistic indeed. The simulation of a turboprop engine is always an issue in FS (a very few developers can bypass that behavior) and as a real world flight engineer I have the habit that I always keep an eye on the engine gauges trying not to exceeding their limits...))

I like the Trimble GPS so the Cheyenne is the only GA aircraft what i didn't want to modify for using RXP units.

But all in all I found that the aircraft performing well. Still one of my favorurites.

 

Tamas

[KingGhidorah 209]

Have to second DA Cheyenne - one of the best twins ever, if not the best. Despite it's age I flew it far more than the Duke. This thread is the first time I've ever heard about it having a toy feel. It's Trimble and radar are a welcome and interesting addition while newer payware still likes to slot the standard glass and gps into planes.

 

Speaking of radar, one advantage that Milviz 310 (and probably baron too) has over the Dukes is that the personal arrangement and composition of the avionics has a bit more flexibility than the Duke, and it is one of the very few that I've found that provided me with any use of the RealityXP weather radar.  The only other one was the PMDG Jetstream.  So in mine, I have a gns 530, and 430, as in the Duke, but then also have added the radar.  The downside, is that it all has to be 2D---in reality I find it looks okay though since you are looking at it from pretty much straight ahead. 

 

I agree on the cool-factor of the Cheyenne's cockpit, and certainly understand why you've never heard about the "toy feel", since I'm probably the first one to say it  I wish that Digital Aviation was still in business, so they could do the Cheyenne version 2, and give it Real Air quality flight dynamics and turbine modelling. 

 

I'm actually wondering if I purchased the Milviz Baron, would it give me anything that I don't already have in the Cessna or the Real Air Dukes.