Magestic Dash 8 any good?

[Bozdog 63]

Hi Steve!

Sure You can fly it without digging to much into the manuals - but ...

The Majestic Dash 8 offers a lot, just as the NGX (which You have also mentioned) does offer a lot - and therefore both aircrafts, just as any other dedicated 3rd party add on, may only make real sense and reveal their full potential and beauty, if some time is taken into account to dig through the manuals (at least the tutorial flights) and practice flying them

... and maybe also watch some tutorial videos on the internet, read through some threads every here and there, where things like programming a detailed flightplan and much more are being discussed from various perspectives, and so on ...

 

So:

To answer Your question:

The Dash 8 can be put into the air without to much of preperation - it just requires some steps at the very beginning and then You can fly it almost with ease!

But i'd ask myself the question then if it is not a bit sad to some extent to leave that much potential aside.

Because You may miss a lot if You do not consider spending at least some serious time with the manuals, becoming familiar with the plane of choice and practicing flying with it, which - again saying - is true for any dedicated and detailed 3rd party add-on aircraft!

 

I was flying the NGX a lot since i purchased it back over a year or so and sure will continue flying it a lot in the future!

But even by now i am still learning with each and every flight!

 

The same goes out to the Majestic Dash 8!

Each flight is always a bit different than the one prior to it and so it is really worth all the time and effort that i put into all the learning stuff - by the end of the day it's very, very rewarding!

 

I can thereofore just encourage You to not give up to early but just keep on trying!

Or - if You really should find out that flying detailed airliners is not Your preffered way to fly in the sim, to simply focus on other ways of flying and other aircraft types.

As long as You enjoy it, it will be the best choice.

But purchasing a detailed aircraft such as the Dash 8 and not digging into its systems will - most likely - be only half the fun!

Only my 2 cents here though!

Cheers, Christoph

_______

 

By the way - and more generally asking now:

I don't think i really understoodd the phrasing of the topic-question...

i mean, what does this exactly mean:

 

Majestic Dash any good ?

 

Please don't get me wrong here, but what answer is there to be expected now?

... any good ...?

 

Sure it is good - very good!

But(!):

Would not it be better to ask a bit more specific?

Or check out the Majestic website and read through the various resources which are available there for free first, to gain some overview?

Or - what about checking out some videos all over the web, which are featuring Majestic's Dash 8 and show what it is capable off?

And maybe reading some reviews?

 

And - why comparing apples and oranges all the time and over and over again ...?

 

I mean - the NGX is a complete different aircraft than the Dash 8!

Just as the great A2A Spitfire, Piper Cub, P-51,

Flight 1's latest King Air,

the Real Air Duke,

PMDG's J41,

the AS Katana or the latest AS Twin Otter for instance - and a few more - are different types of planes - each and everyone wonderfully modelled for its purpose in the sim by the way!

Now all of these mentioned here right aways can not and do not need to be compared with each other as each and every one of it is unique in its characteristics and a class of its own - so again:

Why compare apples and oranges?

I mean - isn't it more about how i want to fly (IFR, VFR, long haul, short haul, Airliners, GA, Bushflying ... and/or whatsever...)

 

Anyways:

At least performancewise i can just say, that the Dash 8 runs smoothly on my system, but "tends to stutter" sometime - especially while flying turns.

The NGX may require to lower some settings, but i have no issues and troubles in regards to its performance over all either - and barely ever any noticeable stutters!

On the contruary and even when using the same settings then, the Dash 8 still tends to stutter, just as pointed out now, while the NGX does not ...

Nevertheless though:

Even if i would merely focus on the aspect of performance, i'd still have to admit that by keeping in mind how out-dated the FSX engine is, neither Majestic's Dash 8, nor PMDG's NGX are performing badly at all!

 

To sum it up:

I am happy with the Dash 8 as i am with the NGX and som e other planes in my hangar - and i'd highly recommend any detailed 3rd party plane to everyone interested in flying any kind of DIFFERENT, unqiue and superb aircraft in the sim - as long as it fits any simmers personal liking and way of flying!

Just as easy and simple as that!

But sure - only my opinion here - and as other posts here as well, only subjective.

:wink: :smile:

Cheers, Christoph

Thanks Chrisoph for your detailed reply I have recently started getting more into the systems with the QW 146. I have Air Hauler and as my company grows am using and learning the bigger planes . Haven't earnt enough money in AH yet for the NGX yet so will progress to that once my company can afford it , just with all the good comments on the Dash was also tempted to buy and import that. Will be taking my credit card to the sim show as the boxed version with a printed manuel hopefully will be available there looks like its going to be an expensive show to visit ! :-)

[TomEDDW 1]

I've been flying the NGX for the last two years, and I'm looking forward to the 777X. Some fellow community memebers encouraged my to look at the Dash 8 since I'm always raving about PMDG

 

I finally decided to try it last weekend. I have no experience with truboprops, but wanted to fly into smaller airports.

 

I was pleasantly surprised. the tutorial helped me get the Dash 8 up and flying quickly. I used the tutorial, which is very user friendly, and I found the procedures easy to remember.

 

It's much more friendlier with FPS (I have an improvement of 5 - 7). The visulas are also very nice. Majestic Software will have a fully systems immersed version later, but the current version is great for pre flight and flight itself since it captures the right systems. Also, I have not gotten fatal CTD errors so far, compared to PMDG. In defense of PMDG, my CTDs are very rare and random.

 

Now if only I can figure out how to land more softly.  I find it difficult to flare the aircraft on landing, even when I implment trim up.  I've been getting little better each day, so I guess it just takes some getting used to.

 

I think I'm going to be happy simmer with a Dash 8 for commuter ops, an NGX for short and medium fights, and the T7 for medium and long.

 

The Q400 has a strong tendency for a tailstrike. Thats the reason why you have to rotate very slowly on takeoff and almost land her with no flare.

 

Landing the Q is like getting the nose up about 3 degrees and reduce TRQ for 2-3 percent. You will recognize reducing TRQ for that is far enough to

get her down.

Reducing power to idle will cause an instant reducement of lift. In real life Props running at little more than idle will even raise you stall speed as

they induce less drag that on idle.

 

So for your approach:

 

Keep your speed, keep your pitch untill close to the ground,

reduce TRQ and pitch up about 2-3 degrees,

slowly get her on the ground,

after the nosewheel touched down, reduce RPM to 900/850.

Don't use reverse as this is going to induce a thorough inspection by a technichian.

(reverse is rarely used)

 

This is how it works for me.

Regards,

 

Tom

[Q_flyer 766]

I guess it's different in each airline, and with their own SOPs, as I flew a FlyBe Q400 from EGNT-EGKK twice per week for 6 years with work, and when landing at both Newcastle and London Gatwick, reverse was used (held in longer at Gatwick suprisingly, with it having the longer of the two runways, but this was to make the first high speed exit! :lol:).

 

Regarding the Torque etc, I've never flown a Dash in real life so I'm happy to be told that the strong yawing is realistic, but I just prefer to tone it down;  having to dial in 6 degrees of rudder trim in cruise, doesn't seem very realistic to me, but then again real world Q400 pilots have said that the Yaw Damper is not so good in this plane. :smile:

[wolke85 150]

Thanks Chrisoph for your detailed reply I have recently started getting more into the systems with the QW 146. I have Air Hauler and as my company grows am using and learning the bigger planes . Haven't earnt enough money in AH yet for the NGX yet so will progress to that once my company can afford it , just with all the good comments on the Dash was also tempted to buy and import that. Will be taking my credit card to the sim show as the boxed version with a printed manuel hopefully will be available there looks like its going to be an expensive show to visit ! :-)

Hi Steve!

The QW 146 is a very nice plane!

Sure it may not be as "detailed", but as it was never intended to be so but rather a fine add-on "in between" the "advanced simmer" and "hard core simmer", it offers a lot, flies great and definitely keeps what it promises!

 

I am not sure if there is a boxed version available for the Majestic Dash 8, but in regards to the manuals - please feel free to take a look at Majestic's website and get Yourself a copy of the "detailed tutorial flight" available here

http://majesticsoftware.com/mjc8q400/downloads.html

... and there are also other very useful documentations to be found here:

http://majesticsoftware.com/mjc8q400/downloads.html

...and for sure though:

Have a great time at the Sim Show! :smile:

Cheers, Christoph

[LAdamson 240]

Because the fdm is external fsx realism settings do not have any effect on it...buuuut i keep all those sliders to the right at any rate (crash tolerance is irrelevant as i disabled the crash detection because of some nuances of fsx that is rather unrealistic). Most fsx users who haven't used x-plane or flightgear would find the handling a bit challenging (particularly labding) as fsx natively does not model p-factor or torque well (plus i don't see induced lift being simulated by fsx natively at all...)

 

My long standing gripe about X-Plane has been it's "bogus" interpretation regarding "torque". And from what I heard, the Majestic Dash 8 has toned it down,.... is that incorrect? Torque according to Newton's Law, is one thing on the ground roll, or in high power, low airspeed situations. But once airborne, after a normal takeoff roll, this unseen force of trying to dip a wing into the ground, is no more, than flight simulation revised physics.

 

I have spent months now, researching every available (real life) pilot report, and video relating to these twin turbo-props, in addition to many high powered single engine turbo-props, as well as all of those large radial & V-12's of the WWII era. When it gets down to it, the lift created from the wing, overides the engine produced torque, which makes it of low consequence. And then there is the engine & vertical tail offsets, to farther reign in yaw. It's the lift squared/airspeed formula. Search the internet, and what will you find? There will be lot's of mentions of torque on flight sim related websites, and "none" on real life websites, unless it relates to engine out, and those high power/ low airspeed situations. It will always be "yaw", and no mention of fighting roll, once airborne.

 

Airplanes are not designed to be as "challanging", as some flight sim users have come to believe. If they were, we'd be wondering what's wrong with the rigging, or design. Trying to dip the outboard portion of a wing into the runway after rotation, throughout the intial climb state, is not a good thing. I have read, that FSX simulates torque up to the "stall" speed, and then let's it fade away. IMO, that's a very good start for generalizing flight dynamics. And it's where X-Plane has it totally wrong! FSX does easily portray the left or right yaw tendencies, depending on prop rotation. Of course, some flight models will vary.

 

And why do I feel this way? It's because I've flown real life airplanes that try to dig their tires into the runway on the takeoff roll due to torque. But once airborne, the wing's lift has taken over. I've also seen real life airplanes flip on their back, due to high power, and airspeed just barely above the stall. So then I started asking other pilots, watched hour upon hour of takeoff video's and spent months of nightly reading about this "torque" issue (still do). I have not found one instance, in which a real pilot report mentions this high need to trim with "ailerons" on the climbout. If anything, it's trim for a heavy wing (left or right). While many X-Plane models ask for aileron trim, in the pre-takeoff checklist, you'll find that the real airplane usually does not.

 

In the meantime, there is a recent fix, to adjust X-Plane's torque issue. It can be seen here at Avsim, or at X-Plane org, under commercial vendors/design/Carenado. It's not completely real in all aspects, but it works.

 

L.Adamson

[Luis_KMIA 242]

The Q400 has a strong tendency for a tailstrike. Thats the reason why you have to rotate very slowly on takeoff and almost land her with no flare.

 

Landing the Q is like getting the nose up about 3 degrees and reduce TRQ for 2-3 percent. You will recognize reducing TRQ for that is far enough to

get her down.

Reducing power to idle will cause an instant reducement of lift. In real life Props running at little more than idle will even raise you stall speed as

they induce less drag that on idle.

 

So for your approach:

 

Keep your speed, keep your pitch untill close to the ground,

reduce TRQ and pitch up about 2-3 degrees,

slowly get her on the ground,

after the nosewheel touched down, reduce RPM to 900/850.

Don't use reverse as this is going to induce a thorough inspection by a technichian.

(reverse is rarely used)

 

This is how it works for me.

Regards,

 

Tom

Excellent information.  Thanks, Tom.  I'll practice more today.

[TomEDDW 1]

Luis, just give it some time to figure out how it works best.

 

Asking ten different people will get you ten different techniques.

I just tried using the same technique that i use in real life for smaller turbo props.

 

In any way you're very welcome!

 

Tom

[FSMP 95]

6pm Easter Friday  ..   Avsim Video streaming  --   there is a MJC8 Q400 being flown  LIVE.

You can text chat with the pilot as he flies  (and  his Instructor)

 

http://www.twitch.tv/captiainaviation

[Pict 15]

@L.Adamson - i only said msfs doesn't simulate torque well...not that it didnt at all - and that's from comparing it with my experiences flying in real life. What i was just saying was that simmers who use xplane and flightgear would be more used to seeing and handling the more visible p-factor and torque effects as well induced lift. I was not implying msfs fdm isn't any good.

 

Torque/p-factor is most noticable on climbout when angle of attack and power are both high...the the mu2 you'll get a sharp roll to the right if you dont apply roll trim prior to taking off for example...it diminishes as speed increases and the aircraft is levelled (the heavy wing effect...).

 

X-plane is twitchy but also a lot of that sensitivity can be helped by calibrating your controls a bit...problem is its how the .acf maker models the aircrafts fdm itself.

 

Also i'm not aware that msfs takes into account propeller rotation direction other than all rotating clockwise when viewed from behind- buuuuut i could be wrong. Planes are generally easy to fly in real life but there are some which are pretty challenging eg q400s, mu2s (i can speak for the mu2 as its what i logged most my hours in), early learjets...

[jose88 50]

What is the best tutorial for the Q400? I found the Majestic tutorial not same useful as PMDG tutorial style... I want to learn to fly it and its VNAV.

[Grant1299 1]

There is a YouTube Channel called frooglesim he does full in depth tutorials and how to's on all sorts of aircraft and he is making a tutorial on the mjs q400 vnav system should be out this week or next

[jose88 50]

There is a YouTube Channel called frooglesim he does full in depth tutorials and how to's on all sorts of aircraft and he is making a tutorial on the mjs q400 vnav system should be out this week or next

Ok I have it! Thanks!

[LAdamson 240]

@L.Adamson - i only said msfs doesn't simulate torque well...not that it didnt at all - and that's from comparing it with my experiences flying in real life. What i was just saying was that simmers who use xplane and flightgear would be more used to seeing and handling the more visible p-factor and torque effects as well induced lift. I was not implying msfs fdm isn't any good.Torque/p-factor is most noticable on climbout when angle of attack and power are both high...the the mu2 you'll get a sharp roll to the right if you dont apply roll trim prior to taking off for example...it diminishes as speed increases and the aircraft is levelled (the heavy wing effect...).X-plane is twitchy but also a lot of that sensitivity can be helped by calibrating your controls a bit...problem is its how the .acf maker models the aircrafts fdm itself. Also i'm not aware that msfs takes into account propeller rotation direction other than all rotating clockwise when viewed from behind- buuuuut i could be wrong. Planes are generally easy to fly in real life but there are some which are pretty challenging eg q400s, mu2s (i can speak for the mu2 as its what i logged most my hours in), early learjets...

From your hours in the MU2, I suppose you'll need to tell me more. I'm open to listening. From what I've seen, the pre-takeoff aileron trim to the left, is one degree. That's not much. I seen the video with left yoke applied after takeoff to support the "torque roll to the right".....but what I saw, is a left cross wind correction. I saw no wing dip at rotation. I've also watched a lot of MU2 takeoff videos. I seen left yoke, right yoke, and just about nothing yoke. I could never find pilot reports that mention a strong right roll on takeoff. And I read a lot of them, including the FAA investigative reports. I did find the following. It's not suggesting yanking back on the yoke too soon, but it never suggestes a tendency to roll on takeoff. No pilot reports did, except for flight sim related ones.

 

 

The MU–2 flies wonderfully but it needs to be flown like a jet—by the numbers. With Burton’s help, I found that you don’t need to touch the “aileron” trim (basically small servo tabs on the trailing edge of the flaps) at all during normal, two-engine flight. As long as the power is set evenly and the ball centered using rudder trim, the MU–2 is rock stable. And that high wing loading means the airplane rides through turbulence without much fuss, like a jet.

 

Takeoffs are exhilarating since the airplane sits so low to the ground. Acceleration is brisk. Short-body MU–2s have their main landing gear behind the CG, requiring quite a pull to rotate. Once the airplane breaks ground, you have to relax the back-pressure you used to haul it off the runway. The long-body airplane requires a tug but otherwise is essentially standard in its takeoff handling. With four people, full fuel, and cool temperatures, the MU–2 exceeded 2,000 feet per minute in the initial climb.

 

Burton sets cruise power by fuel flow rather than using the torque gauges—it’s more accurate in his airplane. If the fuel flows are matched, the ball stays in the center, reducing pilot workload and adding comfort. The MU–2 has a powerful rudder so it’s quite sensitive in yaw. You’ll need all of that rudder, though, if one of those 715-shaft-horsepower engines quits at low airspeed. Thankfully, the MU–2 has a negative torque sensing system that automatically increases propeller-blade pitch to significantly reduce drag in the event of a power loss. It needs to be checked prior to every flight.

 

And yes, MSFS will portray a nice strong pull to the right, just as the RealAir Griffon powered Spitfire does.

As for "induced lift", which would have to also mean induced drag, I'm not sure where you're going with that. I used many well known MSFS models, that have a very good sense of power to weight. That, and the drift motions due to those torque/P-factor and slipstream, are something I always tend to notice first.

 

.

[Pict 15]

Basically in the mu-2 there aren't any 'tabs' at the wings' trailing edges...it has full span double slotted flaps..roll is controlled entirely by roll spoilers. The checklist item is 'Trims .....set' meaning roll spoilers one mark to the left...and in the aircraft i fly...rudder trim to the scotch tape line placed by the chief pilot to the left lol. Once set, the roll and yaw on take off is very minimal. She's beautiful to fly...as long as you respect her limits! :-D

 

Induced lift comes from the accelerated airflow over the wings from the props (in the vicinity/behind of the prop).

 

I fly by matching the egts in the mu2 (because of the SRL system and they're more of a limit at altitude than torque).

 

The roll that you mentioned from an engine failure earlier isnt from being close stall speed necessarily...it's called a Vmca-roll...some airplanes its (the Vmca) above the stall speed...others its below...but its a speed to beware of in an engine failure (red radial line on a kingairs airspeed indicator for example).

 

Sorry to be so marconic in my sentences (my thumbs are tired from the phone screen).

 

Edit...a couple pics from one of my text books show it better.

 

 

Mods and op: sorry for straying from topic

[KingGhidorah 209]

Can't wait to get this plane once they fix the flight model to interact with FSX.  Hard to believe how something that doesn't respond to the weather inside FSX  gets rated as a good flight model, at least not yet.  Looks like they have a bit of work to do, and if they do this, hopefully by the time the Pro version comes around, I'll get it for sure.  I know beforehand that I simply couldn't enjoy a plane that didn't respond to the environment through which it is flying.  Whether I'm cruising in a light chop, or trying to land in a monsoon, I don't want the aircraft to behave as if it's flying in laboratory conditions, unless I actually am.  That's a shame, because out of all the planes I was enthusiastic about for 2013, this was the one.  I still am enthusiastic, but I'm waiting with guarded caution.