I have a few questions... Could anyone give me details of the PMDG 1900C as far as flight characteristics and does it show icing on the wing or any alerts of wing icing etc?I have read a little about the ATR 72-500... I am interested in both and sure I will purchase both. But which one do I get first :-badteeth I have a force feedback joystick and was wondering if the 1900c feels pretty similar to the kingair or does it fly a little heavier?If anyone could kinda brief me on this it would be appreciated..Oh and which one easier to jump into and better chances of fly and learn...:-bla J/K a little bit will read a little after the 2nd crash maybe... Thanks

I have neither, but I do have the B1900D (which I like very much). What I can offer is that the 1900C and ATR are on opposite ends of the spectrum as far as depth is concerned. The PMDG 1900 series is meant to be easy to fly--and it is--virtually an "out of the box" flyer that doesn't require being checked out on a 1900 to fly.Flight1's ATR is something else altogether. There's some products that are universally embraced by those who crave realism, attention to detail, and immersion. Flight1's ATR is it--as good as they come--given what my peers here say. That's also why there's such a price difference between the two products. Both are worth every penny--it is just a matter of what you want to start off with.As for flying qualities, I don't know how close the 1900D hits the numbers, but I found it great to fly. Knowing Flight 1 and their unblemished reputation, I suspect their ATR has the same qualities. But their ATR may have a higher learning curve and require you to "RTM" before you take her up and get the pax airsick. The 1900 series are such that if you can fly the Kingair, you can fly the 1900's.-John

>>I have a few questions... Could anyone give me details of the>PMDG 1900C as far as flight characteristics and does it show>icing on the wing or any alerts of wing icing etc?>>I have read a little about the ATR 72-500... I am interested>in both and sure I will purchase both. But which one do I get>first :-badteeth >>I have a force feedback joystick and was wondering if the>1900c feels pretty similar to the kingair or does it fly a>little heavier?>>If anyone could kinda brief me on this it would be>appreciated..>>Oh and which one easier to jump into and better chances of fly>and learn...:-bla >>J/K a little bit will read a little after the 2nd crash>maybe...>>> Thanks>In comparing these two aircrafts you are basically comparing apples and oranges: I own all three products: the atr, and both versions of the 1900 made by PMDG. The latter are designed to be easy to fly, basically with the two from PMDG you are getting default King Air gauges with a few visual upgrades included. This is PMDGs "Express Line" and is sold at a very affordable rate. If "systems modelling" and "systems fidelity" is your main goal, then get the ATR.ricardo

I've got the ATR and the Beech 1900D. Both have excellent visual models and nice looking panels. Both have very good flight models and are great to hand fly. The ATR has tremendous depth and is a real study in flight systems. It takes quite a while to really get it, but the effort is very worth while. The Beech is a great plane to hop in and fly with out too much prep, but certainly doesn't have the depth of the ATR. The Beech is also cheaper. I guess it depends on what you want. Personally I spend more time in the ATR, but both are fun to fly.

the B1900c has a few page manual, the ATRs manual is 200 pages....I jumpped in and flew the 1900C no proble, I couldnt start the ATR...but I dont read manuals so there ya have it

Two completely different types of products...The 1900C is a basic package with good gauges and a good flight model, but no real systems interaction etc. The ATR is a serious study-sim with full systems simulation along the lines of the PMDG 737 or the LDS 767. It all depends on what you want - if you want complex get the ATR, if you want something that you can jump in and fly without some time put in on reading the manual, get the 1900C.

>the B1900c has a few page manual, the ATRs manual is 200>pages....I jumpped in and flew the 1900C no proble, I couldnt>start the ATR...but I dont read manuals so there ya have itAh, so you use the abbreviated ATR manual - Mine has 480 pages!Guess that tells you where the two aircraft are at, complexity wise!Allcott

Well Gents... I wish I woulda read this earlier.. I broke down and got the ATR...I am kinda worried about it now... Especially seeing that manual ugh...Put it this way I have a lexmark z52 printer and my black ink is wiped out.. Guess it was getting low anyways.. (LOL)...Actually from what I have picked up on so far the ATR is great the only problem I have is...If anyone could help me please.. I am trying to set my navigation system up and fly the autopilot. I have no problem setting up Vspeed and Altitude. Oh and I added the GPS to the ATR..Oh and I have tried making a flight plan and importing it but when I hit the NAV on the autopilot I get nothing..Lets say I want to fly from KICT to KDAL.What would I do to correctly config that in the ATR to fly it? And when I get to KDAL anyone know how I would set the ATR up for approach with the autopilot.If anyone can help me with this it would be greatly appreciated..I have done gone bonkers looking at this manual. THANKS,

Get the ATR...

Get the ATR for a good workout. Get the B1900 for those times when you want a quick and easy trip. Have at least one plane handy for every mood and purpose.

>Have at least one plane handy for every mood and purpose.That is a very sensible piece of advice and one that I often overlook. Sometimes the mood is for simple and other times it isn't. Well said Steve.

hello this is a respnse to the gentleman that has the 1900d, i have the 1900c, and i have a question about the GS when landing for some reason when the Glide scope is captured the plane does not respond even if i use the VS to lower myself, i end up just flying the plane manualy.What am i doing wrong.Thanks ............Robert

Also, it helps to be able to look at the acquisition of a complicated airplane as a process in itself. First, you have the fun of choosing one. Then, when you get it, you realize that you can't just blast off in it and run around with your hair on fire. So, if you can bring it into your fleet with some sort of deliberate process, you may enjoy that part, too. In my limited experience transitioning from one plane to another, I and my classmates had weeks of academics, followed by a dozen midnight (I was always lucky that way) sims, followed by individual crew rides with IP's and IWSO's (I was a WSO in the RF4-C), then a long series of training sorties as assigned student crews. I will not punish myself by trying to pick up something with multiple new, to me, systems in a couple of hours. I only do that with new cars, stereos, cameras, and power tools when I am fortunate enough to be able to (not often). Then, I go back and read the books, as I should have in the first place.So, a good plan might be to go through the books system by system, with some hands-on in the sim, and get up to speed with the checklists and the systems knowledge behind them before actually putting it all together for the first "real" flight. It takes time to develop the "pacing" required to fit those pesky checklists into the flight profile properly. You have to know what to do and when to do it, and you will get there.Digesting the complicated sim airplane is kind of like eating a big, multi-course meal: You don't want to gobble it down without tasting it. When you are in that kind of mood, have fun with a burger and fries, or enjoy one of the more basic airplanes.Gotta work now - Regards to all - Steve

I Have both, and I'd get the ATR first.

The ATR - if you would like to have pleasure for a long time and if you like to learn how to fly. Then, one day, you will fly it nearly always.gorzi (EDDH)