Best Turbo Prop Airliner

[RJC68 823]

Greetings,

 

I am looking to add a turbo prop airliner to my fleet. Since owning the awesome Flyjsim 732 I have loved flying with a non glass cockpit.

 

I was looking at either the Embraer 110 or the Saab 340A

 

Would love to hear any thoughts on either of these 2 addons

 

Regards

 

Richard

[Morrigan 90]

Turboprops, my favourites!

 

In my experience, Embraer 110 is actually quite different than 340A. And they fly pretty differently. Think of Saab and something a bit larger, heavier and more "sophisticated" in a sense.

So it really depends on what you are looking for. If something more similar to E-110, I would like you to take a look at Carenado B1900D. It's currently my favourite turboprop. It not only flies beautifuly but Carenado made sure that everything visually is top notch. 

 

On the other hand, I own Saab 340A, and while I prefer B1900D, S340A s an amazing plane that is maybe a bit more challenging than the previous two, but also is really fun to fly

 

Cheers.

[alpha12125 213]

Saab is a study level sim that is used by some operators still using the Saab, so it is in terms of systems depth one, if not the most sophisticated x-plane out there.  If you look for somethings that has complete systems like the 732 the Saab is the only serious contender.  That beeing said the 1900D is a joy to fly, the E-110 i dont own sadly.

[SouthPawPaul 11]

Another +1 for the Saab here. A truly remarkable model. With the addition of X-Plane's built in GNS 530 nicely modelled into the 3D cockpit, you can "fly the magenta line" or go old school radio navigation. Choice is yours.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

Real Saab operators use x-plane and Saab?

[kneighbour 32]

I too vote for the Saab 340A. It has a few VERY annoying features, but is it the best modelled aircraft I have in X-Plane. It looks stunning - as good, probably better than any Carenado aircraft looks, but is modelled a lot better than a Carenado. Pretty much every system is modelled and is arguably one of the best study aircraft in XP. Unfortunately the documentation is rather poor and it is hard to find manuals on the net (I still haven't).

 

Another thing - you have to setup the Condition levers EVERY single time you do anything which drives me silly (bit like the JS32, I think). Really awful system in my opinion. There are also a number of special keys you really need to setup for the Saab that stuff up your other aircraft. ie the autopilot disconnect uses a non standard dataref, etc. If you change planes a lot these special datarefs might kill it for you.

 

I really like flying the Saab and it is currently my go-to aircraft and I use it a lot in FSE - it seats 36.

 

I also fly the Dash-8 Q400 (seats 76, I think), but this is getting pretty old now and is not in the same class as the Saab. But it is quite fast and carries double the payload, so is very good for FSEconomy. If you want to make money in FSE, this is the one to go for.

 

I have the Carenado B1900D and hate it. Not so much the implementation by Carenado (which seems ok), but the plane itself has pretty poor visibility from the cockpit and has pretty basic navigation systems. Obviously a personal opinion.

 

I also love the STMA PC-12, but that is only a 10 seater. Not sure how small you want to go, but this is a superb aircraft to fly, a real sports car in the air. I have done hundreds of hours in it with FSE and the STMA version is modelled perfectly. I would not recommend the Carenado version (even though it looks better). Also the best support I have seen with any XP product.

 

The Saab seems to get the vote so far and I agree.

[GoranM 3,762]

Real Saab operators use x-plane and Saab?

Yes.  The LES Saab is used by more than one Saab operator in their pilot training.  

[Jimmy RFR 406]

I have the E110 and the Saab.  As excellent as the Saab is, it's as mentioned, a study level sim that requires a LOT of practice in order to get cozy with.  The E110 is much easier to handle, I've found.

 

I have Carenado's B1900 in FSX, and I've never liked flying it enough to warrant me picking it up for XP.  Nothing bad, just not an exciting / fun / interesting aircraft.

 

I've looked at the Q400 in XP, but since I'm rather fond of the MJ Q400 in FSX, I have a feeling I'd be disappointed by it, so I've passed on it as well.

[Phantom88 3,284]

Go for The LES Saab,You'll become immersed in it's complex systems and won't grow bored in a month or so.

[mmerelles 78]

i do agree with all comments here, the saab 340 is the best turboprop for xplane by a large margin, and also one of the best paywares for xplane.

 

 

Another thing - you have to setup the Condition levers EVERY single time you do anything which drives me silly (bit like the JS32, I think). Really awful system in my opinion. There are also a number of special keys you really need to setup for the Saab that stuff up your other aircraft. ie the autopilot disconnect uses a non standard dataref, etc. If you change planes a lot these special datarefs might kill it for you.

 

 

my advice would be to install an xplane's add-on or a lua script to pre-program your settings on a per aircraft basis to your liking, so you do not have to touch anything while moving one aircraft to another.

 

i.e. every complex payware uses a custom proprietary dataref for -a/p disc- to mimc its real life counter part. mapping your desired button or key to its custom dataref on a per aircraft basis solves this issue.

 

axis assignment, sensitivities, etc. are also required to be tuned on a per aircraft basis, a C172 flies quite different than a B777. also the C172 has mixture control but on the 777 you may use a second axis for split throttle control (L&R). Rudder tuning is also very important to have a good experience on a per aircraft basis, etc.

 

The CLs can also be pre-assigned so you do not have to re-assign them each flight no matter you switch aircrafts. Only consideration is, if you add or remove hardware from your setup the axis indexes may vary and you will have to update them which takes a second or two.

[kneighbour 32]

Go for The LES Saab,You'll become immersed in it's complex systems and won't grow bored in a month or so.

I disagree with this somewhat. The systems are not really that complex. There is no FMS for example, so we are not looking at 737-800 complexity or anything. No auto throttle, no VNAV, etc. It is a step up from plain VOR navigation, which is a good thing. The GNS530 interfaces fairly well.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

 

I also love the STMA PC-12, but that is only a 10 seater. Not sure how small you want to go, but this is a superb aircraft to fly, a real sports car in the air. I have done hundreds of hours in it with FSE and the STMA version is modelled perfectly. I would not recommend the Carenado version (even though it looks better). Also the best support I have seen with any XP product.

 

 

 

What makes this one better than the carenado one?

[kneighbour 32]

The CLs can also be pre-assigned so you do not have to re-assign them each flight no matter you switch aircrafts. Only consideration is, if you add or remove hardware from your setup the axis indexes may vary and you will have to update them which takes a second or two.

Well, this is a bit off topic, but I would LOVE to work out how to do this. When I fly the Saab, I generally have to set the CL 4 or 5 times and it gets very tiring. My axis indexes are always the same (31 and 32) so it beats me why I have to assign them so often. I also get the 'engine won't start' problem, so that again means an aircraft reload and yet another CL assignment.

 

I have the CLs set for other aircraft no problem.

 

Any tips most welcome.

[GoranM 3,762]

I disagree with this somewhat. The systems are not really that complex. There is no FMS for example, so we are not looking at 737-800 complexity or anything. No auto throttle, no VNAV, etc. It is a step up from plain VOR navigation, which is a good thing. The GNS530 interfaces fairly well.

 

Kerry, I have to interject here.  You can't reasonably compare the systems of a glass jet airliner to that of a turbo prop. Apples and oranges.  

If you're going to publicly bash an add on that took us 3 years to make, I'd appreciate it if you did it with facts...not opinions.  If you need clarification, you know where you can find us.

[kneighbour 32]

Kerry, I have to interject here.  You can't reasonably compare the systems of a glass jet airliner to that of a turbo prop. Apples and oranges.  

If you're going to publicly bash an add on that took us 3 years to make, I'd appreciate it if you did it with facts...not opinions.  If you need clarification, you know where you can find us.

Nobody is bashing anything - perhaps you should re-read my comments? I think the 340A is a great plane. I was commenting on the complexity of this aircraft as Phantom88 intimated that it had complex systems. I was suggesting that the systems were not that complex and this should not be  a turnoff. This is a GOOD thing....

 

I would also like to say - EVERYTHING in these forums is personal opinion. The OP actually asked for opinions (ie thoughts).