My impression of this package (as an addendum to the previous post regarding the single engine portion of the dynamics), are that the aircraft rates as an above average flightsim experience. Dynamic pitch trim stability (as in trimming for approach) seems pretty wormy and unstable, somewhere along the lines of the default aircraft in Flight Simulator. Crosswind performance is very rough as slips appear to have the same unrealistic goofy characteristics as the default planes.FlightSim Developers and Realair both seem to have a leg up on Dreamfleet with their flight dynamics, although the DF Baron is a very nice plane otherwise.

Rico, your experiences are, of course what they are but mine are entirely different than yours.Fairness requires me to say that I was a member of the Beta team for this ship but I have no other affiliation with Dreamfleet.You can only report on your rig and I can only report on mine...as far as my own direct experience but I can say that no other member of the Beta team experienced what you report.Each of the flight conditions you report on were exhaustively tested across a wide range of hardware rigs and by both sim-only and RW pilots with LOTS of time in Barons and/or...is in my case...hundreds of hours in light twins comparable to the Baron.Specifically, pitch trim dynamics are not the least bit "unstable" or "wormy" on my rig and in fact, are as fluid as any first rate add-on that I have ever flown. More importantly, trim dynamics are very, very similar to that in RW aircraft in my personal experience.Regarding crosswind characteristics, I also have not experienced the "goofy characteristics" you say you are experiencing. Of course, actual and simulated crosswind landings require a certain degree of skill and we can't know what your skill level might be. What I can say without fear of informed contradiction, is that LOTS of aspects in simulated flight are far too easy compared to RW flying and that includes crosswind landings. Just read the RW accident reports for confirmation. So, it is true that add-on developers cannot be held responsible for any skill shortcomings on the part of sim pilots. Sometimes, "goofy" behavior is pilot induced and not the fault of the add-on.But again, speaking from my own personal experience, I find crosswind landings to be "as real as it gets" within the FS9 environment.All in all, I find the Baron 58 to be unsurpassed in light twin sim performance from virtually every point of view. It is now my first choice light twin for FS9.Re: your comments on FSD and RealAir, I am a BIG fan of both organizations and own several of their aircraft. However, RealAir does not produce any twin engine aircraft that I know of, so I think it is inappropriate to compare the "flight dynamics" of their ships with the Baron or any other twin engine aircraft.Sorry your experience with the DreamFleet Baron 58 is not as utterly positive as mine. I can only speculate that you may be experiencing some rig-specific issues. For sure, the only reason the Beta process came to an end was that there was literally nothing left to "fix"..at least within the context of what is possible in FS9.The DF Baron 58 is an exceptional add-on and I highly recommend it.Regards,jim

Hi Jim,The DF Baron is a fun aircraft to be sure, I just don't find it in the same league as an FSD twin in regards to flight dynamics. As you mention though, this might just be a matter of opinion. I find FSD twins much more stable in all fight regimes, particularly when trimmed out properly. The DF Baron seems to want to wander when trimmed for approach, whereas a FSD aircraft stays in trim like a real aircraft. To me, the DF Baron seems to have issues with CG of some sort - it just doesn't feel as precise as the real aircraft does, whereas FSD twins seem to fly with considerably more precision. Regarding crosswind landings, the DF Baron does not slip like a real aircraft should (i.e. lose both altitude and airspeed). I mention the Realair aircraft because they are perhaps the only aircraft ever developed for Flight Simulator that actually do slip properly. I'm AMEL/IFR rated, with most of my multi-time in a Piper Seneca. Regarding real vs. simulated flight, you have some valid points. Actually though, I find simming more difficult than real world flying in a lot of situations due to lack of control feel and hindered visual perspectives.

Sorry Jimbo, but I gotta go with Ricardo on this one. The DreamFleet Baron really IS unstable when you try to trim it off for landing. At least with my CH Yoke. It feels like there is a 500 pound crate in back that keeps sliding fore and aft. The Flightsim Developer's 337 is super rock solid in comparison with my same hardware configuration. I also agree that the DF Baron has some sort of funky Center of Gravity problem! Sumpthin just ain't right someplace.Nothing that cant be fixed. But you gotta admit its broke before you can get to fixing it :)

>Sorry Jimbo, but I gotta go with Ricardo on this one. The>DreamFleet Baron really IS unstable when you try to trim it>off for landing. At least with my CH Yoke. It feels like>there is a 500 pound crate in back that keeps sliding fore and>aft. The Flightsim Developer's 337 is super rock solid in>comparison with my same hardware configuration. I also agree>that the DF Baron has some sort of funky Center of Gravity>problem! Sumpthin just ain't right someplace.>>Nothing that cant be fixed. But you gotta admit its broke>before you can get to fixing it :)I have both of these airplanes, and a Saitek X-45 stick. I too, fly real airplanes and while sim flying, I'm always trimming throughout the flight envelope as required, with my joysticks hatswitch. Now........... I don't see an unstable Baron while trying to land, let alone a 500 lb. crate sliding fore and aft. I think I'd notice these things, if it was so... L.Adamson

>>I'm AMEL/IFR rated, with most of my multi-time in a Piper Seneca. I've not flown a Baron, but the Seneca is an extrmeley stable aircraft. I would be cuatious of comparing the DF Baron with your R/W Seneca experience (if that is what you are doing). If you are comparing to R/W Baron experience then fair doos :)

Actually though, I find simming more difficult than>real world flying in a lot of situations due to lack of>control feel and hindered visual perspectives.< -------------------------------------------------------------Get the 'TrackIR4' hardware and then, tell me it's not the same? I only fly with it now. Anything without a decent clickable 'VC' has been towed out of my hanger and dumped!Dave T. .........On the Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

I fully agree with L.Adamson. There ARE no such trim instability or funky CG issues...at least none that are not rig-specific.<off for landing.>>There is NO SUCH THING as "trimimg off for landing" sir...at least not in the steady state sense of trimming for ascent, descent or cruise. Unlike those regimes, landing is a process of nearly constant altitude, atitude and airspeed variations...nevermind variations associated with incremental flap/gear deployment.The NEED for pitch adjustments is virtually contant throughout the landing regime and you accomplish such adjustments with some combination of yoke pressure and/or trim adjustments.Also, with respect to "funky CG" issues, most twins exhibit Dutch Roll in greater or lesser degrees. Yaw dampers help but due to the dymanics of twin prop aircraft, it cannot be eliminated.The vast majority of default and add-on light twins don't model Dutch Roll AT ALL, let alone correctly, so possibly, the "rock solid" feel mentioned in this thread is a modelling flaw...not the other way around.The above issue points out one of the primary problems faced by developers...i.e. modelling for a mass audience not the very small segment with advanced yoke/throttle/rudder rigs and those who are skilled real world pilots.For example, especially unrealistic in nearly all sim aircraft, including the ones mentioned in this thread, is the fact that five year olds can execute "chirp and stick" landings without anything resembling the actual skill required to do so in the real world.Just set up a 400 fpm rate of descent (that's 6.7 feet per second) and drive the aircraft onto the runway, and in nearly all sim aircraft, you will get a pleasant tire chirp and little or no float or bouncing. Try dropping a real aircraft nearly 7 feet in a single second onto the runway and see what happens...and make sure that your hull insurance is paid up.But if the developer goes for total reality, then they wouldn't sell any product because the mass audience has become accostomed to getting highly satisfying landings without the "RW" skills required to execute them. The masses will think there is "something wrong" with the flight model.I don't mean to bust anyones bubble on that point but facts are facts.But back to the core topic, for sure, there are no issues with the Baron trim...except those which might be associated with a specific rig and/or pilot skill and/or within the context of what is possible in FS9.But now, while reminding everyone that I DO NOT speak for ANY developer, I am now going to recuse myself from this thread since, with all due and genuine respect to all posters here...including those with only a few posts, I am always...ummm...interested, when contributors with only a very few posts chime in with positive/negative views about certain developers.Regards,Jim

FWIW, while I've never flown a twin in real life, the DF baron seems ok to me at all stages except final touchdown. I find it very difficult to prevent bouncing. I almost always bounce when I drop power before the flare. ppl have told me to try doing a slight power on landing, and while it has improved matters a bit, it's still not terrific.In defense of Dreamfleet, I find their A36 to be superb in all respects. I could possibly use a smidge more ground effect, but that is a subject of debate. It feels dead on balls to me.I have tried the FSD Piper Navajo, and I think it might have a slightly more refined flight model in some respects to the Baron, but it's been a while.

>FWIW, while I've never flown a twin in real life, the DF>baron seems ok to me at all stages except final touchdown. I>find it very difficult to prevent bouncing. I almost always>bounce when I drop power before the flare. ppl have told me>to try doing a slight power on landing, and while it has>improved matters a bit, it's still not terrific.>And here I spent a good hour this morning (thanks to this thread) of doing landings & watching them in spot view replays. The nose remained at a constant angle until roundout and the flare; with no tendency to "fight" trim. And NO bounces either! :D But then..........I've flown twins in real life, as well as planes that can use a bit of power through the flare if needed. My sometimes "bouncy" landing airplane, and one that requires all the finess I can muster, is the RealAir Spitfire; but then I've noticed than many real life Spit landings could get a bounce here and there, too! :)L.Adamson

I have 135 hours in my b55 Baron right now and DF has it really good-really close...none of the problems stated.I also have 500 hours in a Debonair - flew 1 hour in an A36 a couple weeks ago.The Baron is as close to real world as I have seen yet-even better than the A36 imho.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Hi Geofa,Do you find that the DF Baron does not slip properly in a typical crosswind landing situation? My experience is that a slipping configuration actually causes the DF Baron to float rather than settle, as do the default Flight Simulator aircraft. I have a 1/4 interest in a 1989 Seneca, based at KPBI. 250 hours in this bird and I love it to pieces. We took it to Nassau over Thanksgiving. Blue water and blue sky cruising! I should post pictures of our trip on here sometime.Where do you keep your Baron?

Have not noticed a problem-based in kptk.My latest trip-2000 miles in one day. (last leg)http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7345Rhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

<>Sorry, just had to add that slip characteristics vary widely among RW aircraft models...so much so that slips are not approved in some aircraft with a given amount of flaps deployed, so one size does not fit all.In addition, IN GENERAL, a slip WILL NOT result in an erosion of BOTH altitude and airspeed. What slips generally permit is the loss of altutude WITHOUT a commensurate increase in airspeed.Besides, your comment was in regard to the landing phase during which, especially in twins, few pilots "slip" all the way down the glidepath but rather, adopt the slip somewhere on short final or...like most pilots in my experience, crab to the flair and then use aileron/rudder inputs to orient the aircraft for the landing. (I hate the "kick out the crab" description since there is no "kicking' going on but that's another story.)My point is that in the final landing phase, airspeed is systematically bleeding off and if you use the full "slip to land" technique, the last thing you would want to have happen is to experience an acceleration in airspeed and, ITRW, there is none.Nor is there any such thing in the RealAir Marchetti for example...which I agree, has one of the best flight models in all of simlation.I just flew it to confirm but in straight and level flight, when a sideslip is initiated, a descent occurs because of the associated loss of lift (due to the lower AOA of the lower wing relative to the raised wing) but airspeed remained exactly stable...because of the increase in parasite drag.For confirmation, just review Stick & Rudder at page 177 which states:"Sideslip is useful in maneuvering an airplane to a landing at a predetermined spot since it permits the pilot to get rid of altitude without picking up airspeed."It is simply incorrect for you to expect a loss of both altitude and airspeed as a result of a sideslip as your post suggests.You clearly prefer FSD flight models...which I agree are GREAT...and of course, you are entitled to that preference.But when your preferences are based on incorrect aerodynamic analysis, I feel that comment is appropriate.Regards,Jim

<>But in another thread, Rico posted that he was having much the same problems with the FSD 337 that he is having with the DF Baron...which is what leads me to believe that such issues are rig-specific and based upon a review of the DF support forum, do not seem to be occuring with hardly anyone else's rigs.I now have a BUNCH of hours in the DF Baron and while there are some other payware add-ons with equally great flight dynamics, there are none better...in my experience and on my rig...and I have at least one model from virtually all the leading developers.Regards,Jim