Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest Adverse Yawn

Which small GA twin best for flight training

Recommended Posts

Hi,Sorry if this starts another war, but, I am looking for suggestions on a light twin for the purpose of procedural training. In other words, it should have as many systems modeled as possible to simulate what it takes to fly a twin. I would like a fully clickable virtual cockpit, but that's not mandatory. Fake buttons are fine, but I would like to be able to go through the full checklists. I already have the DF Baron, but am wondering if there are any others out there that fit the bill even better or equally as well. I'm not super interested in end-all be-all avionics, in fact, I prefer to go more simply, as I'm sure most of the aircraft I might eventually use probably will not have a topoftheline GPS/HSI/whatever setup.Thanks,Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CowlFlapsOpen

I use the DF Baron for this too. The Aeroworx B200 is this finest aircraft made if you're after modelled systems in this category and want a heavier turboprop IMHO. Aeroworx is working on a Baron and, judging from the caliber of the B200, it ought to be superb. However, almost nothing is know about the details and release date. Interested in what others come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my recommendation: FSD Seneca.I'd also do a forum search as I've seen this topic quite a few times--even recently. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi,>>Sorry if this starts another war, but, I am looking for>suggestions on a light twin for the purpose of procedural>training. In other words, it should have as many systems>modeled as possible to simulate what it takes to fly a twin. >I would like a fully clickable virtual cockpit, but that's not>mandatory. Fake buttons are fine, but I would like to be able>to go through the full checklists. I already have the DF>Baron, but am wondering if there are any others out there that>fit the bill even better or equally as well. I'm not super>interested in end-all be-all avionics, in fact, I prefer to go>more simply, as I'm sure most of the aircraft I might>eventually use probably will not have a topoftheline>GPS/HSI/whatever setup.>>Thanks,>>Thomas>>I like using VC's :-)What twin are you going to be training in? The Piper Seminole? the Seneca I? or II? a Baron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I believe I will have a choice of any one of those 4 actually for my own real world training (If I can ever get back to it). But I am also looking at this from the perspective of the business I have started (see below), so I'm not really restricted. I purchased the FSD Seneca V, but am dissapointed with it. Nice aircraft, good design, but not what I was looking for in terms of detail of systems (I do like the damage modeling idea though, that's a cool idea). Hardly anything is clickable in the VC. The DF Baron is much closer (right on in fact) for what I am looking for. Are there any other light twins with that amount of system detail?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest aca_dia

The FSD Seneca is a great aircraft with one of the best light twin flight models available. It is however years older than say the DF Baron that makes use of the latest VC technology and has more bells and whistles. From an expense standpoint in the real word neither is commonly used as a primary multiengine trainer. By far the two most used twins for training are the Seminole and Duchess, but I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Adverse Yawn

>>But the VC is not clickable either.Huh? It is so! :) Which bits are you clicking? I can do all my checks from the VC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Adverse Yawn

Jcomm speaks the truth. Elite is the dogs doodleys of serious simming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AY, does using the CH Yoke, throttle quad and pedals work ok, or is it necessary to get the (rather expensive) Elite hardware for the software to "shine"?EDIT: Oh, and what is the greatest difference between MSFS and Elite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jgoldman

Guys:Just a small message to let all of you know that the FSD Seneca will be going through a major upgrade and will have all the whistles and bells working in the future :)BestJim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Jcomm speaks the truth. Elite is the dogs doodleys of serious>simming.The problem is..they need expensive hardware to go with it. They are not open systems that would support Go flight or things of that nature for avionics.mouse click for radio just about kills it.We need a FSUIPC like tool for it.'The CH yoke and CH pedals would work.I have ON Top which I like..but I cannot use as a sim with the mouse/radio thingi you can never pass the test...and it doesn't support any hardware than the one they sell which works only on their product.But I still use use the On Top trainer for learning.. Its only $100 bucks. Elite is slightly more open. Their avionics I suspect works with MSFsim. so if you do invest in their radio.. you can use it for fsim as well.. I think this is true.But Elite doesn't have a trainer like On TOP does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't used FlyII in a long time. Hard to support the use of multiple systems. MSFS takes too much of my time as it is. But that is an interesting thought, I'll check it out. I assume it doesn't work with TrackIR, though.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Elite and Pro-trainer go, currently I am working on a shoe string budget. MSFS is cool because it is relatively inexpensive, very expandable, and easy to cart around to different locations. My goal is to interest non-pilots in flying, and provide something that is fun and usable both for class time and for school enrichment programs. I am not a CFI. The cool thing about MSFS is that the scenery is very close to reality, so my customers (both children and adults) will recognize where they are when they are flying. I am not necessarily trying to be super realistic as I am immersive, yet realistic enough so it is not totally a game, so they actually learn something. I would, however, like to go through a section on checklists, hence, my focus here on aircraft with realistic systems. The plane I am using now is modeled on my own plane (PA28-180), and you can go through the whole checklist in the VC (which isn't saying much :-)). But I could see expanding to more complex aircraft, hence the question here.But, I could see in the future, after I get some experience, expanding, getting a loan, and going for the more top of the line systems for a portion of my business. I think by that time I'd like to have my CFI as well, which is a long way off at the moment. But things change.Thanks, this is great info,Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jcomm

What do you mean by Trainer?ELITE Prop comes with a satisfatory coverage of GA aircraft:Cessna 172R Cessna 182S Cessna 182RG Piper Archer III Piper Arrow IV Mooney M20J Beech Bonanza A36 Socata TB20 Socata TB10 Piper Seneca III Beech Baron 58 King Air B200 I too have the On_Top 8 demo, and I like it, but the FM and FD, as well as sketchy GPS, ruin an otherwise interesting experience...Yes, one can use ELITE hardware with MSFS (through a driver that makes use of FSUIPC, but I'd rather be able to use CH TQ with ELITE to control the twins assimetricaly, which is not possible :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Adverse Yawn

The standard CH Yoke and Pedals work fine. But I don't know about the new quad. Best in the forums at www.flyelite.com. I suspect it doesn't.I bought the ELITE KingAir quad which also works in FS. But at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Adverse Yawn

Cost depends where you are starting from. ELITE computing demands are minimal. So not having buy a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What do you mean by Trainer?>>ELITE Prop comes with a satisfatory coverage of GA aircraft:>http://www.spinnerspilotshop.com/cgi-local....html?E+scstoreASA IP Trainer.. Its simply fantastic. For the price $200-$250 its a steal.Its like an instructor is sitting next to you... telling you what to do...at each stage. Within that there are different modes.. the easiest is..you just sit and the instructor does everything for you... to the hardest.. where you do everything yourself or you get dinged.. and then there is the inbetweens.. where you do it..and when you make a mistake.. you stop, learn..rewind to the part prior to your mistake and try againsince I don't have the Avionics hardware for this.. and I don't intent to buy anything that is so propraitary as the ASA avionics, I use the listen to the instructor mode.. and that alone is worth the $200bucks.To my knowledge.. ASA IP trainer is the only one of this kind.This is different from ON TOP simulators.. with different aircrafts... which are comparable to the elite.http://www.pilotmall.com/page/1/PROD/16956

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Adverse Yawn

And the greatest difference between the two is that the aircraft in Elite are specifically constructed to perform like the real ones, but only within the operational flight envelope so no inverted flight and stuff. Little foiables are represented such as a Senecas tendancy to leap off the ground at rotate speed. Stalls are not well done. But all the instruments work extremely realistically so it is possible to practice partial panel unusual attitude reovery, something which is not possible in FS nor X-plane. Every single button works on the avionics so you practice flying exactly as you do flying! That is the major difference! Oh and trimming is a dream compared to FS and XP :)We warned, it is not a Surley Bonds and Silver Wings simulator like FS. Airports are generic things with specific realistic dimensions where it matters like freqs, navs, length, alt and slope. Stuff like landings and taxing are superfluous although you can do them but they are somewhat unrewarding.Don't delay, download the demo today :DAlso, it is primarily an IFR sim, but GenView (for the UK at least) is just about good enought for VFR navigation if you have a VFR chart because it displays roads, rivers, railroads, lakes, hills and towns. But the imagary is very spartan with no texture mapping to speak of. Did I mention the sloping runways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...