Which small GA twin best for flight training

[FlyingsCool 3]

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 :-)

[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.

[rightseat 277]

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. :-)

[Manny 1,293]

>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?

[FlyingsCool 3]

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 :-)

[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

[Manny 1,293]

Here is a discussion I had a few days back on the Just flight's Seneca II.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchI like their 2D View... its almost like the real rustic look of the Seneca II's you may find. But the VC is not clickable either.Howabout Dreamfleets Cessna 310?

[Guest jcomm]

I know this does not belong here, but for serious twin + ifr + systems why not investing in ELITEhttp://www.flyelite.comor ProTrainer,http://www.flyprotrainer.com/profeat.phpnot to forget Fly!2 + the *** free *** add-on twins from SimVol, etc... Systems wise no MSFS aircraft compares to it! Flightmodel-wise ... the same.

[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.

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

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

[SAS263 1]

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?

[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

[Manny 1,293]

>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.

[Manny 1,293]

Duplicate

[FlyingsCool 3]

Hi Jim,Thanks for that info. Will that upgrade be available to current purchasers?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)