Milviz PA-30 Twin Comanche

[KBUR 178]

5 hours ago, Milviz said:

So, after much discussion, we're going to do a second panel that will have the KAP140, a proper DG and HSI that will allow for the usage of the AP for those who just can't LIVE without an AP...  (what a crazy world... we're supposed to be flight simmers... not autopilot simmers...)

😉 different people, different needs.  I LOVE to fly WITHOUT AP and military/GA is the only I'm doing in P3D v4;  for me it's almost a must not to fly with AP.

I'll give the new Milviz Twin-Comanche a try.

Hey folks, dear fellow simmers:  " Be more adventurous and less lazy couch - potatos 😄 "

Thank you MILVIZ for your courage.

Edited October 28, 2018 by KBUR

[n4gix 4,947]

22 hours ago, Daedalus said:

Followed..Its really a simple plane, can't figure out why they don't start. Fuel level at max, magnetos on, electric fuel pumps on, fuel selectors on Mains, Prop Max, Mixture Max, Throttle 1/2. Starter activate, the prop spins for 2 seconds and stops again..

The 'solution' is posted in the Milviz forums. A minor edit to the aircraft.cfg file is all that's required for those very few with problems staring from Cold and Dark.

[ryanbatc 12,857]

2 hours ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

As a RW pilot who finds it relatively easy to maintain altitude in real aircraft - unfortunately - it's not as easy in our flight simulators - a moments inattention - and you're off on large unintentional altitude excursions... I  couldn't imagine making a three hour flight in flight simulator without altitude hold... I welcome the two options and I would think MilViz would gain many more sales from the option...

Any comments on the quality of the FDE would be appreciated - as it's the most important aspect that we can't glean from pictures...

Regards,
Scott

Spot on.  Trimming a real plane is Soo much easier

[ComSimPilot 623]

I just completed a flight from KHAF to O60. I'm not a real pilot but this plane flies very nicely and smoothly, a pure joy to handfly. The flight model seems very well done. I just used one VOR station and keeping the plane on track and on altitude was not a problem just needed constant monitoring. It's fun though!  Overall I'm very happy with the plane and the addition of autopilot will make it even more convinient to do longer routes.

PS. Fortunately my engine start issue was solved with a config change mentioned in the support forums (many thanks to appelboom 🙂 )

Edited October 29, 2018 by Daedalus

[tttocs 301]

5 hours ago, scottb613 said:

As a RW pilot who finds it relatively easy to maintain altitude in real aircraft - unfortunately - it's not as easy in our flight simulators - a moments inattention - and you're off on large unintentional altitude excursions... I  couldn't imagine making a three hour flight in flight simulator without altitude hold... I welcome the two options and I would think MilViz would gain many more sales from the option... 

Yep, this!

But beyond that...  Even in the RW, an autopilot turns an exhausting flight which can leave the pilot less than sharp for an approach and landing, into a well-rested pilot ready to finish safely. especially in a single pilot IFR situation.

Some years back, I departed my home airport along Colorado's Front Range for the annual trek to Oshkosh only to find that the AP in my Piper Turbo Arrow IV chose that trip to get flaky.  My then young son who was on the trip with me decided to be a bit of a tool and refused to take the yoke even for a moment while dad wrestled with charts and suchlike.  Think summer turbulence, and hours of flying.  By the time we got to Wisconsin, I was TIRED and less than sharp right when I needed to be.  The use of an AP on an extended trip like this is NOT an indication that the user is a lesser pilot - it's an indication that the pilot is a smart one who uses the available tools to make a safer flight.

I do a lot of hand flying in the sim and enjoy doing it, especially in planes with well done FDE's.  I've flown many, many enjoyable hours in Milviz' B55, 310 and 310 Redux and a lot (probably the majority) of those hours have been hand-flown.  But on long flights, or IFR in solid IMC, I still consider a decent AP to be an indispensable tool, and there's no way that as an owner, I would have something like a twin Comanche equipped with a modern GPS and a 1st class wx radar, but NO AP.

Thanks Milviz for reconsidering the way this plane is equipped, but...  C'mon: no need to take your customers to task for asking for something they'd insist on having in the real world in a plane equipped as this one is.

Scott

[ShezA 176]

20 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Spot on.  Trimming a real plane is Soo much easier

When I was trying to learn to fly the Just Flight C152 I found out that the reason this is the case is the over-sensitive setup of FSX/P3D to changes in the environment. The solution was to turn down the turbulence settings in Active Sky or whatever weather program to 20-30%. Apparently the base setting is for MS/LM default airplanes. This really sorted out the jumpiness of the aircraft especially the payware models.

Shez

 

[ryanbatc 12,857]

5 hours ago, ShezA said:

When I was trying to learn to fly the Just Flight C152 I found out that the reason this is the case is the over-sensitive setup of FSX/P3D to changes in the environment. The solution was to turn down the turbulence settings in Active Sky or whatever weather program to 20-30%. Apparently the base setting is for MS/LM default airplanes. This really sorted out the jumpiness of the aircraft especially the payware models.

Shez

 

Ok interesting I'll check it out!

[RedSpinnaker 35]

I'm not sure what the negative comments about an A/P are about. I've about 60 hours flying a TwinCo (both PA30 and PA39) up and down the east coast. It's a solid light twin, a joy to fly (has some quirks) and a great x-c IFR platform. However, if the plane didn't have the basic heading and altitude hold AP, not sure I'd take it on a long trip. Flying single-pilot in IMC through busy airspace (i.e. N90) on a 4+ hour trip... NOT having a basic A/P is crazy talk.

People that complain about autopilots... are you using VORs or GPS? I hope now, because it's SO much easier to navigate with a sextant!

Autopilots are there to reduce pilot workload. Granted that unfortunately people use it as a crutch, but they are there for a reason.

 

On a side note: I picked up the Twinkie over the weekend and am looking forward to taking it up for a spin this week.

Edited October 30, 2018 by RedSpinnaker

[AviatorMan 253]

Looks like a winner...I'm buying it tomorrow!

[AviatorMan 253]

Most comments in this thread have been about the autopilot, but hardly any discussion on how it flies: the flight model, general handling, etc. Any more comments on this from those who have bought this plane and have a few flying hours in it now?

[JesC 88]

After three days of pretty exhaustive flying and discovery I am thrilled with this simulation. I'm flying it with the Nastax option and having a great time working on my IFR proficiency. It has really upped my level of concentration. I also love the unique old style panel layout. It is increasing my awareness of my instrument scans.

Also enjoying challenging my navigation skills in general.  I'm getting re- familiarized with using those trusty sectional charts, too. Very valuable skills. It has really been sharpening my abilities and rounding out my simulation options. Satisfying.

I have found it refreshing to fly without an autopilot. I think that is a credit to the flight dynamics. And more to the point; the flight dynamics are awesome and represent the Twin Comanche very well. In fact, few sim aircraft realize basic flight dynamics this well. (Crosswind landings are to be relished for the experience in this one.)  It's a real joy to hand fly. I really wouldn't want to turn it over to "George".

The sim/computer performance is excellent and textures are beautiful and very realistic, particularly in the VC.

Sounds are excellent as well. Very compatible with the flight experience.

I could go on and on, but i will just say I would highly recommend this one. I don't think you will be disappointed if you are looking for something more than another "cookie cutter" formula aircraft. For sure it's a great addition to my hangar that really rounds out the available flight options, enhances learning flying and increases proficiency in flying skills.  Oh... and a lot of fun, too!

It is a realistic flying experience that can add more to your flying experience and sharpen your skills.

Jesse

[n4gix 4,947]

For the record, a select box has been added to the MVAMS which will allow owners to choose an alternate "AP" panel version. The KAP140, and the AH and HSI Bendix-King have been added. It should be available within a few days after the Beta Team have signed off on it.

[AviatorMan 253]

On 11/1/2018 at 12:33 AM, JesC said:

After three days of pretty exhaustive flying and discovery I am thrilled with this simulation. I'm flying it with the Nastax option and having a great time working on my IFR proficiency. It has really upped my level of concentration. I also love the unique old style panel layout. It is increasing my awareness of my instrument scans.

Also enjoying challenging my navigation skills in general.  I'm getting re- familiarized with using those trusty sectional charts, too. Very valuable skills. It has really been sharpening my abilities and rounding out my simulation options. Satisfying.

I have found it refreshing to fly without an autopilot. I think that is a credit to the flight dynamics. And more to the point; the flight dynamics are awesome and represent the Twin Comanche very well. In fact, few sim aircraft realize basic flight dynamics this well. (Crosswind landings are to be relished for the experience in this one.)  It's a real joy to hand fly. I really wouldn't want to turn it over to "George".

The sim/computer performance is excellent and textures are beautiful and very realistic, particularly in the VC.

Sounds are excellent as well. Very compatible with the flight experience.

I could go on and on, but i will just say I would highly recommend this one. I don't think you will be disappointed if you are looking for something more than another "cookie cutter" formula aircraft. For sure it's a great addition to my hangar that really rounds out the available flight options, enhances learning flying and increases proficiency in flying skills.  Oh... and a lot of fun, too!

It is a realistic flying experience that can add more to your flying experience and sharpen your skills.

Jesse

Thanks Jesse for the detailed and informative information on this new aircraft. I expect to it purchase it soon. I am hoping this will be a GA twin of the same system depth and flight performance quality as the superb A2A V Bonanza.

[Flic1 977]

1 hour ago, AviatorMan said:

Thanks Jesse for the detailed and informative information on this new aircraft. I expect to it purchase it soon. I am hoping this will be a GA twin of the same system depth and flight performance quality as the superb A2A V Bonanza.

It is not on that level but it is a very nice aircraft.  It's very stable and easy to fly but the older style instrument panel takes some getting used to!  It appears they recycled the interior sounds from their C-310 which is slightly disappointing.  I'm also a bit confused about the tip tank option as the manual states you cannot put fuel in them so I guess it is just a visual modification. 

[mpw8679 428]

42 minutes ago, Flic1 said:

 It appears they recycled the interior sounds from their C-310 which is slightly disappointing.  

That is depressing