Pilot's B-314 Clipper released

[jarmstro 2,405]

Re the two reviews posted in this thread and comments above regarding them:

Jonathan Beckett, as has been noted, has withdrawn his video. I hope this is because of a constructive conversation he has had with the developer and not because of legal threats! As far as I know this is the first really negative review he has ever posted, though I could be wrong as I've only recently subscribed to his channel.
 

As for ITB, I regard him as fair and balanced. I trust him implicitly. He does, rarely, get the odd thing wrong but on the whole I find him invaluable when I judge whether to buy a product or not. I am satisfied by what he says in that he spends a considerable amount of time learning and using a plane before he makes the video.

Apart from independent reviews what other method do we have in order to decide whether to buy? 

Edited March 16, 2023 by jarmstro

[dbw1 445]

5 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Of course.  And this can happen on any media not just Avsim; such as YouTube etc.  People can tend to follow the baying crowd; it's a human thing.

I have seen it before like you have.  Sometimes with justification, sometimes not so much.

However, whatever the state of the product at release, there is genuine concern, and certain responses by the developer on this forum haven't exactly helped matters.  

I know where I stand also; mainly based by the responses to the criticism, rather than the product itself - it worries me.  Anyway, that's the great thing about freedom of choice isn't it?

Yes, I agree with you on some things. Freedom of choice to buy what you like. In the last year i've bought two products that were absolutely garbage and misrepresented by the developer imho yet one of them was praised in this forum. This particular product has since had an upgrade and is turning into something that is not too bad.  The same courtesy should have been extended and practiced here in this thread with the targeted individual. It was disappointing to watch it expand like a feeding frenzy. 

I've bought more than my fair share of garbage since I got into this hobby back in the 1980s. Now retired I need to be a little more careful with purchases.

Quite recently I contacted a developer (who shall remain nameless) with a few questions of a technical nature as to how close their creation was in some aspects compared to the real thing of which i have extensive experience. This individual decided to get rude and respond with personal degrading comments. Why, who knows?  He still did not answer the questions which made me wonder what was not being said. I declined to participate in this manure throwing contest - not because I'm a saint but i just can't be bothered. In the end he he stated if I did not buy the product as he didn't care as it was only a few dollars for the company. 

I voted with my wallet.

[andy1252 3,936]

1 hour ago, eslader said:

I certainly don't go down the sim-elitist road of thinking everyone should only fly PMDG and higher level planes, but it is a little unreasonable to expect a flight simulator to not simulate flight...

Hi eslader, my only point about this was that of the maybe hundred or so aircraft I have installed for MSFS, this is one of only two that seems to require "proper" settings to allow take-off. I've had no problems with all the others, including various tail-draggers, heavy piston engined beasts, large tubes, DC6s and Tiger Moths etc. So I assume this particular aircraft had to have these characteristics actually programmed in, in which case surely it shouldn't be too hard to remove them?

But like I said, I bought it, and will enjoy it. I'd just enjoy it more if it were an easier beast to get airborne. I shall try it again later today or tomorrow and maybe it will prove easier this time. I bought the P3D version and don't remember if it was the same there, and I have long since removed P3D from my PC so I can't go back to check without re-installing - and I'm not THAT put out by it <grin>

[dbw1 445]

15 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

Hi eslader, my only point about this was that of the maybe hundred or so aircraft I have installed for MSFS, this is one of only two that seems to require "proper" settings to allow take-off. I've had no problems with all the others, including various tail-draggers, heavy piston engined beasts, large tubes, DC6s and Tiger Moths etc. So I assume this particular aircraft had to have these characteristics actually programmed in, in which case surely it shouldn't be too hard to remove them?

But like I said, I bought it, and will enjoy it. I'd just enjoy it more if it were an easier beast to get airborne. I shall try it again later today or tomorrow and maybe it will prove easier this time. I bought the P3D version and don't remember if it was the same there, and I have long since removed P3D from my PC so I can't go back to check without re-installing - and I'm not THAT put out by it <grin>

First off let me say i have yet to buy this but will next month when i finish the upgrades for my computer. Only got so much money.

That said a few points for your consideration.

I've got real world time in a flying boat type aircraft, the CL215. When I got my checkout I had less than 10 hours 25 years previously in a C172 on floats. Flying boats handle differently and are so sensitive to extracting performance, at least the 215 was on a water takeoff. It will never be accused of being over powered (43000#, 2100hp x2). If anything I suspect the 314 was even more of a pig. Big hull, lots of suction. From a dead stop on the water (215) the nose was held high to get on the step at 40+ knots if I remember correctly and so much water was coming over the nose on to the windshield viz was almost non existent till you rolled over onto the step. DG was handy for keeping it straight. Coming off the water it would sort of levitate a very small amount and you'd accelerate from a knot or two or three above stall in ground effect. Climbing away under 90 knots an engine failure procedure was close throttles and land straight ahead. Above 90, drop the load of water, as much as 12,000# and accelerate and climb straight ahead. I imagine the 314 designed 40 years (+/-) before the 215 and 90 years ago from today  - would have had more primitive aerodynamic design with a wing less efficient so things like CofG, density altitude, wind etc would have been even more critical and it probably handled like a real pig especially just after takeoff and probably in cruise too. Losing even 1 of the 4 I think would have required a reject of the 314.

The 314 really interests me. In the book on the 314 that flew around the world at the beginning of WW2 it talks about a take off in the Congo, well over-weight, high density altitude and sounds totally impressive when you think about the flying ability of the men in the cockpit.

This is not a defense of anything but if the developer was able to get close to the handling and performance of the real 314 it would be an eye opener to todays pilots and what we consider normal handling and performance.

[PILOT'S 157]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

Re the two reviews posted in this thread and comments above regarding them:

Jonathan Beckett, as has been noted, has withdrawn his video. I hope this is because of a constructive conversation he has had with the developer and not because of legal threats! As far as I know this is the first really negative review he has ever posted, though I could be wrong as I've only recently subscribed to his channel.
 

As for ITB, I regard him as fair and balanced. I trust him implicitly. He does, rarely, get the odd thing wrong but on the whole I find him invaluable when I judge whether to buy a product or not. I am satisfied by what he says in that he spends a considerable amount of time learning and using a plane before he makes the video.

Apart from independent reviews what other method do we have in order to decide whether to buy? 

It continues to impress me that 5 mins. of total garbage posted on YT is seen as a review, not to mention the clickbait title! How can that be? The video was likely withdrawn because he put his own reputation at stake for posting such garbage, who knows. The comments below his video were mostly horrific and the whole thing was out of control. It certainly seemed to be going in the direction described above by dbw1 - a target like it was a birthday party game of kiddies, Pin the tail on the donkey, to compete for the most damage done. 

No legal threats were made, and on what basis could they have been made? There was also no further request for a refund from his side, but I'm sure the clickbait title helped attract many new subscribers.

ITB didn't even spend 5 mins. with any documentation! Making such a video with content such as “I’m not sure that the 314 has a water rudder”, when it clearly does, and “apparently we should be fine to take-off with the flaps up” is just cringeworthy. This is all covered by info that is in the included documentation. Should such a reviewer make a minimum effort in preparation and actually bother to open the included PDFs for that purpose? Apparently they think it's not necessary, I have no idea why.

Jerome

[PILOT'S 157]

1 hour ago, andy1252 said:

Hi eslader, my only point about this was that of the maybe hundred or so aircraft I have installed for MSFS, this is one of only two that seems to require "proper" settings to allow take-off. I've had no problems with all the others, including various tail-draggers, heavy piston engined beasts, large tubes, DC6s and Tiger Moths etc. So I assume this particular aircraft had to have these characteristics actually programmed in, in which case surely it shouldn't be too hard to remove them?

But like I said, I bought it, and will enjoy it. I'd just enjoy it more if it were an easier beast to get airborne. I shall try it again later today or tomorrow and maybe it will prove easier this time. I bought the P3D version and don't remember if it was the same there, and I have long since removed P3D from my PC so I can't go back to check without re-installing - and I'm not THAT put out by it <grin>

Andy, all the real world B-314 documentation we have points to the fact that the aircraft struggled getting airborne when close to MTOW. On top of that you had the "glue effect" of the water on the hull, which would be exacerbated by a clear, calm sea.

The included documentation we provide offers some guidance here:

By now speed will be approaching 50 knots, where 10 degrees of flap is normally deployed. Unlike modern aircraft the Boeings flaps are deployed after the takeoff run has commenced, at about 50 to 60 knots. This was to prevent drag and shorten the acceleration distance. I set the airplane up with 3 degrees of flap prior to the takeoff run to shorten the deploy time. A sudden flap deployment boosts lift and allows the B-314 to bound off the water. 20 degrees flap is available when conditions warrant, such as in shorter takeoff zones.

The B-314 was rather unique in that flaps were only deployed after the take-off run had started, at around 50 to 60 knots! Perhaps this will offer you some assistance in getting the B-314 airborne.

Jerome

[dbw1 445]

3 minutes ago, PILOT'S said:

Andy, all the real world B-314 documentation we have points to the fact that the aircraft struggled getting airborne when close to MTOW. On top of that you had the "glue effect" of the water on the hull, which would be exacerbated by a clear, calm sea.

The included documentation we provide offers some guidance here:

By now speed will be approaching 50 knots, where 10 degrees of flap is normally deployed. Unlike modern aircraft the Boeings flaps are deployed after the takeoff run has commenced, at about 50 to 60 knots. This was to prevent drag and shorten the acceleration distance. I set the airplane up with 3 degrees of flap prior to the takeoff run to shorten the deploy time. A sudden flap deployment boosts lift and allows the B-314 to bound off the water. 20 degrees flap is available when conditions warrant, such as in shorter takeoff zones.

The B-314 was rather unique in that flaps were only deployed after the take-off run had started, at around 50 to 60 knots! Perhaps this will offer you some assistance in getting the B-314 airborne.

Jerome

That’s interesting. With flap extension at that speed you’d want to be careful about porpoising but a different time with different procedures. Fascinating. 

[jarmstro 2,405]

39 minutes ago, PILOT'S said:

ITB didn't even spend 5 mins. with any documentation! Making such a video with content such as “I’m not sure that the 314 has a water rudder”, when it clearly does, and “apparently we should be fine to take-off with the flaps up” is just cringeworthy. This is all covered by info that is in the included documentation. Should such a reviewer make a minimum effort in preparation and actually bother to open the included PDFs for that purpose? Apparently they think it's not necessary, I have no idea why.

Nevertheless, because he has no axe to grind and is telling it as he sees it, I prefer his unbiased opinion over yours. Is that OK with you?

Edited March 16, 2023 by jarmstro

[OzWhitey 3,353]

The ITB review looked pretty good to me. His primary issues with the aircraft were not the water rudder or the flaps, so I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to keep circling back to those points.

As a general rule, i don’t think developers should attempt to control the narrative on a public forum, and I don’t think discussion of the product should be stifled.

[eslader 1,814]

5 hours ago, andy1252 said:

I'd just enjoy it more if it were an easier beast to get airborne

Yeah, like PILOTS said, that plane was a pig on the water. A lot of the flying boats were, especially as they got huge. You're basically sticking wings on a boat the size of a superyacht, and trying to get up to flying speed with underpowered engines where it was a really great day if you ended the flight with the same number of running engines you started it with. 😉

It sounds like what you really want is the visual model grafted onto something easier to fly like the Icon.  That used to be pretty easy for the end-user to do back in the old days of FS2004, but I don't know if it can be done in this one.

[Gerardius 20]

20 hours ago, PILOT'S said:

Dillon, I'm going to try to address these points calmly

Thank goodness you have tried to address these points calmly...

[Gerardius 20]

7 hours ago, cavaricooper said:

It would be a shame for this to be the reference post for future purchasers.

Unfortunately it has already become so, but not because of the comments of the forumers. For me this aircraft has become a must avoid.

[andy1252 3,936]

41 minutes ago, eslader said:

It sounds like what you really want is the visual model grafted onto something easier to fly like the Icon. 

At the risk of inducing apoplexy in the purists, yep - that would work for me. I totally understand the dynamics of the real thing, and I can see that for a lot of people those dynamics are desirable in the simulated version. And I can even admire the (presumed) expertise required to model it accurately.

But (and I don't want to start the hackneyed old game/simulator thing again here), no matter where you sit on that particular spectrum, I doubt that Asobo or MS would seriously expect to sell many copies of MSFS if it really insisted on all users becoming truly competent simulated pilots, and on that same basis I would have thought the potential sales of something like this B-314 will be limited if it truly requires too much effort to fly.

It sounds like I'm getting all out of shape about this. I'm not. Like I said, I bought it and will hopefully get what I want out of it. But I do believe a real "easy" mode would sell a lot more copies, even if it means a pretty unrealistic flight model. I don't doubt that most people here will probably disagree about this, and I'm willing to accept I may even be in a minority of one here on avsim about this. But I rather suspect that the entire population of avsim may well itself represent a fairly small percentage of MSFS users, both actual and potential, and there could well be many more folk out there who might buy this if it indeed had a more basic mode as well as the current realistic one.

I hope it sells well, and in case anybody is listening, I'd also love to see a B-377 in the sim as well (but with the same proviso). Something about the big old aircraft from that period.

[Stearmandriver 2,324]

4 hours ago, PILOT'S said:

By now speed will be approaching 50 knots, where 10 degrees of flap is normally deployed. Unlike modern aircraft the Boeings flaps are deployed after the takeoff run has commenced, at about 50 to 60 knots. This was to prevent drag and shorten the acceleration distance. I set the airplane up with 3 degrees of flap prior to the takeoff run to shorten the deploy time. A sudden flap deployment boosts lift and allows the B-314 to bound off the water. 20 degrees flap is available when conditions warrant, such as in shorter takeoff zones.

In fairness, I did try quite a few times (more than the so-called "reviewers" on YouTube put into pretending to operate the entire aircraft) to make these procedures work, and I was stymied.  In the first place, the flap indicator does not have any markings on it; and in the second, counting the number of flap positions from full up to full down doesn't yield the same number of flap positions as the manual says there are (in fact it seems about half of them are missing).  These two things make it difficult to know how much flap you have extended, and what the next selection will yeild, so I'm not sure the secret to a successful takeoff is just to use flaps correctly.

Also, the manual references a prompt rotation at 70kts.  Even in a light airplane, this seems much too slow to get the current sim version flying, no matter the flap setting.  All that happens is the tail bangs against the water like it's a hard stop and the plane flops back onto step.  It seems to mostly fly itself off the water at about 100-110kts; almost any pilot attempts to rotate seem counterproductive.

I'm a big fan of expecting folks to read the manual 😉. In this case though, it seems there's a bit of disconnect between the manual and the way the product currently works.

I do love this airplane and its history, and I have a large amount of respect for the historical dive that the dev has done into the P3d version.  I'm really excited about the prospect of a study-level (or full-fidelity, or having great systems depth, or whatever your chosen buzzword) B-314 in MSFS.  I'll be following the project with great interest!

[cavaricooper 2,615]

49 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

In fairness, I did try quite a few times (more than the so-called "reviewers" on YouTube put into pretending to operate the entire aircraft) to make these procedures work, and I was stymied.  In the first place, the flap indicator does not have any markings on it; and in the second, counting the number of flap positions from full up to full down doesn't yield the same number of flap positions as the manual says there are (in fact it seems about half of them are missing).  These two things make it difficult to know how much flap you have extended, and what the next selection will yeild, so I'm not sure the secret to a successful takeoff is just to use flaps correctly.

Also, the manual references a prompt rotation at 70kts.  Even in a light airplane, this seems much too slow to get the current sim version flying, no matter the flap setting.  All that happens is the tail bangs against the water like it's a hard stop and the plane flops back onto step.  It seems to mostly fly itself off the water at about 100-110kts; almost any pilot attempts to rotate seem counterproductive.

I'm a big fan of expecting folks to read the manual 😉. In this case though, it seems there's a bit of disconnect between the manual and the way the product currently works.

I do love this airplane and its history, and I have a large amount of respect for the historical dive that the dev has done into the P3d version.  I'm really excited about the prospect of a study-level (or full-fidelity, or having great systems depth, or whatever your chosen buzzword) B-314 in MSFS.  I'll be following the project with great interest!

Jerome-

May I please suggest sharing this with the Dev. team? Andy is someone whom I put a great deal of stock in, and he’s not prone to histrionics. We are both ardent fans of radials over blue water, and remain excited about the possibilities this product holds.

Ta- C