I made my first flight today on this marvelous rendition of the 114, a plane I enjoyed flying fifty years ago (!) across Europe. I made my first solo IFR night landing on this beast then, so fond memories!

The first surprise with this superb simulation is the avionics package requiring some work to get used to (and this is quite positive, at long last something different), I could certainly recognise the easiness of handling and the ... slow climb (I had full tanks), splendid work in textures and panel design, extraordinary sounds throughout.

Like Bill I had the NAV PA disconnecting from time to time and found myself drifting off course without warning on three occasions, I honestly can't remember this kind of behaviour, but my avionic package was vastly different and resolutely classic, so how would I know.

Indeed the 114 needs a bit of power for landing, like the TB21, the nose will drop fast, incidentally It was fun comparing my two favorite GA single engine planes in RL and their counterparts in the sim, the 114 and the TB21 (of the two, the Trinidad has a wider cabin about 3 inches) and were both true winners for long trips with passengers, I mention that because I'd be so happy if Nick was to make a TB21, the only one available in the sim needs some love.

And yet another "chef d'oeuvre" from Nick!

5 hours ago, Pivot said:

Anyone notice the Toe-Brake animations 😁?

BSQ/Nick knows about that, so I'm sure a fix will be on the way.

There are only two things that I dont like, both fairly minor:

1) The lack of static elements inside the airplane. I mean, it would be better to have the luggage compartment with something in there instead of flying with an empty airplane always.

2) the startup secuence is wrong. In this airplane you should crank the engine with the mixture cut and then once it fires, you should move the mixture forward (Like the A2A aerostar for example). Instead its behaving like a continental engine.

In the future, I would looooove to see nick implement wear items like brakes, oil changes, tires etc.

Btw: the turbocharge implementation is waaaaay better than in the dukes. Hopefully he can port those improvements back

15 minutes ago, xender said:

Btw: the turbocharge implementation is waaaaay better than in the dukes. Hopefully he can port those improvements back

This is always what tempts me with a new BS addon. He’s materially improving his fidelity with each successive addon.

But he’s so prolific that while he does patch bugs, (AFAIK) he doesn’t seem to do much feature backporting (tho I stand to be corrected)

Edited yesterday at 08:48 PM1 day by UrgentSiesta
Correction

43 minutes ago, xender said:

2) the startup secuence is wrong. In this airplane you should crank the engine with the mixture cut and then once it fires, you should move the mixture forward (Like the A2A aerostar for example). Instead its behaving like a continental engine.

I noted this when I watched the first Just Flight video with Nick. Being fuel-injected, I expected a "mixture back after prime" type of start too. But I'm not sure/confident that this is wrong, because not all Lycomings are started in the same way, and not all Continentals are started in the same way. Carburation vs fuel injection is the biggest factor. It's been 24 years since I undertook my first IR flight IRL in the Commander and I cannot recall how it was started 😄 Knowing Nick's eye for detail, I'd be surprised if he'd got the start procedure wrong.

Perhaps someone who has flown the real Commander 114 recently, with this exact variant of the IO-540 engine (IO-540-T4B5), can chime in and confirm? We need 100% confident facts though, not opinions like "yeah, it's definitely started that way!" unless you're 100% sure. Or else this will become the next baseless community argument 😄

Edited yesterday at 09:21 PM1 day by JYW

4 minutes ago, JYW said:

I noted this when I watched the first Just Flight video with Nick. Being fuel-injected, I expected a "mixture back after prime" type of start too. But I'm not sure/confident that this is wrong, because not all Lycomings are started in the same way, and not all Continentals are started in the same way. Carburation vs fuel injection is the biggest factor. It's been 24 years since I undertook my first IR flight IRL in the Commander and I cannot recall how it was started 😄 Knowing Nick's eye for detail, I'd be surprised if he'd got the start procedure wrong.

Perhaps someone who has flown the real Commander 114 recently, with this exact variant of the IO-540 engine (IO-540-T4B5), can chime in and confirm? We need 100% confident facts though, not opinions like "yeah, it's definitely started that way!" unless you're 100% sure. Or else this will become the next baseless community argument 😄

Some people were discussing this on JustFlight's forum, with Nick in the thread over there.

I got the impression that those people in that thread feel it's wrong, but they seem to think ALL Lycomings start the same way.

I think it may come down to them/us needing actual input from a real world Commander pilot as you say. I'm sure he did get that input, so I can't imagine it being straight-out "wrong", but you never know. Nick mentioned the difficulty in capturing the exact moment of forward throttle movement given varying hardware....probably some programming-related things beyond my understanding....

42 minutes ago, xender said:

Btw: the turbocharge implementation is waaaaay better than in the dukes. Hopefully he can port those improvements back

"waaaaay better"? Sorry, but we must not be flying the same planes. The turbocharger implementation is different from the Dukes in the first place as the Duke is turbocharged while the 114 is turbo normalized. So there's that. That said, they both behave pretty much as they should. The only difference that I see, other than that, is the behavior above critical altitude where the new Working Title mixture fixes that he used start to come into play.

I rarely fly the Duke above its critical altitude, mostly due to the limitations in its pressurization system and diminishing returns. I image I'll NEVER fly the 114 above its CA, as the value proposition isn't good. As slowly as the 114 climbs, even today's flight at 15,000' was only due to terrain. The marginal gains in speed make going higher of questionable value. So while the changes are welcome and its nice to know the behavior is now correct - sure it's better, but it's hardly, well, waaaaay better as you're talking corner cases for both planes. Black Square's turbocharger implementation was already pretty word not allowed good.

What I expect IS way better is the normally aspirated 114 where the mixture issue would be apparent under all conditions. Haven't flown the standard version yet to verify.

Scott

6 minutes ago, Mace said:

I got the impression that those people in that thread feel it's wrong, but they seem to think ALL Lycomings start the same way.

Looking at the 114 checklists available online, it would appear he's got this one wrong. Of course, there may be a different engine variant that behaves differently, but every 114 checklist I've found has the sequence - Prime, throttle cracked, mixture idle cutoff, crank and advance mixture when engine fires.

Perhaps MSFS's piston model doesn't support this method well? Dunno.

Scott

Just now, tttocs said:

Looking at the 114 checklists available online, it would appear he's got this one wrong. Of course, there may be a different engine variant that behaves differently, but every 114 checklist I've found has the sequence - Prime, throttle cracked, mixture idle cutoff, crank and advance mixture when engine fires.

Perhaps MSFS's piston model doesn't support this method well? Dunno.

Scott

I think it requires custom code as A2A did, but I'm not sure. You may want to check out that thread over at JustFlight.

Just undertook a short flight in Canada in indifferent weather.

AP & the VS/ALT set system take a bit of figuring out, but the flight was smooth & the ILS approach & landing spot on.

Great addition to the GA fleet.

T45

31 minutes ago, Mace said:

I got the impression that those people in that thread feel it's wrong, but they seem to think ALL Lycomings start the same way.

Yes, that shows a real lack of real life knowledge on the subject!

As you may well already know, fuel delivery (carb vs FI) is the main differentiating factor. Both Lycoming and Continental make both carburreted and fuel-injected engines.

In all fuel-injected aircraft I've flown IRL (which were all Lycomings) the aircraft was primed with the fuel pump (with mixture and throttle forward), then the mixture was pulled back and the throttle cracked. On turning the key, the engine would start, then you'd immediately push the mixture full forward (at least for a few seconds, after which you could lean for ground ops).

I believe A2A did use custom coding for the Aerostar start, as it's the only plane I've ever seen in the sim that actually starts with the mixture back (although you have to be quick pushing it in after start!). The COWS DA-40 XLS (Lycoming) is supposed to start this way, but I find it will not start until I push the mixture in at least a little.

TL:DR - I suspect the Commander 114 is started with the mixture back IRL, and that in his video, Nick started it with the mixture forward because he's aware that the MSFS core engine model does not support engine starts until the mixture is applied, at least a little.

Edited yesterday at 10:17 PM1 day by JYW

5 hours ago, JYW said:

TL:DR - I suspect the Commander 114 is started with the mixture back IRL, and that in his video, Nick started it with the mixture forward because he's aware that the MSFS core engine model does not support engine starts until the mixture is applied, at least a little.

Here is actual commander checklist. It states mixture cut off

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by sd_flyer

On 6/12/2026 at 10:09 AM, JYW said:

It's crazy isn't it? I think Nick must be a workaholic who just pours the hours into his passion projects. (Lucky for us that these amazing aircraft are his passion projects!)

Maybe he has a small band of elves to help him.

In the long video way above, he starts it with mixture cut off (here)?

With one of the navigation options, you can create your own waypoint along the magenta line a given number of miles that you dial in with knobs.

Old school below. The Mhz and Khz knobs are separate, not concentric. Which is easier to control. There's a "hide vintage" slider to cover the ADF stuff over on the right with a glovebox.

10 hours ago, xender said:

2) the startup secuence is wrong. In this airplane you should crank the engine with the mixture cut and then once it fires, you should move the mixture forward (Like the A2A aerostar for example). Instead its behaving like a continental engine.

Oh bummer. I really don't like this. It seems A2A is the only developer doing it right... I probably wouldn't have purchased the plane if I had known this before, no matter how good it is besides this. I'm just a sucker for realism.

1 hour ago, Fielder said:

In the long video way above, he starts it with mixture cut off (here)?

No he doesn't.

9 hours ago, JYW said:

Or else this will become the next baseless community argument

Well, based on page 3-2 of this manual it seems Black Square has got it wrong:
https://manualzz.com/doc/29709762/lycoming-o-540--a---b---e---g---h---f---j---l--io-540--a-...?utm_source=chatgpt.com&p=28