Really? I thought that both of them have wear and tear. For me its a must for this kind of planes (A2A spirit is strong in me).
Very helpful that comparison. Definitely flying high and long distances isn’t not my priority. I consider myself as a 100-150nm GA simmer, nor more. So with that and the kengou1’s comment about failures, I think the C130 is gonna be the choose one. Next year will be 414 opportunity.
And what to do with DC6 and Stinger… who knows. Lets see what happen during black friday
Again, thank you for your comments. As you can see, helps a lot.
Going with the 310 and 414 will be a much more similar experience to what you already have in the base sim, as in yes they’re more detailed but you’re still flying a modern aircraft and doing the same actions.
DC-6 because it’s an aircraft from the 40/50s is much different and provides for a totally different feel, so keep that in mind. And it will keep you busy longer as the learning curve is much steeper, and the flying more involved. Some of my best experiences in the sim has been flying the DC-6 without GPS, using only VORs at night-time.
You’re absolutely right. Furthermore, sadly I don’t have so much money for buying a couple of planes so similar. And although my initial intention was to buy only one plane (plus the little Sting S4) this Black Friday, but as the DC3 let so nasty taste in the mouth (mainly my fault for having so highly hopes with this addon), I’m in a need of a classic cargo beast. So you can easily imagine what is gonna happen…
If you want by-the-numbers flying with accurate systems to operate and don’t want to go the route of MSFS not-quite-right turbo’d aircraft such as the Just Flight Piper or FSW 414 (great planes btw) I’d have to second the DC-6.
I know it is far from GA but you will not be disappointed. You could also grab the non-turbo JF Pipers as I’ve always been satisfied operating them by the numbers.
Edit: As stated by a few others above the 414 has a good workaround for the turbo behavior. It is one of the few GA aircraft I fly regularly.
It sounds like the 310 would be a good match for you. The wear and tear features are extensive. Almost anything can wear out. Panel lights burn out in the cockpit. Failures can be set to a realistic time table or an accelerated time table (to practice random failures). Or you can fly with them completely disabled.
I own both the 310 and the 414, and I like them each for different things. In some ways, the 414 is more versatile than the 310 because of its turbocharged engines and high altitude capability. It can fly low for sightseeing or high for long cross countries.
For now, though, the failure modeling is far more developed on the 310. The 414 has some basic failure modes. If you run the engines at full boost pressure for too long, detonation will start and the engines will gradually fail. But it has nowhere near the complexity as the 310. Personally, that doesn’t bother me, since I usually don’t want to deal with failures when I’m simming. But it’s worth emphasizing, since that’s an important feature for you.
I decide go for the DC6 and the 310. The tear and wear, as fanatic of A2A planes, is something that I love. And reading the comments posted about this 310 feature (i didn’t know that it was so deep simulated) I can’t avoid it. Next year would love go for the 414 and try that turbo engine. Thank you!
Music to my hears! Until now, I didn’t know this plane is so deeply simulated. Thank you!
I know… I can guarantee I really know this one and particularly the Caravan. The Caravan is one of my top 3 favorite planes. But, sorry, I don’t agree with the price of these products.
In my posts I’ve only talked about my love for A2A planes. But I think its fair to mention planes like Marcel Felde’s Katanas (for fs2004 and FSX) or several titles from Digital Aviation. They were the first!
The numbers on the Turbo Arrow Ill are good. It’s just more powerful than the Arrow III as the engine is turbo-charged. It’s a piston engine, not a turbine engine that Asobo is having trouble modelling.
I’ve been sat on the fence between the 310R and 414A for months now. I haven’t caved in and bought either yet - I’ve also been holding out patiently for A2A and that Comanche… but it’s proving to be a long wait.
I prefer the 414A aesthetically, especially the panel, but the 310R has the wear & tear elements and is more fully-featured. The 414A was recently on sale with the 40th Anniversary release and I almost bought it, but missed the deadline (sale ended at 4pm UTC on the ‘final day’). If the 310R goes on sale I might buckle at last!
Given the amount of time I have spent ‘window shopping’ in the last two years, I’ve actually only bought the DC-6 so far. Partly because I figured a classic airliner from A2A would be years in coming, and partly because it looked too darn good (and it is)
I tend to live vicariously through the YouTube videos of others nowadays, and save myself making lots of purchases. The more I buy, the less I fly each aircraft so this works for me. I get excited about a new release, get my ‘fix’ by watching others explore a new aircraft and put it through its paces, then calm down again and save myself from buying a potential new hangar queen to gather virtual dust. (JF BAe 146 being a prime example - I would love to learn it, but I’d seldom fly it)
So many great aircraft, so little time! (DCS is also sitting with a handful of neglected aircraft…)
I share most of your thoughts. I spent a huge amount of money during the first years of Orbx in FSX (with their first regions). Too much. So I became ultra-selective. And particularly after having enjoyed the Katana 4X or an A2A plane and their “living” engines. It’s something that goes beyond flight them, you have to know them, taking care of them. But after waiting two years, its time to enjoy something different
The problem with turbo-charged piston engines, in MSFS (and previous versions), lies in how mixture is modeled (and how “power” is tied to fuel-flow).
Even with turbo-charging, in MSFS, you still need to lean mixture, with altitude (especially during a climb), to maintain power. If it were realistic , you could leave mixture rich to critical altitude, and not lose power.
The fuel-flow anomaly, can be seen (turbo-charged or otherwise), as you lean. Fuel-flow will fall as you gain altitude, and will rise as you lean; peaking at optimum power. Makes the fuel-flow gauge , kinda like a weird EGT gauge.
The FSW C414 has internal coding, that fixes this “bug”.
Edit: A per-plane workaround can be done by editing a cfg file for auto-mixture.. or for all aircraft, by setting auto-mixture ‘ON’ in realism. But that essentially turns mixture controls into nothing but fuel cutoffs.
I’d have to agree, the A2A Comanche will probably be no earlier than mid-2023, the next (which in my opinion will be the Aerostar because they started on it before the unfortunate incident), probably not until 2024, so if you don’t mind waiting until 2025 for a 172…
I’m not sure the 414 is less featured than the 310 these days - I have both, and I prefer the 414 most of the time in their current states ( the 310 engine sounds are the business, though ). The 414 is a slug unless you defuel it a fair bit, mind you. I think that’s the one I’d recommend, also recommended by an actual 414 pilot, so pretty ok with it.
(and it is)
(DCS is also sitting with a handful of neglected aircraft…)