The R22 is a fairly neat way of reducing the number of linkages you need - not sure you can rest your wrist on your leg like you can with a stick though ( there aren’t any anywhere near me ). There’s no need for the MD500 to be like that 
I have never been up close to one (R22) now that I think of it. Yes, the design is a very clever way of reducing linkages and I certainly can’t argue with the popularity and longevity of the series.
The MD looks funny but functions like a normal cyclic - might feel a bit different but I’m not sure you’d be able to tell in flight if you aren’t looking at it.
The Robinson setup is pretty unique, though as you say it’s basically the 172 of helicopters so I’m sure it’s fairly adaptable for the multitude of pilots who use it.
1 Like
A lot of new planes.
1 Like
Well to be honest… i kinda like the Goose now. Like i wrote in the top5 topic i just needed more time to understand the things i care about in a plane. Trimming is going well now and with understanding the gyropilot long hauls are quiet nice.
In the same vein i did buy the 247D and although i do like it, a lack of a gyropilot does mean i’m never going to fly it longer than 30/45 minutes tops. I’m not going to handfly an aircraft over an ocean or dessert for 3,5 hours… i’m not that guy. This is not a pun towards W42 perse, but adding a gyropilot would have made the aircraft more usable for world tours ect. But all in all i do not regret buying it.
The Hawk is still gathering dust though… 
Might be interesting to have a top three or top five “Oops I Bought It” list.
Top three for me:
Boeing 247D
Lockheed Constellation
Carenado 170B
I’ve flown all three a handful of times. All have issues that make them less than fun. The 247D is a bargain, but even so, it pretty much sits. The “Connie” was not a bargain, and may be okay some day. It will never live up to the quality of the DC-6 though. The C170B is plagued - very badly - by the poor ground handling in MSFS. It is pretty much unusable. I have even uninstalled it… that’s how much of an “oops” it is.
2 Likes
I completely agree on the 170. Oh, what it could be in the hands of the right developers. But in its current state, I never fly it either.
I am selfishly glad you bought the Connie. You saved me from an impulse buy that I would have regretted!
I don’t fly the 247 at all now either. After the thrill of the new procedures wore off, the features that I don’t like become more prominent and it keeps me from enjoying it the way that I would like to.
3 Likes
That’s it exactly. I learned how to start it, fly it, land it. After that… not so enjoyable to actually fly it for any length of time.
With the Connie, once you’ve seen the smoky startup a few times, and played with the automation systems, it loses its lustre. Back to the DC-6, which feels like a favorite pair of boots.
Still waiting for a proper DC-3… 
1 Like
Agreed on the Carenado c170.
Note that the similar Aeroplane Heaven c140 handles far better than the Carenado c170.
The c140 does have it’s own issues, in particular sound is a touch loud, and it does suffer the same weirdness with external controllers the c170 has due to MSFS not handling ignition systems with a combined battery and avionics switch correctly. Overall though it is a much better aircraft than the c170. One of Aeroplane Heaven’s better efforts.
I have both and even fly the c140 in Neofly, it is not perfect or “study level” but a fun little thing.
Meanwhile my Carenado c170 rarely gets used and their YMF5 biplane is worse. Ironically though the Carenado Staggerwing, also a biplane, is actually quite good.
My suspicion about the c170 is it was rushed out due to the imminent release of the competing AH c140 and never finished properly.
The C140 is a fun little airplane. As you say, it’s not perfect, but you can actually land it successfully.
Unfortunatelly the performance of the Ovation is too week after the last update. More than a year ago I made several test files and the performance matched quite well with the real life aircraft. Now it is rather under powered.
I am not going to go full on “Oops, I bought it” yet but I finally picked up the DC-6 this past weekend and the one big disappointment for me is the pitch sensitivity. I mostly hand-fly during my sim time and how the aircraft flies by hand is a big deal to me. After all the reviews and comments that I had read about the Six, I was expecting something that would fly like the Goose. I was really shocked to find that the aircraft is (and I am sorry if this is blasphemy for some) nowhere near as stable as the Goose in regards to pitch.
It is a fantastic module and I thoroughly enjoy the depth of the systems. It is lots of fun with so many switches and levers and gauges to keep an eye on. All of that is great but at the end of the day, it really doesn’t convey that classic heavy aircraft feel as well as the Goose does for me. I am sure that I will get used to it as more time goes on and I have already added more curves in the pitch axis and I am using AAO to tamp down the trim sensitivity but I have a nagging feeling that many of the spectacular reviews that I had read were given by those that use the gyropilot a whole lot more than I had intended to. We live and learn.
1 Like
I quite like the DC6 but when you put it that way, you have a point. It is a heavy bird.
Nothing like the Goose for capturing the feel of weight, while also feeling plenty powerful enough to get over the tall hills.
I just bought the new Microsoft/Carenado Beechcraft and oops. Beautiful graphics but I likely won’t fly her again any time soon.
1 Like
I saw a lot of what I won’t purchase anymore in this thread.
Low wing twins that block my vision of the ground below.
This is why I am waiting on the ATR 72.
The exception has been the C310 which has excellent over the nose visibility and is a blast to fly.
“Tail draggers” Not knocking those who like them, I just bounce like a kangaroo down the runway no matter what.
I don’t need “study level”. If an aircraft could take a flight plan and also be programed from within the cockpit, then developers could cater to both crowds and make more money, but I suppose authentic means - less cash flow. People know which planes are study level and are hesitant, or never purchase.
I program the FMC of the Citation, and the Longitude both of which have mods and the Longitude also has the G3000 mod and is an extremely well flying aircraft with everything necessary functional in the cockpit. So, I just don’t need study level when these will do just fine. The Citation is like a Corvette, and the Longitude is like a Lamborghini, world class.
Aircraft without autopilots, or “authentic” autopilots that just barely function. I have added a few autopilots to some stock planes, but two pay ware craft have encrypted cfg files, so I cannot do a thing there except no longer purchase aircraft without autopilots. I fly for hours, so I prefer them.
I have purchased 11 pay ware. And here I am typing all of this on a 2 hour hop in the Longitude, lol.
1 Like
I completely agree about autopilot. Not only do I need AP for a plane to get regular use (I mean, I have plenty to hand fly for short jaunts) but I can be quite picky about the AP implementation. I want it to work with my system hardware so I don’t have to do everything with my mouse.
So far, the Cessna 310, Goose, and Kodiak work best with my system for payware planes. And some otherwise great planes just sit in my hangar.
I appreciate the Longitude and the G3000 is a blast to use! But I do prefer being closer to the ground most of the time.
2 Likes
After seeing similar complaints for other aircraft and myself not having anything like the same trouble - I use a desktop Virpil stick base at the moment ( it has hall sensors ) and the only thing I mod the stick profile for is the H awk and I made that more sensitive - I really think some of this might be controls related. I hand-fly the DC6 - I hand fly pretty much anything honestly, I’ve done flights in the 146 without touching the AP once - and I haven’t noticed any oversensitivity, so yes, it might well be people’s controls. A desk-based stick is about as oversensitive a device as you can get.
Two for the list for me, neither are terrible but both need work - the Chipmunk, and the TB-30. The Chipmunk just retains energy through aerobatics in a ridiculous way, it’s like there’s no change in induced drag while you’re pitching and there’s no stall warning, so it feels like changes in AoA don’t matter. The sounds need some work, too, and there’s bits of systems that don’t function like the real aircraft. The TB-30 on the other hand just flies like it’s made of polystyrene, there’s nothing particularily wrong with the flight envelope but it has that awful magical lightness so many small aircraft have in this game.
I’ll be fltying the Chipmunk still on occasion becuse I have a small attachment to them ( or I’d probably have skipped it, given reviews ), the TB-30, not so sure.
I agree and since I am using a T16000M, I know I am not doing myself any favors with the quality of my controls. That being said, I do fly a lot of helicopters in DCS and XP11 so I am used to having a very light amount of force on the stick. For me, it is the amount of response for a given input in pitch that surprised me. In roll, the aircraft certainly has the slow response that I would expect but with pitch, not so much. I watched a video last night from 320 Sim Pilot and he comments on it being more sensitive in pitch than he would expect (as the aircraft ballooned to a 1500fpm climb while he tried to explain how to turn on the AP).
But I am sure it would feel better with a better stick and I hope to one day have a quality stick with a 200mm extension. Maybe if I chill out on buying new planes for a while lol.
Anyway, the DC-6 is fantastic and I would recommend it to anyone in a heartbeat. The joy of flying a classic prop beast far outweighs any control sensitivity for sure.
Yeah, maybe - it does have some huge elevators & isn’t that long so it doesn’t really surprise me as such, but on the other hand MSFS has some serious issues with the impression of low moments of inertia sometimes. I fly DCS helis too, still searching for anything resembling the immersion of the Mi-8 :S
Indeed. The Mi-8 in DCS is a work of art. Just an amazing helicopter module. Hopefully someday we see something approaching that level of quality and fidelity in MSFS.
I’ve never played DCS but that sounds awesome. Could you give me, just in a few bullets, what makes you say that? Just curious — thanks!