Get both you deserve itš
2 Likes
So many great points on which is better than the other, and all great points to be sure. I have both, and the other Cessna twin (C310), which I wonāt mention here.,
Anyhow, at the end of the day itās what you actually want to do with the aircraft. The C414 is an amazing twin business cruiser, in which you take your friends for nice tour around wherever, and such. On the other hand, or wing, the KingAir is a twin-turbo prob, which means more speeeeeeedā¦. but seriously, while it is also more so business twin, the KingAir would be better suited in the OPs case to be a good commuter in Alaska, being used in a similar manner to the Beech 1900 and Saab 340 (although much bigger).
Good, luck, I love them both, but I want to get somewhere fast, Iāll take the KingAir, but if I want to really enjoy my flight and watch the scenery go by, itās the C414. hope that helps.
2 Likes
I think it really comes down to how fast you want to be able to fly.* Theyāre both excellent products.
*Edit: or if you absolutely need the doors to open or not.
2 Likes
I have not used any Black Sqaure products, but I have flown Cessna 400 series aircraft in real life and the FlySimWare 414 is a great airplane in terms of sound, performance, systems, and textures. I fly the 414 the most in MSFS compared to any other aircraft.
3 Likes
Iāve actually been āauditioningā planes the past few days for an around-the-world trip Iām planning to do, and both the King Air and the C414AW are on the short list. If you wanted to split the difference on flight performance between the two, thereās another option (which is also currently the leading candidate): the Black Square Baron. BSās Baron package includes two versions of the Baron (both with analog gauges, of course) ā the regular B58 and the 58P, the pressurized and turbocharged version. That plane is FAST ā you can cruise semi-efficiently at 240kts IAS, and (of course) it has a higher ceiling than the NA Baron. And itās got all the systems detail that the King Air has. It doesnāt have the EFB that the 414 has, and its environmental controls are even more inscrutably difficult to master than the 414ās,** but overall itās pretty comparable. (The 414 is, of course, a somewhat larger twin than the Baron, but not by a huge deal. If these were real planes, the roomier cabin of the 414 might be a deciding factorā¦)
** Iām kidding of course. NOTHING is more inscrutable than the 414ās environmental controls.
2 Likes
Itās not fast, itās a rocket.
1 Like
The 414 is the plane! This gal just āfeels rightā when flying if that makes sense and then when landing, when you get it right, it has the best feel of the planes I have flown imo.
I am currently taking her on a trek that started in St Johns Canada and I am heading up to Alaska, so maybe I will see you up Northā¦
1 Like
I own the King Air but not the 414 so I canāt give you a comparison. But I do want to point out one unique instrument that the King Air and all the Black Square aircraft have - the KNS 80 RNAV computer.
This is a brilliant piece of old technology that is a lot of fun to program and navigate with.
1 Like
The 414 also does have pretty complex cabin temperature systems integrated. My only gripe with that aspect of the craft is you have to open the EFB to see the cabin temp, when Black Square puts a dash instrument there for you.
Since everyoneās been recommending the 414 (I do love the 414), Iāll play some devilās advocate. I donāt have the BS King Air, but I have other BS aircraft, which have similar integrations and I do really like. One thing the King Air is going to have that the 414 doesnāt is a very full featured electronics system, and a complex failure modeling system. You can configure the rate at which you want to experience random system failures and wear, and then when failures happen you would be doing things like using the circuit breakers to restart & fix them. This is everything from flaps failure, to instrument failures, to air conditioner failure. The 414 does not have this, but instead would just have things like engine failure modeling if you over-stress engine performance. This whole system really makes checklist practices worth-while and not just a mock procedural exercise. You can actually find failed systems via a run-up check. If that seems like something youād find interesting.
The King Air is also going to have all available cockpit systems modeled and working. The 414 doesnāt. For example, there is a cool looking old school RNAV unit which isnāt modeled. I think only some of the breakers are working, but without the full failure systems of Black Square, thereās not a whole lot of reason to model breakers IMO.
1 Like
Good point! As I stated before I prefer the King Air but not because of the damage modelling. Flying on VATSIM I donāt want to have to deal with random failures. To me the BS King Air is just the perfect aircraft for IFR flying. Fast, powerful and not too complicated. Once you learn the ins and outs of the GNS 750 you get up in the air so much faster than when youāre flying a Boeing or an Airbus.
-
Removed _stability stuff ( ie, set to 0 ) - gyro stab is wierd, itās planet-relative but axis related and I donāt like the way they interfere. Itās not as bad as the other _stab settings which try and keep the plane pointed into relative wind as well as resisting axis rotations, which in turbulence means they try and point the plane into the rapidly changing air direction. You can see how that makes it more bumpy.
-
Increased all three MOI by 1.8, which makes it slow to react in yaw ( I suspect possibly too slow now ) but now is quite nice in the other two axes. I used 1.8 because itās a reasonable place to start for most MSFS aircraft provided theyāre vaguely near the gameās base recommendations. I have access to a 414 pilot ( sadly not to an aircraft! ) but heās not had a go yet to tell me which way to proceed from there - Iām not claiming any ideas of accuracy but there is a nice weighty feel at least. To do it properly youād have to take another look at control surface forces & aero resistance to rotation rather than just banging up MOI, but itās a cheap & quite effective patch.
And thatās all atm. The problem with playing with elevator effectiveness is the gameās internal elevator is an all moving tail, so itās not as simple to play with as it seemsā¦
Anyway I expect FSW will fix up this area themselves so Iām not going to put much effort in atm, I think it was mentioned theyāre working on the area.
So do the blacksquare products, although in the KA you stick it on Auto & thatās it unless it breaks.
1 Like
There are two value you can adjust. The moving part of the elevator, and the fixed part.
I donāt find the 414 twitchy on pitch, but that may be down to the my Yoko+ yoke. Those using a smaller joystick, or worse a controller joystick, may not agree, but thatās the nature of the beast.
1 Like
Yes, thatāll effect how much deflection the internal tail gives per control movement - Iāve had some very odd things happen after playing with elevator effectiveness though, including less static stability in pitch for decreasing effectiveness ( obvious effect is less damping after neutralising controls ).. It could have been a quirk of that config but Iām still rather suspicious. Quite why they did it that way when itās basically a little wing I donāt know, but things change & maybe that will also.
1 Like
I think my yoke is the primary reason why I donāt find pretty much any plane, except perhaps the CAP10, of being twitchy on pitch. It has about 8" of travel on pitch at 11bit precision, so I can make very minute movements, and get a small response from the plane. Literally flying by your fingertips.
1 Like
Dont know why youād limit yourself to one. Get both!
1 Like
Donāt buy black Kingair, his Autopilot will no longer be available after AAU2.
Do you have documentation of this?
i am using BS King Air with AAU2 beta without any autopilot issues
To be fair they did say āafterā AAU2.
Surely Black Square will be including some form of autopilot after AAU2, even if Asobo deprecates the existing one.