PMDGs 737 is up soon… that’s study level no matter what
1 Like
Hello, well as I am not flying any of those you are choosing from, you might completely disregard my comment. But whatever you will decide for, once you will start looking for another aircraft I would suggest to take a look at CRJ. It has pretty interesting learning curve, absence of autothrust, kinda demanding hand flying skills (based also on peripherals of course)…basically if you like short hauls 1-2 hrs it will keep you busy all that time and in the end you get some satisfactory feeling of job well done.
1 Like
It looks great!
Just, I tend to fly props, and I rarely fly passenger planes. So, for me, I suspected I was more likely to put the hours in to get my money’s worth if I didn’t stray TOO far from my comfort zone.
I mean, the Twin Otter is the biggest plane I fly in sim regularly. I am rarely in a plane that is faster than a Lamborghini on a drag strip.
This time, I went with the Just Flight Arrow bundle.
Now that I am finally getting into add ons (I have simmed a long time but always stuck with vanilla or freeware before MSFS) I have little doubt I will keep getting more and more complex planes as I learn.
But, I have also talked to a number of folks who fly airliners in MSFS who find GA craft to be slow, boring, and too simple for them.
So, I decided to get a boring GA plane while I am still fascinated by them and learning. If I skip straight to airliners, I might not ever want to go back to the simpler aircraft.
I love everything about the CRJ. It comes from a great era where you had a lot of power, but still had to do a lot of things manually. I am also interested in the 737 when it comes out for similar reasons. The 737 was my favorite passenger plane growing up. The smallest of the big planes.
2 Likes
I totally get it. I don’t find the GA planes to be boring, although you can place me in the “airliner folks” folder. On the other hand I’m quite sure that this sim looks much better from the low altitude as there is a focus from Asobo on photogrammetry/WUs. Therefore I take SR22 sometimes and fly around the chimney.
Agree on everything you said about the CRJ, dont get me wrong I also enjoy the FBW A320 a lot. But it’s already plane that will take you time to set up, feed all the datas into MCDU, but once in cruise? You can easily go to market, take a nap, working, etc… and then return for a descend.
1 Like
Yeah… the world is just so pretty in this sim! Perhaps I will get used to the eye candy in a few years but really, before MSFS, VFR flying was really… bad in sims. The scenery was terrible, or you had to download a TON of files just to make it look… well, still worse than MSFS.
1 Like
I’d rather have a complete and realistic C152 instead of a 75% jet liner.
2 Likes
A checklist and the right attitude are the only things that make an aircraft “study level” in any simulator.
All - DC-6 might be close. Let see this plane was manufactured by Douglas Aircraft when quality was the watch word, not profit. When converted or built to military standard for transport (cargo and people), the plane was excellent for that roll. I have some time in the real C-118 version, not pilot or crew time, but ride time. When the USN had them, there was a Pilot, Co-Pilot, Navigator and Flight Engineer, and many times a 3rd-pilot in training. I spent time in the FE chair on a HI to North Island flight, with the FE in the left seat, as 10 hours over the pond is a long trip at night. In my experience in flying in training hops and again sitting close to CP, the pilot operated the throttles, trim, etc. The FE monitored gauges and made sure temps were not exceeded. I specifically remember one almost hard landing pilot changed trim at last minute while student pilot was landing plane. We had very successful flight record with that plane. I was 21 at the time, the plane then was 20+ years old. Maintenance was the biggest expense on plane, old, parts were rebuilt many times, and the airframe was wearing out. The navy decommissioned them all, and sent many to reserve squadrons, and then got out of the active cargo business, putting that burden on the reserve squadrons. I have no idea now what or how they work it. That planes were superseded by the DC-9 cargo/passenger derivative. IT was not a very successful transition if I remember, plane could not carry much, and it’s over the pond operations were limited. It then was superseded by the current P8 but that one’s role is mostly intelligence/sub hunting. It’s a B737 airframe. If anyone takes a look into the CP of the DC-6, there is just a lot of stuff you need to be aware of in flying that plane. Ours had loran, not VOR systems. Saying today’s planes are easier to fly and operate would be true. Computers do a lot of the work now.
Everts is still regularly flying them up in Alaska.
1 Like
And some outfit is flying C-46/7s too. Not saying they isn’t good, just very complex to fly and learn. The NATOPS manual (Naval Air Training and Operations Manual) was about 4" thick. Pilots weekly had book training on topics and exams on said book. We had certified NATOPS check pilots as well.
Two pilots come to mind, both CDR’s, and they flew the VC-118’s for CINCPAC and CINCPACFLT into places they need to go that their 707 could not get into. I had to type up the flight manifests and crew lists/orders for all those flights. Planes were tricked out real nice.
Great post, just a small correction, the Navy flies the C-40A which is a 737-700 Combi variant as the replacement for the C-9B (DC-9). The P-8 is actually a modified 737-800ERX with specific electronics and weapons bays, it is not used for normal operations in the Logistics Squadrons.
O5Beastmode76 - Thank you for the update. It’s been 50 years since was in USN, and once out did not keep close track of the aviation arm. Kinda keep up on the submarines, as was stationed in Holy Loch, Scotland supporting them too. Must be reserves flying cargo and seems to me last time I looked, three squadrons doing it. Regardless, it would be nice if both those planes came to MSFS, both would be a kick to fly, especially if they can be used in their roles. P8 Is the replacement for the P3 I think, it can do other things too I also believe. Like said, been years.
Yes! I am getting to know this yaw instability well now. 
Perhaps the only issue I have encountered. It seems to be a MSFS thing that happens in all planes, but something about the Arrow seems to be hyper impacted by it. Hopefully the next patch (which sounds like it is very close) will quell it as best as possible with the current MSFS engine.
It actually used to be very well behaved, they changed it a few updates ago, likely to improve p factor or adverse yaw or something. If you’ve got the turbo arrow package the turbo arrow 3 (non T tail version) still has the older more stable flight model (or it did last time I checked).
I hope they’ll jump in to incorporate the prop modelling from SU8 and the new CFD based improvements from SU9 (whatever they may be).
1 Like
I have not yet noticed the issue with the Turbo III yet. Certainly have with the NA III. I will pay more attention next time I take the Turbo III up.
I tested for myself a lot of planes in MSFS (and X-Plane 11 to be honest). Sadly I do not have any experience piloting a real plane, so I cannot argue uppon realism in flight behaviour.
But I do like complexity and I love the situation, when you sit in the cockpit knowing, mostly each of the switches and gauges do havy some funktionality and your can have a deep learning curve with them.
Best piston-plane (I do like piston planes) ever tested/flown (Xplane 11 and MSFS2020) is the PMDG DC6.
With it’s virtual copilot and realsim settings you can start relative easy, learn basics an you can decide which part of this (at least for me) complex machine you want to learn next. Starting engines more realitically? Handle fuel management by yourself? Try IFR (did not try it yet), engine heat management, …
Just switch of step by step to more complex realism.
Just to land the DC6 for me is a very big challenge without crashing 
I am working on. Therefor I have to ‘study’ a lot of topics and things I did not know until now. For example I did not know to decrease hight in the right manner with a large aircraft, that there is to ‘level out’ in a view thousand feet befor you beginn the next step in the landing procedure…
At least in that manner the DC6 is a plane which forces me to STUDY a lot of things. THE best plane until now. For me.
1 Like
Yup. You are absolutely right. The Turbo III works great on takeoff and landing.
Fortunately, the Turbo Arrow III hits the sweet zone for my skill level. Having to watch my throttle and manifold pressure on takeoff really makes it interesting.
I have a lot of hours in the Carenado Mooney, and this turbo is quite similar in purpose, but takeoffs are quite simple in the Mooney and landings are tricky. In the Turbo Arrow, landings are easy… the takeoffs are a challenge.
Funny, I would much rather own a Mooney IRL, as it is clearly the fancier GA aircraft. The Arrow’s issues come from weight and cost savings. No waste gate?!? But in a sim, those dangerous, cost saving quirks make it a slightly more challenging GA than most. It is a blast!
Indeed there is a lot to learn. Day before yesterday I was flying the DC6 and although I usually try to stick to the instruments, I do occasionally check the tablet for engine health and noticed the oil temps were in yellow on the tablet even though in the right temperatures on cockpit gauge. Since I was in cruise I looked this up and found out this could be caused by the oil quantity not being sufficient, indeed I had forgotten to top up. However, I also found out I had the option to top it up in flight from the reserve oil tank. Its this kind of depth that makes it so enjoyable.
1 Like
The Turbo Arrow is a turbo charged piston engine, not a turbo prop. A turbo prop is a turbine engine (like a jet engine) that happens to drive a propeller.
A very nice turbo prop I am enjoying is the Kodiak, not quite high fidelity or study level though.
2 Likes
I forgot to use car terms in that last post!
I had been diligent until then.
It really is a turbo, not a turboprop.
(Fixed)