The DHC-2 Beaver as an Accusim-plane thread

[spadjockey]

Me too. And I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere with those pontoons.

Nope they'r for real. best bush plane ever built.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_v0k57 ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]

[cflord]

There you go, dreaming again! I've been flying my other DHC-2 Beaver in the new ORBX Pago Pago scenery. Just beautiful! Thanks for the videos; they were inspiring!

DHC-2 Beaver in ORBX Pago Pago scenery!


Keep the shiny side up and the dirty side down!

Ret SMSgt Cliff Lord C-130 Flight Engineer & Mechanic

[paddler]

I share the dream!

[janice]

I spent many hours in floats versions of this plane in the 70s, and I love them. The sound of the engine is very distinctive, and I still look up and smile when I hear one. They also pretty much fly themselves. I even enjoy the FSX version of the plane, but I would certainly love to have one by A2A. Count me in!

[spadjockey]

When I was watching the eagle's nest in S.W. Fla. A float plane flew over one day. It was awesome.

[Medtner]

I just watched a livestream presenting the new DHC-2 Beaver on the market.

It looks to be better than the old Aerosoft one, but still...

... it is not Accusim. By far!

The systems are almost fully stock - that is "canned". Give it full throttle and you'll get an even and safe redline, no overboost as the real thing would do. The starting is very easy and seems to be a simple "if this - this" logic, with no regard to the complexities of a big radial engine.
And so forth and so on.

The modelling seems decent, and up to normal standards. But we are so spoiled here with the A2A-aircraft. So it's just not good enough.

Here I was thinking I'd get something other than an A2A-bird for the first time since...... hmm. since the 172 came on the market. But no.
I'll wait for an A2A Beaver, or I'll get a real one. Whichever comes first.

[thomas_mac]

Check out this Beaver walkaround video Erik, lots of great details about the Beaver I never knew. The owner really knows his stuff and seems like a top notch guy. This is a longer video but well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTyf6huPUJo

[jeepinforfun]

Looking pack a few pages I was just thinking how sad it is that Spadjocky never got to fly an Accu-simmed DHC-2 Beaver. Life is way to short.

[Medtner]

Check out this Beaver walkaround video Erik, lots of great details about the Beaver I never knew. The owner really knows his stuff and seems like a top notch guy. This is a longer video but well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTyf6huPUJo

Yeah, I love those videos!

This one is also great: FlightChops is always a good watch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv7z499NBVs&t=296s

[CrownCityMisfit]

I'm gonna give the new Beaver a try. The developer has a good track record and I am very pleased with their C310.

But no, it's not Accusim. Not even close.

[Paughco]

Yeah.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_v0k57KhE&t=8s[/youtube]

[stephan.cote.1]

Hey Guys.. I alpha tested the Beaver from Milviz with my dad this winter.. If they managed to fix half of what we (the alpha testers) brought up to them, it should be not too bad... But it is no where near Accusim level.. Milviz is stuck within the limits of FSX/P3D code unlike A2A and PMDG...

My biggest issues with their model was: Engine inertia (non-existant) Engine temps.. Again, instantanous... no engine mass to heat or cool.. no overboost... Engine starting procedure weird at best...
On the good side:
Normal flight envelop was good, sound ok and visual model really nice...

I know I already mentioned that somewhere but if I could vote on a bushplane.. I'll go with the DHC-3 Otter instead of the DHC-2 Beaver for the following reasons:

600 Hp in front of a much larger Wing...
2000lbs of payload
Cruise attitude offer a better view in front of the cowling.. (The beaver drag its tail low while the Otter really cruise level)
There is nothing a Beaver can do that a Otter can't...

A2A has already modeled the R1340 for the T-6.. now it only needs to be coupled to a 3 blade Hamilton Std... 11 ft of Prop disk!
I have over 100 hours of passenger time in serial number 3 otter (C-FVVY)
My dad has 5000 hours as a Bushplane pilot.. around 4000 of these in a Otter... So I'm contaminated by his stories and his love for the Otter...

That being said... I wouldn't complained at getting a Accusimed Beaver... I just don't have the kid memories attached to it..
I'm sure you guys here can picture this..
I'm 11 years old.. its thursday morning, 5:00 AM... There is a thick fog on the river.. perfectly quiet with the execption of a few "clap" "clook" sounds of the tiny wave braking on hte EDO10000 pontoon... then you ear the wining sound of the fuel pump for 8-10 seconds.. folowed by three long primer strokes with the fuel flowing in its plumbed line to the top cylindres... "Clear prop!" and them... Magic happens... as those 9 long stroke pistons start to dance.... both mags on... Broooooom..........caugh caugh.... Broommmmmm pow......

Guys.. I can still smell the 100LL partially burned puffing from the augmenter tubes... as the Otter gently slide away from the dock into the ever think fog.... Sounding like 4 or 5 Harley Davidson's are idling in a wonderfull symphony of 1950's technology completely out of their time realm....

I'm almost 33.. never been close to a Otter since I was 15.. and these are still among my most vivid memories of Aviation... I enjoy the Cessna ride here and there with friends.. but it always lack that.. brute sound, sweet smell of the Supercharged P&W orchestra...

[Hobart Escin]

I was excited during development when I read somewhere that Rob Young from Realair was doing the flight dynamics, but there is no mention of him being involved now. Rather, it seems the flight dynamics were instead made by a 'very experienced bush pilot'.

[P*Funk]

No matter how experienced a bush pilot is they can't overcome the limitations of the tools they're given to work with translating his experience into a sim. I honestly don't know why more developers aren't trying to use an external model. Seems like most just stay inside the flawed FSX one and invest mostly in improving the visuals but I guess as a business approach that works because many buy based on looks alone.

[Hobart Escin]

I honestly don't know why more developers aren't trying to use an external model. Seems like most just stay inside the flawed FSX one and invest mostly in improving the visuals but I guess as a business approach that works because many buy based on looks alone.

This pretty much sums it up.