• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Realistic 172?

pilottj said:
Hey Bernt I was curious if you think the Carenado Archer II could use an FDE update or if you think it is good enough.
Click to expand...

Haven't flown the Carenado version since quite some time. A new FDE would only make sense if I can get RW pilots actually perform 1 or 2 extensive test flights with the real one.
You wouldn't believe how many promises I've got over the years that the pilots would actually perform a few tests with the real plane. The only usable response I got was for the 'ultimate' Carenado 185 FDE and the KCFS Seabee.
 
No issues with helping, although my numbers might be different as ours is sporting the 180hp conversion, yet it still flies like any other 172. Need to get my hands on one of the former USAFA T-41's we used at Peterson AFB Aero Club.
 
bstolle said:
Haven't flown the Carenado version since quite some time. A new FDE would only make sense if I can get RW pilots actually perform 1 or 2 extensive test flights with the real one.
You wouldn't believe how many promises I've got over the years that the pilots would actually perform a few tests with the real plane. The only usable response I got was for the 'ultimate' Carenado 185 FDE and the KCFS Seabee.
Click to expand...
Its actually not 'TOO' bad, all the boxes are ticked, apart from the lift scalar curve in the primary aerodynamics section. its just too low. It ruins the rest of the feel of the aircraft. if you discount that, technically its fairly close. I redid it for my custom pa28-236 Dak, Might tune it down to Arrow engine specs if I get chance.
 
I own a 1979 Archer II PA 28-181, so if you get to playing with it let me know and I'll go run around for you.....

Personally I think the Caranedo Archer is a pretty good representation although it is not as stable in cruise as my actual airplane....tends to want to wander around. My only other real criticism is it doesn't have the Apollo III Autopilot. While this was actually an option on the Archer II, I have NEVER seen one here in the states without it.

If I could figure out how to put one in, I would.
 
Speaking of Cessna 172's, what do you all think of the SimFlight 1958 172? It seems to fly fairly realistically to me, but I don't do anything fancy in small GA planes.
 
Done renting the 172 now, so really can't contribute to any of your FDE adjustments, but if you want to add/port over the C-182, that's my next mount for a couple weeks then a Baron B58 and finally a King Air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top