Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest UweR

Anyone tried Carenado's Dakota?

Recommended Posts

Guest UweR

Works well for me, do you see the NAV flag, or no GS indication at all?Best Regards, Uwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Has anyone had any luck intercepting a glideslope in the >Dakota? hehe - come on ... flying Dakota on ILS approach with APR mode on *:-* ? i think better idea is to use "hand and legs" :D - it gives much more fun...regardsEricson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Moghdad

Well, the glideslope and approach mode seem to be working fine now. I like this plane very much.Is it my imagination or does it seem to have an unusual nose-low attitude in level flight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Is it my imagination or does it seem to have an unusual >nose-low attitude in level flight? i'm not Dakota pilot but i added this line to aircraft.cfg , becouse i had little problems with nose down cruise ( i was constatly pulling nose up ;-)flight_tuning 800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UweR

I am no expert with flight dynamics, but doesn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DreamFleet

UWE, THIS RESPONSE IS NOT TO YOU, IT IS MADE "IN GENERAL". :-) Your post just reminded me of the following...I owned/flew the Dakota's predecessor, the Cherokee 235, "Charger", "Pathfinder", for some 15 years, and if you have any familiarity with the oleo struts on Pipers, you'll know right away that the attitude of the plane on the ground has NOTHING to do with the attitude in the air. They often sit tail low, sometimes VERY tail low on the ground.Heck, our 235 often used to sit so tail low on the ground that at times I used to "pop" the wing struts up by lifting up on each wing tip! Of course, that was while dodging the leaky petcock valve under the tip tanks. ;-)In fact, such will apply to any plane, such as a Piper cub, or Cessna 185. I mean, does a Piper Cub look the same in the air, during level cruise flight as it does on the ground? Of course, this is an extreme example of a conventional geared aircraft, but, I make my point.Do not expect an aircraft to "sit" in the air as it does on the ground. The two are essentially irrelevant, especially when it comes to Pipers (I'm not talking 747s here).As to my -235, I never had the chance to step outside during flight to see what she looked like, and otherwise would adjust the ADI to "level" when the VSI was at "0". I trimmed for level flight, adjusted the ADI, and that was it. I could have cared less how she looked from the outside. We often carried loads in the -235 that even a new Seneca V cannot (useful load on our -235 was about 1400 lbs, 65 lbs more than a standard equipped Seneca V). Out of the factory, with "base" equipment, the uselful load was 1500 lbs, with an empty weight of 1500 lbs. Yes, it could carry it's own empty weight in useful load.I really would not be overly concerned about a slight nose down or nose up attitude on a -236 (That's what the Dakota is, a PA-28-236) during flight. ;-)In the end, while the 182 was more popular, the -235/-236 could not be touched when it came to load carying capabilities, and they remain very popular and pricey aircraft on the used market, with -236s usually fetching well over $100,000 for 20 year old models.As to the comment about the AP, my -235 was not STC'd for a 2-axis AP, but later it was. The -236 is STC'd for some 2 axis units. While my AP had LOC hold, I never used it, as flying the LOC/GS was a piece of cake by hand. Same as it is with the -181 and -201 I fly today.Gosh, I miss my -235!I recall seeing a shot of the Carenado Dakota panel, and I believe I saw a Cessna 300 Navomatic AP installed, same as on our Cessna Cardinal (yes, this can be done in real life, if the unit is STC'd for the Dakota). That being the case, the 300 Navomatic has only a "Hi Sens" mode for use with the LOC, and it remains a one axis unit, with no GS or altitude capability.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...RUM_LOUF_A2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

like most addons, it does seem to have its quirks. On the upside, the visual model is very pretty. The plane looks just like the one on the cover of AOPA Flight Training last month (although I can't really verify that that is a Dakota). The virtual cockpit is excellent IMO. Very similar to the DFArcher cockpit and maybe just a tad clearer. I like the fact that the tach and MP can be in a separate panel, for those of us with multi monitors. Otherwise, these instruments get obstructed by the yoke in the VC.It seems to fly well enough - never having flown a low wing. Like the DFArcher, there isn't much time delay between liftoff of the nose gear and the mains, which differs a lot from my real world Cessna experience. Power on and power off stalls are decent but it doesn't model spins at all. It also has some pretty weird slow speed behavior. Like the DFArcher, it is almost too forgiving in slow speed and I find myself maneuvering it almost like a helicopter at times. I'm not convinced the turn coordinator really indicates a standard turn properly either. What seems like a coordinated turn visually pegs the turn coordinator.In general, it is a fun airplane to fly. Maybe too easy. And since the SFMarchetti, I'm less tolerant of compromises in the flight model than in the past. Hasn't anyone else figured out how that group captured spin behavior so well?? If I had to decide between the DF Archer and the Carenado Dakota, I'd say they are really, really close. DF has better sounds although the Carenado gyros are the best sounding I've heard in. I think the Carenado looks a bit better too, but it might just be personal preference.As for the customer service, it's hard to beat the purchase process for Carenado. I always pause a moment before I use a foreign bank to buy things online, but (knock on wood) I've never had a problem yet. That said, it's seems a little strange that we know so little about Carenado. I've never seen any posts here from anyone in the company (that I know of). I've never seen them attack a customer either, though ;-). I've rarely seen their products patched either, so I suspect what you buy is what you get. Fortunately, they are inexpensive and represent good value IMO.David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Richard_H

Good post David,The question I have in my mind is: if you already have the DF Archer, is there enough differentation in the Dakota to make spend more $$$$$ worthwhile. Tough question, I know, but when flying it, do you think "this is just like the Archer"?ThanksRichard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Honestly, Richard, if money were an issue I guess I wouldn't get it. On the other hand it is pretty inexpensive. Personally, I really enjoy the little differences between models - slightly different radios, instruments, dings and scratches. The Dakota is easier on frame rates IMO, if that matters to you. Beyond that, it is pretty darn close to the DF Archer.David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UweR

It is different from the Archer (David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Moghdad

Not to mention that the Dakota has an extra 50 hp, a constant speed prop, and cruises at around 140 kt as opposed to 110.We now have at least three quality payware Piper indians available--the Carenado Dakota and Archer II and the DF Archer II. They are all excellent in different ways. The DF 2D panel is probably the best ever. I would give Carenado the edge for external models. The Dakota's VC may be my favorite, although the HSI could be a little clearer. All three of the flight models are fun, quirks and all. I am really enjoying the Dakota right now. Best bet: buy all three.Last night I flew the Dakota from Naples to Fort Pierce FL, then on to Treasure Cay, Bahamas using real time weather. I flew the VOR 32 approach into Treasure Cay in light fog and haze to a perfect landing. It doesn't get any better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Maghdad,Thanks for pointing out the performance issues. I was at work and couldn't recall the difference offhand, but the Dakota does seem to have a lot of pep by comparison!David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest southie4

I'm surprised that there are not more screenshots at the Carenado site. I'd like to get a look, for example, of the panel night lighting. I would think that the more screenshots posted at the site, the better the chance of selling the product. There's not much there, however. I actually saw more shots at a European Lycos site that must be marketing it there that Uwe posted a link to at a different forum yesterday.For that matter, I did not see the Bonanza there at all.Thanks,Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UweR

Hi, the screenies there are my own, taken on request for an interested fellow simmer. Lycos free webspace offer is pretty decent for quick "jobs" like that. If you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Richard_H

I like it... I like it alot. In fact I prefer it to the DF Archer:-* the flight model feels just right (I fly Warriors for real, and I can't believe the handling is far different). I know it's stable, but that's what these Pipers are like. For example, it's the first simulated light Piper that I feel really reflects the true behavior, when landing crosswind in a wing down attitude.* the visual model is great and the reflections - quite specialThe real difference with the Archer though, IMHO, is the extra horses, and semi complexity (Variable pitch prop, but no retractable gear). This gives a whole new insight into flying light GA. You really have to do a bit more thinking coming into the pattern from 135 kts indicated.However, I have to disagee with you David and Uwe re the VC. I don't think it's up to the Archer, and the numbers on the HSI are barely visible running 1024. Though that may be I am running this on a laptop.One tip, I've discovered (not mentioned in the documentation) is that the two guages on the right of the 2D panel (Nav 2 OBS and the free slot), can be clicked on to provide the MP and Tach guages. Consequently, that plus the less than perfect VC, means that I tend to fly patterns in 2D - no great hardship.Thanks for the advice, I'm pleased I spent the money. In fact, I am about to be really nerdy and cancel today's real flight so I can play simulated. (clouds + sub freezing = icing) :-(Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...