archer (dreamfleet) vs dakota (carenado)

[Guest Pabra]

Which one should I get? I'm mainly interested in a perfect virtual cockpit but easy one the hardware (lo end). They look very close in apperance from the screenshots. Anyone with both of them who can make up my mind...thx, paul

[Guest Richard_H]

They're both great aircraft. However IMHO...The Archer has the better VC.The Dakota has the better air file. Both are good with frame rates. So by your criteria, go for the Archer.Richard

[Guest Moghdad]

They're both excellent planes. The DF Archer 2 has a cutting-edge 2D panel with nice features like opening doors and engine cowling, and a configuration utility that allows you to play with weight and balance. The Carenado Dakota has the more attractive external model, about a 50 HP advantage, a constant speed prop, and cruises at 140 kts--20 to 30 better than the Archer. The Dakota is less expensive at $17, although both are good values.The Archer II has good flight dynamics. However in my opinion, the Carenado Dakota's flight model is truly something special. It is a pleasure to fly, very smooth, stable and responsive, and the performance characteristics (takeoff, climb, landing, cruise performance and fuel consumption, etc.) are spot-on the real-world numbers. The Dakota's simulation of things like short and soft-field takeoffs and landings is amazingly convincing. Overall I would call it one of the two or three best FS2002 flight models for small GA aircraft that I have flown so far. Sadly it has been somewhat overlooked.The Dakota has a couple of annoying little flaws that could easily be fixed and ought to be. The markings on the HSI (horizontal situation indicator) are somewhat difficult to read, especially in the 3D display. This is a small problem, not a big one, and someone more computer-saavy than me could probably figure out a way to substitute a better gauge (can anyone reading this help?). Also, the plane has an odd, slightly nose-low attitude in level flight that takes getting used to. I would like to see this patched.I flew the Archer II extensively when it was released last summer. These days, I fly the Dakota more because of its better cruise speed and flight dynamics. Both are well worth owning.

[John F 2,417]

You can correct the nose-low attitude on the Dakota by going into the aircraft.cfg file, and in the FLIGHT TUNING section change the Cruise_Lift_Scalar value from 1.0 to something lower. I have Carenado's Warrior and the nose-low look bothered me until I dropped the value to 0.9 which suited me better.John

[Guest UweR]

Hi, I have both and found I fly the Archer (Dreamfleet panel and sounds, Carenado air.file and visual model) more than the Dakota. If you need a good virtual cockpit it gets compicated. The VC gauges are somewhat clearer to read in the Archer, whereas the Dakota has the crisper panel board and surrounding images.I have taken a few shots, maybe they help:http://mitglied.lycos.de/simdream/index.htmhttp://mitglied.lycos.de/simdream/warrior.htmIt

[Guest Pabra]

Thanks Uwe for the splendid shots. They convinced me that the dakota vc seems more accurate in dimensions; something in the archer just don't seems right and the windshield bar is far too thin and long (details, details.. :-)). The dakota vc also seems more textured; again it's the details that do it. I'm going for the dakota!Paul

[Guest Timbo]

I don't think you'll be dissapointed! The Dakota has been the only single engine plane I've flown for the past two months.[TABLE BORDER=0][tr][td]

http://timbo87.home.attbi.com/minisig.jpg

[/td][/tr][tr]

[td]

Click here to visit Tim's FS Studio!]

[/td][/tr][tr][td colspan=2]

Last updated March 3rd

[/td][/tr][/TABLE

[Guest Richard_H]

Paul,Nothing against the Dakota (it's my prefered plane cos of the flight model), however, Uwe's screenshots are not the Dreamfleet Archer, but of the Carenado Dakota and Warrior. See below the link to Avsim review of it and click on the VC photo.http://www.avsim.com/pages/1102/dreamfleet...her/archer.htmlIt is a much clearer VC... IMHO. :)

[Guest Moghdad]

Interesting. Does this modification affect the flight characteristics, or just the appearance?

[John F 2,417]

I haven't noticed any effect on flight characteristics. But lowering the number has helped level nose-low cruisers like Lou Volland's 707 and Greg Pepper's CV580. And raising the value above 1.0 has helped level nose-high fliers like the Project Airbus A320 and most MD-80s.John

[Guest]

The archer is a beautiful airplane but, I've experienced decreased performance, I do not like the sounds, and the fligt dynamics are a serious problem in my system. I need advice on how to tweak the flight dynamics. I can not get this airplane to feel right. The sf 260 feels right. The archer does not. On the other hand its 2d cockpit will help the instrument pilot improve their partial panel scanning technique. One can disable instruments with the click of the mouse. This is a priceless skill. So for this alone the archer is worth the price.JoseCFI, CFII

[Guest UweR]

Hi all, Richard is right of course, the visual model flying over Bryce is the Carenado Warrior with the Dreamfleet Archer

[LAdamson 240]

I'm wondering what doesn't feel right with the Archer. I flew them for years & am quite satisfied with the DF Archer. I only have two small complaints. Still a small pull to the right, at power application, before normal pull to the left. And perhaps getting the rudder trimmed seems a bit harder than the real one. But certainly not anything serious. It's one of the models that seem very close.....within the limits of PC's to me. I personally do believe "rudder pedals" are a must---- though!I do agree about the SF260; it's one of the best single engine aircraft (flight dynamic wise) ever programmed for FS2002. In fact, IMO----- it IS the best! Had the oppertunity to fly a real one also.L.Adamson

[Guest]

Uwe:The flight dynamics problem I refer to has to do with controller input sensitivity and the feeling of actual flight. I own the AETI Flight Yoke with Cirrus pedals and find that the Archer is extremely sensative to yoke and rudder inputs. I use the 260 as an example of how an airplane should respond to yoke and rudder inputs. This means that it is the airplane design and not my flight yoke and rudder that has to be examined. I can give to more examples of airplanes that work well with my controllers: the Dasault Falcon (free) and the Cessna 421 Golden Eagle. By the way those 3 airplanes are the only airpalnes that I truly enjoy. I'm sure many FS 2002 enthusiasts love the Archer, I just wish it would behave properly on my system.JoseCFI, CFII

[Guest DreamFleet]

Wish I could help you here, Jose, as I own the same yoke and rudder pedals as you do, and also fly an Archer in real life, and have no issues such as you describe. You might want to play around in the PFC utility where the rudder pedals are concerned, and in the FS menu where the yoke is concerned.Also be sure you note the check box on Config-o-Matic. It should be checked if you use rudder pedals, and unchecked if you do not.Ultimately, I echo Larry's thoughts, and I think Ron Freimuth got our Archer flight dynamics about as close to the real thing as one can get.Those who are experiencing flight dynamics problems with the Archer would be best advised to visit our forum for some help / advice, as there really are no flight dynamics issues with the Archer. :-)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...RUM_LOUF_A2.jpg