Sign in to follow this  
kdfw__

Xmas for FS9 Users--New Piper Dakota

Recommended Posts

Hi,I'm not that much of a GA person (only have SF260, next big plane is the Aeroworx B200, rest are FMC-driven heavy metals), but I was itching for change in pace so just DL the new F1/Dreamfleet Piper Dakota.Wow, nice plane to fly around! Instrumentation is smooth and excellent. Model, sound, documentation is first-rate. Night flying is a pleasure. I read that the turbo charged version will also become available for free so looking forward to that!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/182040.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/182038.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/182039.jpgReminder: Must setup flight to St. Barts (TFFJ) to enjoy FlyTampa's TNCM scenery.One cosmetic issue, though, can't see the strobe from the VC view unless at night and landing light is on, or looking at the strobe without the window tint (shift eyepoint or open door). Small detail I'm sure they can fix.Thanks,Pat AMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Looks nice. I'm torn on this one. I have the Archer III and Beech Bonanza, which are both excellent, although I favor the Beech because of the faster speed, slightly higher ceiling, and avionics. I have a hard time getting excited about low and slow planes in FS. I love the Beech, but I do wish it could go higher and faster, so I turn to the twins for that, mainly the Cheyenne from DA. The only thing the Beech is really missing is a TCAS IMO.This Dakota, albeit a great plane I'm sure, doesn't have a TCAS, Strikefinder, although a RXP Sandel 3400 could be put in, hint hint, and so I'm torn. I'm debating whether to just get the B58 Twin since I don't have it, even though I really love my Cheyenne the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The XP version of the DF B58 is top notch. You wont regret it. I compare the DA Piper to the Aeroworks B200, much more complex. The B58 is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't think the DA Cheyenne is complex at all, and neither is the B200, but I fly the ATR and PMDG/Level-D type of planes, so I'm used to complex. It is nice sometimes to avoid the complexity and pick a simple plane though, like the Beech A36, and that's been my favorite for a while now for this reason. I never really mess with the B200 and it's mostly due to the GPS, although I have a problem with it sounding a tone after a while in flight on this new computer and it's such a minor issue among users, no one at Aeroworx knows what it is.I have to say, my proclivity for Dreamfleet is the RXP GPS and similar gauges, excellent panels and other details, and most of all, the flight dynamics. Like the DA Cheyenne, you can bank without dipping all over the place in altitude and that's important. The B58 might just be a good choice for me over the new Dakota, even though I was waiting for the Dakota to come out. The reason I don't like lower flying planes is because a lot of place I like to fly have high mountain ranges and it's not always easy to avoid them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I look at it, the Dakota ceiling isn't half bad. I wonder how much faster the Turbo (TC) version is?Hmm, I might get both! LOLETA: Okay, just DL'ed the Beech B58 and will probably get the Dakota once the Turbo comes out. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Agree, slow and low isn't for everyday. I also have the ATR72-500 and it bridges the GA and the big jets. It's nice to have some variety in FS.I think with the Dakota, I have a good range of a/c to satisfy almost every flying needs/types:GA: DF-Dakota, RA-SF260, DA-Do27TP: AW-B200, F1-ATR72MIL: C9-F4HELI: AS-SH60, ND-EC120MED: F1-MD80HEAVY:PMDG-744, PSS777, LVD-763, RFP742I may consider the Beech A36 or the F1-PC12, both interesting planes.Later,PatAMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi,>>Agree, slow and low isn't for everyday. I also have the>ATR72-500 and it bridges the GA and the big jets. It's nice>to have some variety in FS.>>I think with the Dakota, I have a good range of a/c to satisfy>almost every flying needs/types:>>GA: DF-Dakota, RA-SF260, DA-Do27>TP: AW-B200, F1-ATR72>MIL: C9-F4>HELI: AS-SH60, ND-EC120>MED: F1-MD80>HEAVY:PMDG-744, PSS777, LVD-763, RFP742>>I may consider the Beech A36 or the F1-PC12, both interesting>planes.Out of everything I bought for FS9, I only reinstalled a few planes. I had the F1 PC12 and didn't like it very much at all. Same with the Conquest from F1. The flight dynamics weren't right IMO. Both would continue to climb without flaps and no throttle for what seemed like forever and they fought you on landing. Realistic or not, I just didn't like them. The RealAir Scout package was amazing but just too low and slow, so I kept it off as well. I did put the Do-27 on because it really kept my interest when I first bought it and it has some nice features, but it is also very slow and a little odd at times. Here's where I'm at on this new build:GA: DF Archer III, DF Beech A36, DA Do-27TP: DA Piper Cheyenne, Aeroworx B200 (might remove it), F1 ATR 72-500JET: PMDG 737NG, and will install Leonardo Maddog 2006Heavy: PMDG 744 pax and cargo, Level-D 767That's it! I don't play with Helicopters or Mil planes. There is one Mil jet I saw previews of a while back I might get, but it really depends on the comments. So, I just bought the Beech B58 and will add that to the list too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DFB58 combined with the RXP gauges has to be my favorite GA plane to date. I love that sucker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I am having some major problems getting the engine to start up. The ignition key wont move to the right and when using ctrl + e to start the engine I get this : http://www.alcom.aland.fi/kitte/msfs/Film.WMVQuite funny effect :) but I'd rather be up and flying than doing this. I did get the engines up and running a couple of times and the gauges sure are sweet.Dreamfleet 2000 forum next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Personally I am having some major problems getting the engine>to start up.I don't have the Dakota yet, but if it is like the other DF aircraft, you have to open the configuration screen and set the plane up for takeoff. Remove the tiedowns, make sure a pilot is in the cockpit, etc. If you have anything wrong at setup, the engines will never start. As always, read the fine manual :)I'm actually torn on getting this. I always enjoy Dreamfleet aircraft, but is this one significantly different than the Beech aircraft and Archer other than the aircraft specs? In fs9 is there anything new about the avionics, or is it the same as before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dreamfleet is, IMO, one of the very few top notch developers. And it's definitely the best when it comes to GA. My only "complaint" is that I wish they had developed the Arrow before the dakota because now I have to wait that much longer for it. :) Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually thank you for the video! In a positive way, I see this as one of a good example to showcase how deep simulation can go with this product!Amazingly, during development and beta testing, I was so used to the standard procedure (pilot, ties in the CC panel) that I've never experienced this and never saw it was this cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant was the DA Piper and AW B200 model things like proper engine managment where as the DF Baron you just get in it and fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that! :)Well, my plane (the Dakota) had to be next after the Archer III, I couldn't live with myself otherwise. However once the turbo Dakota is out, we attach RG to that and it is a turbo Arrow III. Then we put a T-tail on it and it becomes a turbo Arrow IV. Basically the same way Piper did it years ago all from the same PA28 airframe. ;)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah! :D I had the aircraft untied to the ground but managed to understand the pilot thing a bit wrong! Got it up and running now and just did a very nice flight KSEA - KPDX!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the Baron 58 for me this X-Mas so far. I just completed a flight in it and like it a lot. I'm sorry I didn't buy it sooner, but I was worried about the bouncing complaints people had back when it came out. Strange thing, I landing it perfectly the first time, no hint of a bounce at all! I think the A36 has trained me well in this regard, since it requires power through the flare, so I figured the Baron would too. Most add-ons are different in how you can decrease the power over the threshold into the flare and not have a problem. After that flight in the Baron, it's clear people that had that problem were coming in too fast. I slowed to about 100 over the threshold and it worked perfect.Looking forward to the Dakota though. Gonna wait for the Turbo and any minor issue that needs to be patched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,Between the Baron 58 and Bonanza A36, which would choose? I see the A36 has the WX500 radar model.Also, aside from the fde of the PC12, any other words on it?I may get lucky and be allowed to get another one for Xmas.Thanks,PatAMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's tough. The A36 is a little slower, ~20 knots, and has a slightly lower ceiling, ~2,000 to 4,000 less. I've never been able to get the A36 very high, but I doubt the B58 will go to 20,000 without an issue either. The A36 is technically around 18,500 and the B58 is 20,500. The A36 handles 16,000 just fine though, and I know it depends on atmospheric conditions too. So putting those minor details aside, I'll focus on the planes and avionics.The A36 and B58 both have the great Reality XP gauges, although you can get them without. You still get the analog gauges. The A36 gives you the Wx500 from RXP, and we all know that works the best of all renditions I've used. The A36 comes default with the Eaglesoft Sandel EHSI, but thier model is less detailed as the RXP version. The RXP version gives you every feature they could within the confines of the sim. The RXP Sandel has a Strikefinder, so that makes it a clear winner. So, after buying the A36, I went to RXP and bought their Sandel and replaced the Eaglesoft with the RXP version. It's really cool in a T-storm to see the strikes in the air appear on the RXP Sandel. The B58 doesn't give you the Wx500, but it comes default with the RXP Sandel, so you almost don't need the Wx500, since you can detect strikes on the EHSI. Of course, you could buy the Wx500 and put it in the Baron, but I never can figure that out.The A36 gives you the RXP 430 and the B58, the RXP 530. Both excellent GPS and more or less, they do the same thing. The 530 is just larger. The 530 used to have a TCAS feature, and for some reason RXP took it out when they remodeled the GPS gauges. It was a great feature I thought.The A36 and B58, except for obvious differences, don't have a lot seperating them. One is a twin, and the other a single. Both go pretty fast and fairly high for GA. The FDE on both is great. It felt the B58 was slightly heavier, and probably is, but I've only had one flight so far. I really couldn't tell you which one to buy, it really comes down to personal choice on looks and minor details.The PC-12 was nice, but I thought the panel looked less like the real PC-12 too. It was a great plane overall, but the FDE was just to awful for me. I hated it. It would float over the runway forever and dropping the throttle made little difference in getting her down. The slightest flare movement would result in so much floating. Compared to all my other add-ons, the PC-12 and C441 were too "floaty" and reluctant to slow down for me. You could put the plane into a climb of say 1000 FPM, no flaps, and drop the throttle to idle and it would keep climbing for what seemed like forever. Odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been my experience that you can't go wrong with Flight One or Dream Fleet products. They make up a good 85% of my add ons. By the way, what scenery is that in the screenshots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris. I'll have a hard time picking between the two, but either way, should be good.PatAMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the comment above about the F1 PC12:"It would float over the runway forever and dropping the throttle made little difference in getting her down. The slightest flare movement would result in so much floating."Sounds like a PC12 that's going too fast, or my Piper Dakota or a Piper Comanche or the Cessna 210 I also fly. Add Mooney to that list among many others.Chopping the throttle means nothing. What is your speed? "Dropping" the throttle does not automatically kill off speed.You really have to "nail" the approach speeds with these planes, otherwise many of them will do just that. The PC12 may be larger than some King Airs, but it is not much more than a big Cessna when it comes to landing. If you are a few knots too fast, you WILL float or maybe even "balloon" when you flare.I mean, look at the wings on it. It will float if you are too fast, it's not an MU2.The moment I hear a comment like that, and no offense, you are telling me you are too fast and, trust me, just a few knots (3 or 4) can be too fast. A good pilot can get a PC12 on to a short runway (2500') that I have seen "bad" Cessna 172 pilots have problems with. However, speed management is critical. Manage your speed and you will be rewarded. :)No offense, but I doubt there is any real problem with the F1 PC12 in this regard; just don't fly speeds as though it were a 727. The dirty stall speed is only around 65 kts, just 9 knots more than my Piper Dakota and 8 knots more than the Cessna 210 (both much smaller aircraft). If you are flaring at 80 or 90 kts, guess what? Float city. It's not a jet, despite its large size. Under normal conditions (not high, gusty winds) perhaps no more than 75 kts over the threshold and then flare and let it bleed off and touch down.Give the PC12 another try, and don't be afraid to go slow, as it will not drop out of the sky from under you (just keep the Vso in mind), and even if it does you will live to fly another day as it is FS. Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Lou! It's just the overall feeling I get with it though. I have a pretty good record with landing the add-ons I buy unless something about them is off. An example is the Beech Baron 58 I just bought yesterday from you guys. I'd always heard it was impossible to land and it bounced, and more. Well, I've flown it twice now, and my landings were perfect! My landing wasn't so good when I first got the A36 because I needed to keep some speed through the flare, so I applied this technique to the Baron and it worked better than I find it does for me in the A36. A lot of add-ons I have aren't too concerned with little changes in speed and almost require you to slowly start dropping speed over the threshold into the flare until about 10" AGL, then idle. They just don't react as much to the slow decrease in speed and help the flare work without ballooning as you say. I found the Flight 1 ATR, a favorite of mine, to be one that seemed to require I start losing speed as I'm getting ready to enter the flare so I don't balloon and I can idle a few feet off the ground and land perfectly. The Archer III seems more like this IMO, as opposed to requiring sustained power through the flare. As far as speed, I always go by the numbers I'm supposed to. I always read the manuals, unlike some, and try to simulate as much realism as possible. In fact, I might even go a little too slow sometimes, but that's how I learn a new plane so I don't come in too fast. In the ATR I'll final at about 120 KIAS, then at threshold, slowly start dropping to 110 or so, then touchdown at maybe 95 to 105 depending on weight of course. I'm always careful to keep my fuel where it should be, not full tanks on every flight. In the Baron I was keeping her at about 100 (blue line) on short final and dropping just slightly over the threshold to maintain about 85 to 90 knots through the flare and on landing. I might have TD at 80, but that was my range, which I consider slow.The PC-12, C441, and even the Carenado Stationair are all planes I felt never wanted to be pushed down. Almost as if they fought to stay level or climb. I mentioned the feeling of fighting the Stationair down to the runway one time and a couple others agreed. This was feeling I had with the PC-12 and C441.Oh well, I don't want to seem like I'm arguing, and I take your comments positively, I guess it's just a personal feeling I had with them. I love all the DF planes I have or have had (737-400 in 2002), and fly a lot of different types of add-ons in FS, all payware. Those two, along with the Stationair were almost annoying to descend and land with. It's not like I don't have plenty of planes to fly. I'll most likely even get the Dakota once you guys have it all finished and the Turbo is out for it. I might consider the C441 again, but at this time, I'm enjoying plenty of add-ons.Thanks for the response though, I appreciate it, and will consider this in the future and if I ever decide to retry either of them.Also, if you could, I posted a thread about the Baron in the DF forums with regards to a mag dev issue it appears, I'm not sure. Maybe you could take a look or have someone who might know figure out why the track in the Sandel doesn't align to the GNS 530, when I use that same Sandel in the A36 (RXP version) without any problems.Thanks Lou!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you checked your GNS magvar settings? if set to auto (from memory), it will be synched with the FS magvar instead of the GNS internal magvar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try and look for this setting. I don't recall seeing this setting in the GNS 530 and I've had it for years. I know I've seen the datum info (ie. WGS-84), but I'll look again. I posted on Flightsim that I did a test tonight after reinstalling my stand-alone Sandel to see if that would fix the problem, and since I don't know how you tied those gauges to one plane only, I figured I'd try to see if my own version would overwrite any problems. It seemed to work fine, but it was just a very short test flight. The ILS lined up though, so it might have been just a fluke. Thanks Jean Luc!

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