Dreamfleet Dakota or Archer III

[sluggy 3]

I'm in the mood for a new GA aircraft, and have narrowed it down to one of these models (I'm also a huge fan of Reality-XP gauges, and have spent a week fitting all manner of gauges to Cessnas, bigger Beechcrafts and even the PC-12, King Air B200 and DA Cheyenne; at least with these 2 models I can give FS Panel Studio a rest :)).Anybody have both? If so, what's your favourite? I know they're both top notch (I love Dreamfleet's B58 and 727). Which one is higher performing, and range wise is there much difference?I bet Lou recommends the Dakota! :DCheers, Chris

[teeps 0]

I went for the Dakota, and it's very good, but you probably figured that already!

[sluggy 3]

I couldn't wait, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.I also went the Dakota. It was the climb performance that swung me in the end, I might've preferred the Archer panel slightly, although the avionics were much the same. Just went for a hop around YPPH, the dinky little autopilot is quite nifty.

[WAD3 0]

I have been thinking about the Dakota it looks really I usually like to fly Airliners but I just bought the Beech A36 after having the Baron for a while. I really like the A36. It is a terrific aircraft even though it was done some time ago.

[Guest DreamFleet]

All it takes is a little web research to realize that the Dakota, despite higher fuel burns (something that is very important these days due to fuel prices) pretty much blows away the Archer as to performance.I've flown both, and have friends who own Archers too. Nothing against an Archer! :)The Archer is somewhat better "balanced" (that also means easier to land), as the Dakota has 100 pounds more in the nose (that comes inot play when thee are just two of you in the front seats), due to its huge engine. That's why some folks don't understand why you need some substantial nose up trim on landing, as you do with the real thing. They think there is a trim problem with our FS version! ;)Otherwise, even though they somewhat look the same, with that extra 55 horsepower up front, the Dakota becomes a different plane.Speed is greater, load carrying is greater, range is greater (27 gallons more fuel), and climb rate, especially on hot days, is in a different league. I recall a hot July day in the Archer with 3 adults on board and takeoff was, well, almost scary. The Dakota just leaps for the sky, and with 4 adults on board under the same conditions.The panel is what it is, as we have a custom panel on the Dakota, which actually puts it more in line with what the Archer III has.Or to put this all another way, it is like comparing a Cessna 172S (180 HP) with a Cessna 182, and the Dakota actually edges out the 182 in certain areas.However, I endorse neither aircraft, as they are both fine aircraft. It all depends on what your "mission" is, just as in the real world.As to the A36, while it is faster, you are not going to put 6 adults and full fuel in it. That territory is reserved for the Cessna 210 and Cherokee Six / Lance / early Saratogas.The nice thing about the Dakota is that you can fill all the seats with adults, fill the fuel tanks to the top and even throw some luggage on board and go for a nice, long flight. Very, very few planes can do that.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

[sluggy 3]

Hi LouYep, she's a beauty alright, flew the VH-MRX repaint from YPPH to YSHK, a pretty rough ride at 8000ft, dropped to 3000 for a while, then up to 12,000 for the last half, she sat on around 105kts quite nicely (Both tanks were full on departure). You're right about the trim on landing, if there was less fuel remaining (still had around 50% full on arrival) the trim would've been close to max.I've just fitted the Flightline T/N/ST3400 gauges to the B58 (pro version), it looks pretty flash now. Be worth a few dollars in the real world, methinks! I'm doing an around Australia trip by GA for a while, all VOZed up. Learning the GN430 as I go!Cheers, Chris