Hello,Carenado Archer II is out and next will be Saratoga SP.Could anyone send impressions, please?ThanksPavel

Hello,Carenado Archer II is out and next will be Saratoga SP.Could anyone send impressions, please?ThanksPavel

I was wondering the same thing. My immediate thought was 'Oh god, not another Carenado Piper', but I see that this one mentions - ''Original HQ digital stereo sounds (44100 HZ) recorded from the original aircraft (NEW FEATURE OF CARENADO)'' which may or may not be a selling point. The problem is I'd need to hear them first before deciding whether or not to buy and none of the other forum sites have mentioned the sound at all yet.

......next will be Saratoga SP.

WONDERFUL! My flightsimming prayers have been answered. I was hoping Carenado would do the Saratoga. I fly one in the real world and to have a first class company like Carenado develop one, is going to be so very nice.I checked out their website and noticed the Saratoga SP will have retractible gear. Anyone know if the engine will be turbocharged? I am keeping my fingers crossed that it will be.I'm excited!

Thought about getting this until I saw the price tag. Not worth over $20 in my opinion.

Sounds seem very good - not decisively better than the 152 and 172 sounds, but good.Just gave it a first quick flight and liked it overall, but am wondering if the pitch axis seems twitchy, or if I'm just out of practice with Cherokees. Other impressions?Alan

Sounds seem very good - not decisively better than the 152 and 172 sounds, but good.Just gave it a first quick flight and liked it overall, but am wondering if the pitch axis seems twitchy, or if I'm just out of practice with Cherokees. Other impressions?Alan

Got it as well. The pitch isn't as twitchy for me as the last Carenado release (the Seneca). Don't know how it compares to a real Cherokee. It's an easy fix if I find myself annoyed by it, but so far so good. I posted some screenshots here:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=258241Overall I like the visual model--Carenado maintains very high standards with their models and is very consistent in that regard. I am going to enjoy flying this one and I think anyone who is a Carenado fan would like this release.Regards,John

Got it as well. The pitch isn't as twitchy for me as the last Carenado release (the Seneca). Don't know how it compares to a real Cherokee. It's an easy fix if I find myself annoyed by it, but so far so good. I posted some screenshots here:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=258241Overall I like the visual model--Carenado maintains very high standards with their models and is very consistent in that regard. I am going to enjoy flying this one and I think anyone who is a Carenado fan would like this release.Regards,John

Agreed about the visual modeling - it's excellent.Am thinking the pitch might need an aircraft.cfg tweak - will experiment.Alan

I really wish Carenado would do something different. Why not a turboprop or something with advanced avionics?-Alex

I really wish Carenado would do something different. Why not a turboprop or something with advanced avionics?-Alex

Perhaps that most with a plane like this don't have /are unable to afford advaned avionics?

does new PA-28-181 from Carenado has any of features introduced in L39 from Lotussim ? I mean new landing lights and/or other L39 goodies :)

does new PA-28-181 from Carenado has any of features introduced in L39 from Lotussim ? I mean new landing lights and/or other L39 goodies :)

I don't have the L-39 but I highly doubt it--the Archer's landing light seems pretty typical for the sim. The Archer was in development before the L-39 was released and unless there is some collaboration between the Carenado developers and the L-39 developer, I don't think you'd see tricks from one project make their way into the other. -John

So can someone explain what the difference between a PA28-180F and a PA28-181? Aside from having been made later, did anything much change?

So can someone explain what the difference between a PA28-180F and a PA28-181? Aside from having been made later, did anything much change?

I think the main difference was the wing. The older PA28-180F had the constant chord "mattress wing" and the newer PA28-181 had the laminar flow wing.

I think the main difference was the wing. The older PA28-180F had the constant chord "mattress wing" and the newer PA28-181 had the laminar flow wing.

Oh, right. Thanks. :( So now I wonder how hard it would be to merge my Australian Simulations Warrior air file with Carenado's new Cherokee model so that I could have a PA28-161 with a top-notch visual model. Well, probably not worth it.

I think the main difference was the wing. The older PA28-180F had the constant chord "mattress wing" and the newer PA28-181 had the laminar flow wing.

Also, the fuselage was lengthened behind the pilot (5" I think); the interior was upgraded, you'll note the trim is more rounded. Head rests were added, too.I own a share in a '73 Challenger, which fell between the 180F/G and the Archer. The model was only made for 1 year. They started the Archer nomenclature and added the new wing in '74. The Challenger has the hershey bar wings of the F (although slightly "wider" according to one source) and the fuselage of an Archer.Performance of all the models of the Cherokee 180 is approximately the same.