Thanks for that post Brad, its pleasing to see a developer taking issues like this without taking big offence.I am very glad to see that you are comitted to making your product "better", and this alone could push me into making the decision to purchase your plane.CheersDan.

Thanks for the comments, Brad. Off to check out those new screenies...my credit card is warming up :-smooch!Best,sg

Hold your horses there Scott. I haven't uploaded the images yet, as soon as I get back from dinner, I'll be doing so. :)

>Ladamson>Have you flown a real archer? Last time I did it pitched up.>Heck even one of my instructors with hundreds of hours in the>archer commented on this.>Also, if

Brad,I've been to the website and I can't find my horses anywhere...;)Thanks!sg

For those who are intrested, i have captured 8 screen shots saved as JPG files at 800*600 DPI in a Zip file to DL if anyone wishes to see images that are independant screenshots of the Pipers.http://home.iprimus.com.au/jstanyer/vicsim/pw.ziprgds Jeff

OK, I have finally uploaded those full size images. There are several links to this page from the Piper web site. But the direct link is: http://www.aussim.com.au/piper/screenshots.asp

Thanks for those bigger screen shots Brad, the plane looks really good in them and they seem to have quieted some of the gripers.I can't believe one little plane has caused so much turmoil. Either buy it or don't, but we should all be grateful that developers like Aussie Sim continue to provide add-ons for Flight Simulator.I'm still up in the air on this one, might still buy it yet.Jim

G'day Peter,I've kept out of this one - " to keep the peace " :-)I agree that flap/wing design is the cause of the pitching moment. On symmetrical airfoils there is no movement of the centre of pressure with changes in angle of attack but with assymmetrical airfoils the centre of pressure moves forward (causing pitch up) with increasing angle of attack. As the T/E flaps are lowered the wing chordline changes thus the wing angle of incidence is increased. This results in an increase in the angle of attack. The Cessna uses an airfoil that is appreciably more assymmetric than the laminar flow airfoil on the Cherokee. In straight and level flight the centre of pressure is at about 30 % of the chord on the Cessna whereas its about 40% on the Cherokee. As you state the latter stages of flap apply more drag so the aircraft slows and the nose lowers as the aircraft establishes a downward flight path. The beauty of the increased angle of incidence is that this means that the nose can be trimed lower on the glide path to give the pilot an excellent view of the runway yet a high angle of attack is retained for lift.Just my 2c worth from a non pilot. Cheers,Roger

So many different ideas, facts, theory, & so on.A paragraph from the following website:Just adding flaps will cause an aircraft to pitch up or down depending on how the change in lift and drag created is positioned around the center of gravity. Flaps lowered on high-wing usually cause a nose-up pitching moment as the camber changes the lift around the center of pressure. The resulting drag also causes a nose-up pitch. Low-wing aircraft flaps causes drag that pitches the nose down. Only the aggregate of pressures of lift and drag determines the direction of pitch change.http://whitts.alioth.net/Pagec81Use%20of%20Flaps.htmL.Adamson

G'day Larry>So many different ideas, facts, theory, & so on.>>A paragraph from the following website: So another theory :-lol>Just adding flaps will cause an aircraft to pitch up or>down depending on how the change in lift and drag created is>positioned around the center of gravity.I agree 100%. There are two aerodynamic couples trying to pitch the aircraft. Lift is normally aft of weight so the lift/weight couple tends to pitch nose down. The designer usually (NOT ALWAYS) tries to counteract this moment by using an opposing couple created by drag/thrust. If this can't be achieved due to a high thrustline then a negative incidence stabilizer may be used.Whatever system is used; for straight and level flight these two aerodynamic couples must be in balance. >high-wing usually cause a nose-up pitching moment as the>camber changes the lift around the center of pressure.>Not quite accurate. Extending flaps will increase the mean camber of the wing and therefore increase lift; but not AROUND the centre of pressure. By definition -Lift acts THROUGH the centre of pressure at right angles to the relative airflow.The centre of pressure moves back and forth along the chord line dependent on angle of attack and lowering the flaps increases the angle of attack which causes the centre of pressure to move forward.This happens whether the wing is high or low. The degree of movement of the centre of pressure is however dependent on airfoil design as well as angle of attack.> The resulting drag also causes a nose-up pitch. Low-wing aircraft>flaps causes drag that pitches the nose down.This explains why the pitch up is more pronounced on the Cessna but it doesn't mean that a low wing aircraft will necessarilly pitch nose down. As the article goes on to explain - >aggregate of pressures of lift and drag determines the>direction of pitch change.Oh so true. :-) One can't be dogmatic about aircraft flight behaviour but in general on most aircraft the exending of trailing edge flaps will cause the aircraft to pitch nose up.As an example, on the B707 emergency pitch control can be achieved by splitting the inbd. and outbd. T/E flaps.Extend just the inboard flaps will pitch the aircraft NOSE UPExtend just the outboard flaps will pitch the aircraft NOSE DOWNAahh but that's due to sweep back!but that's another theory. :-lolCheers,Roger

Adding to the flap pitch changes discussion.I think some are confused or not clearly stating the difference between initial pitch change and stabilized flight pitch change. All flaps that I've seen change the angle of attack that causes a nose down pitch in stabilized flight. But, initially the flap extention can cause a climb. This may look like a nose up pitch, but on the Archer/Warrior the whole aircraft is going up (more than nose up change), while remaining in "nearly" the same attitude. The Cessnas actually go nose up due to the drag induced that is above the center of mass as opposed to the low wing ac.Any plane that has it's chord line increased to the rear of the CG or angle of attack increased is going to pitch down after flight has been stabilized.:)

I submitted a couple of posts at the AussieSim site that might be helpful to some on this site regarding the "buy vs. wait" question.In short, I am glad I purchased this add-on, but I am hoping that there will be updates. I am also interested if others with the product have had similar experiences. ChrisPost #1:Hello,I privately fly a PA28 160, and I own the DF Archer, Carenado Archer, and now, the AussieSim Warrior. I have flown the latter very briefly, and here are some comments.Overall "gut" feeling about the new add-on? I really like it, and I am excited to "fly it" more. Interestingly, everyone compares it to the DF Archer. In my opinion the Carenado version is superior. The (Carenado) FS2002 version looked great, but the flight dynamics were terrible (IMHO). However, when they patched it for FS2004, that changed significantly.I purchased the AussieSim Warrior primarily for the older, Warrior II version, primarily because it so closely resembles my own plane. I believe the major difference is that the Warrior has the newer tapered wings. My plane has the older Hershey Bar type, and so any comparison to the "real thing" will need to take that into consideration. My "preference bias" leans heavily toward flight dynamics (i.e. over aesthetics). What I like best about (initial impression) the new AussieSim aircraft:-I LOVE the realistic need to apply right rudder upon takeoff (and climb) due to P-factor, torque, slipstream, and gyro effect. I believe it is very well done, the best I've experienced, and my vote is to not mess with it!-This is the first GA airplane in FS I've flown in which the inclinometer (the "ball" in the turn coordinator) does not flop around erratically and therefore uselessly. This came as a surprise...a very pleasant one.What I wish could be changed:-I agree with others that something is "off" with the trim. I LIKE its responsiveness, but in order to take off and climb out at Vy I have to set the trim quite nose high (according to the indicator), much more so than realistic, in my opinion. If I set it like I do in my own airplane, I have to hold an inordinate amount of backpressure during climbout. Not an issue in either the DF or Carenado models.-It seems that the engine noise variation is a bit too responsive to subtle throttle inputs. The range from 2400 and 2000 RPM, for example seems a bit too drastic. General Observations:-I use virtual cockpit mode 99% of the time. One thing I greatly dislike about the DF Archer is the manner in which the pilot's view is blocked by the "huge" post separating the port side window from the windscreen, making it difficult to see the runway while on base leg. After all, that ability is one of the great things about low wings! This is not a problem in either the Carenado or AussieSim version.-The post in which someone mentioned it had "weird" flight dynamics is totally off. It flies a bit differently from the DF or Carenado versions to a degree that is noticeable, and my gut hunch is that it is for the better. I'll fly it some more...-I do believe that both the DF and Carenado birds win in the category of "sensing a feel of climb" during takeoff, especially the latter (NOT the FS2002 version -- that was terrible in this respect). The sensation is that the AussieSim Warrior "feels" like it is rising "flat" or horizontally from the runway, whereas in the others there's a stronger sensation of "pitch-up" during climbout. Wish list:-That empty space at panel-left where someone suggested placing an additional ADF gauge (oh please, no) can be put to such good use. One limitation (for me anyway) in using FS (Piper) is having to continually pan down to refer to the RPM gauge. Of course, in real life it is just an instant glance. I would love to have the option of placing an RPM gauge in that empty space. Some may disagree claiming lack of realism, but in my opinion, the need itself to "pan down" as referred to detracts from realism.-A personal and very strong wish: a DME in the Warrior II! That is something that both the DF and Carenado models have. My plane has a KNS-80 RNav with DME, and I constantly use it in navigation.Minor issues:-the Ctrl-L command to turn on the landing lights doesn't work for me. The only way I know of to turn on the landing light is to click on the panel with the mouse.-I use a couple of GoFlight modules when I fly FS. Since I loaded the AussieSim aircraft last evening, I get an error message warning that "Flight Simulator has detected potentially incompatible aircraft or software. File: GFDev2k2.dll" I went into the GoFlight configuration program and "updated" my airplanes (an option provided that should not, nevertheless, need to be done), and yet I still get the error message. Coincidence or could this be related to the AussieSim Warrior?All in all, as stated, I am very excited about this new add-on, and I cannot wait to fly it again, as I will do shortly. I hesitated in purchasing it (I read all the Avsim stuff) and I can firmly say I'm glad I did. Any amendments or corrections to my impressions upon flying more will follow.Post #2:Hello again...Upon further flight experience I have updates to prior comments...I found a "fix" for the trim issue, given my hardware. It is normal to set the trim indicator a bit aft of neutral prior to takeoff. I did this in the Carenado Archer (as normal) and during climbout "switched" to the AussieSim Warrior. The Warrior immediately nosed steeply down and the airspeed rapidly climbed. Although I was trimmed for an 80 knot climbout in the Carenado (would have been similar in the DF Archer), this setting did not work at all in the AussieSim aircraft, even though the elevator trim indicator indicated the same.I use a CF Flight Yoke. I decided to "trim up a bit" on the wheel on the yoke that adjusts the x-axis. I almost forgot it was there. That appears to help immensely. I had previously marked what I determined to be "center" on this wheel with a bit of my wife's fingernail polish. It seems as though I'll need to make a new mark for the AussieSim Warrior. I can't help but think related issues have lead others to claim it has "weird flight characteristics" and such. I'm sure the developer can make a connection as to what might be happening. One thing I really noticed this time: The AussieSim Warrior eats a lot more fps than either of the other two mentioned aircraft (in my case anyway). I even adjusted the gauge setting to "low quality" and turned off all other aircraft display tweaks, but it made little difference. I'm wondering why.Also, I believe it is important to point out that the parking brakes or toe brakes don't seem to hold the Warrior still above 1300 or 1400 RPM. Run up requires an acceleration to 1800-2000 RPM, but I cannot do this without the airplane moving forward. I like the way it taxis. Also, this time I felt less sensitive to the sound issue (related to RPM's) that I mentioned in my last post, especially after resolving the trim thing.Just trying to help. I really enjoy flying it, but the hit on the frames per second detracts a bit from that enjoyment. I'm flying in this case at a local uncontrolled airport with virtually no scenery tweaks and absolutely no weather enabled; yet I'm averaging 15-18 fps. As soon as I switch to the Carenado my fps jumps to around 30fps.

Biggest waste of

Well Im surprised by your post there Adam, you never asked for your money back from me.You did send me an email with your observations (some valid, some not so valid) but it appears that you bought this product looking for reasons not to be happy.As far as "some knowledge of flight dynamics", well to me this is a rather unfortunate statement, and obviously very inaccuarate.Just for some balance, I thought I would include a direct cut and paste from your email to me (see below)"The Aussim aircraft looks much better externally and has an excellent range of different "skins". Internally the VC is very nice. 3D panel also impresses. The flight dynamics were very disappointing (even with the patch installed). A brief list of issues below: Lots of pitch trim required immediately after take-off. The aircraft needed bootfuls of rudder in a 30 degree turn (not so on the real aircraft or either the Carenado and Dreamfleet simulated versions). On landing I found it difficult to "hold off" during the flare (the nose wanted to come down way too early). Overall I found the handling very skittish and unpredictable - not a realistic simulation of the real aircraft (which is inherently very stable - as is the Dreamfleet Warrior) Sound? To be honest the sound package reminded me of a Rotax engine (buzzy and lacking any bottom-end low frequencies). Sounds like someone went OTT with the EQ. I know you addressed some issues in the 1.1 patch and I notice your request for feedback so here it is!"Now, in there you mentioned the flight dynamics, and compared them to the Dreamfleet Warrior, I wasnt aware that Dreamfleet had released a Warrior! I though they produced an Archer... a very nice one at that!You also failed to mention my extensive reply to this email in which I took on board ALL of your comments for focussed testing/modifications and the fact that I stressed that I'm not happy until ALL customers are happy.If you buy every product in an effort to compare them to other products, thats fine, but not really a very satisfying way to approach a purchase in my view.Please forgive my apparent annoyance at this post, but it truly goes completely against the vast majority of comments I've had from other customers (the overwhelming majority of which are extremely satisfied).As far as getting your money back, well, you'd better send a request to me personally for that :)