Is completely and totally false. There is no such thing as rudder being automatically applied in these aircraft. No linkage at all. because the PA28 requires so little rudder input during turns (the 140 almost none at all), quite a few pilots are convinced there is some sort of an aileron-rudder interconnect system ! In fact, for this reason, some instructors regard the PA28 as a bad trainer - doesn't teach you proper stick and rudder use ! Or maybe they're confusing the PA28 with the PA32 Cherokee six At least some of them had this interconnect system. Not that the difference between a PA28 and a PA32 isn't obvious :-) That's what you get with all those confusing names: PA32 Cherokee, Lance, Saratoga, whatever ...

Hey Ian,I have flown the Piper Warrior II/III and Archer II/III and still fly the Warrior. Besides that I do Glider Towing with Robin Dauphin DR400/200 and 180.In my opinion small G/A Aircraft are very hard to simulate because everything is about the sensation of feeling every movement of the aircraft with your body(!), the scenery around and below you and of course taking your girl on a short sightseeing flight around the alps! It's all about flying VFR. It's just not possible to simulate it.take care,Claudio

I did my private and instrument training in the Piper Warrior. I chose this aircraft over the Cessna 172, because the Piper is more stable to fly. IMO. I have flown both and find the flying, stalling, and all around characteristics of the Warrior (almost any Piper from this family) are very easy to handle and trim for straight and level flight. I own the Arhcer and Dakota, and I am contemplating the Warrior. It sounds like a love hate realtionship based on the forums.:D

"When I got the Dreamfleet Archer I thought it was great. Then I started flying a real one and thought - it's rubbish. It's nowhere near as exciting, it doesn't take my breath away when I look around at the world below and it doesn't make me feel sick either! But of course the two aren't really comparable. The Dreamfleet aeroplane is a brilliant recreation of the Archer. You can practice flicking switches and things in it just like the real one. Technically it'll climb and cruise 'by the numbers'. But like any other FS aircraft it doesn't really capture the experience of flying - and nor can we expect it to. It's on a computer, not parked at an airfield."[/font color=blue]I could not agree with you more Ian, and also with some of the other posts in this thread. I have no doubt that I will ALWAYS enjoy flying the real thing more than the simulated one, and the real thing will ALWAYS be more realistic, often by a wider margin that most could imagine. We can only go so far simulating in FS, but we'll keep trying to push the limits! As to my comment about too much "mis-information", and in response to a post above. I also call this "perception of reality", and it can be just as bad. One "thinks" something should react a certain way, and when it does not they "perceive" it to be unrealistic. Or, they hear something in a forum that they "perceieve" to be the accurate truth (when it is not, or not necessarily) and go forth espousing that belief as though it were the truth. Thus, the previous negative and inaccurate comments about our Archer doing the wrong thing when flaps are deployed. Just another form of mis-information / perception of reality. I addressed this issue at some length at another FS2004 forum over the weekend. The same applied when folks tried to tell us our Cardinal's wing dihedral was wrong, and complained when it did not fly like a Cessna 172 (it's not supposed to). Some "perceived" that since it was intended as the replacement for the 172 that it should fly like a 172. It does not, and that also is what hurt its sales in the market. However, I STILL do not know of ANY rudder interconnect on ANY Piper PA-28 or PA-32 aircraft. Cannot find anything on it. Now, if one is talking about the Piper PA-30 Twin Commanche, THAT is a different story but, trust me, all that a Twin Commanche has in common with a PA-28 or PA-32 is the fact that it was built by Piper. It's a totally different plane.The PA-32 started life as the Cherokee Six, a wider, longer version of the PA-28 airframe with longer Hershey bar wings. The PA-32 airframe later morphed into the Saratoga variants (semi-tapered wings) and yes, the PA-34 Seneca series of Twins. The Comanche was a whole different animal, built in response to the Bonanza, and sharing almost nothing with the PA-28 / PA-32. A rudder / aileron interconect, plus more, was added to the Twin Commanche to address stall / spin issues later in its life.As to Claudio's remarks just above, let me add:If you want to add to GA realism, start by taking your computer outside, especially when it is a blazing hot summer day. Get an electric fan to blow on you (that simulates the air vents in flight). Then, have someone shake your seat around as you are "flying". That will simulate the thermal activity that causes all those white, puffy clouds you see around. If you climb above those clouds, then you can send the seat shaker on a break! ;-)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...RUM_LOUF_A2.jpg

I think we all agree that opinions by non pilots on flight dynamics (other than what they can quote from manuals, you can say with 100% certainty that a 744 cannot climb @ 10000 FPM in VNAV, but how much pitch when flaps are applied is for RL 744 pilots to comment on). The one gem that computer flying really gives all of us knowing what pushing A and B does. Not unlike sit down system trainers in RL. I tend to take my computer flying as a "dynamic" flight manual in action. Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4][h3]P M D G's 747-400[/h3][h4]coming to a runway near you[/h4][/font color]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

>its just to point out that sometimes a person>who has tons of real world experience might not necessarily be>the best judge of "realism" in a PC simulation. I'm convinced of that!If I hear of real world pilots that try a simulation, I can usually tell from their comments whether they have much PC simulation time or not. If I assume "not", then I usually consider the comments (especially negative) as rather meaningless...L.Adamson

Now, that last sentence of yours is one of the smartest or perhaps most accurate things I've heard in FS, Randy. :-)Now, when you are ready for a real flying challenge, contact me over at the DF forum. Just be prepared that you will not have an AFDS or FMC or EFIS, or anything of the kind to help you. Uh, you won't even have most of your flight instruments either!That's okay, you'll still get through that STAR and non-precision approach I'll throw your way, IF you're a good pilot!I'll show you another side of that "dynamic flight manual", Randy, one that the real captains need to know, and one that often gets left out among all the "realism" in FS. ;-)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...RUM_LOUF_A2.jpg

>The one gem that computer flying really gives all of us knowing what pushing A and B does. Not unlike sit down system trainers in RL. I tend to take my computer flying as a "dynamic" flight manual in action.

Thank you Lou. You know it was one of your guy's plane that got me hooked on the AFDS/FMC type your 737 I purchased a few years ago ;-). You guys produce some fantastic aircraft and I look forward to that ATR, looks like an amazing sim as are all your aircraft. Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4][h3]P M D G's 747-400[/h3][h4]coming to a runway near you[/h4][/font color]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

However, I STILL do not know of ANY rudder interconnect on ANY Piper PA-28 or PA-32 aircraft. Cannot find anything on it. Oh dear ... :-roll then why oh why :-hmmm did Piper issue a Service Bulletin warning (some) PA-32-301 and PA-32-301T owners that the lower stabilator cable could ontact the rudder/aileron interconnect bracket as the stabilator control passes through neutral position.(I say 'some', not all PA32-301 were affected)And why this ? FAA General Aviation Airworthiness Alerts, AC No. 43-16, ALERT NO. 233 DECEMBER 1997 [http://av-info.faa.gov/data/alerts/1997_12.pdf], p. 14Piper Aileron Control CableModel PA 32-301 InterferenceSaratoga 2710During a scheduled inspection, the aileroncontrol system was binding at one point in itstravel.Further investigation disclosed that the rightaileron/rudder interconnect clamp wascatching on a broken bracket. The bracket(P/N 62679-00) was located at the forwardattachment point for the wing flap handle. Thesubmitter speculated that the bracket wasbroken by

Nice article Jim. I don't have the Warrior, but I do have the Archer. I will say this. I flew and delivered Pipers for a living years ago. The Archer is a VERY fine aircraft and to me, has a very real feeling in all phases of flight. I want to comment on one thing you said. You mentioned the "touchiness" of the pitch. You hit my complaint on about 90% of the aircraft created today. IMHO, both pitch and roll are usually WAY TOO sensitive compared to real planes. MOST aircraft are NOT Ferraris! They respond quickly, but not as fast as modeled in most cases. Great little review/comparison. Don

>I want to comment on one thing you said. You mentioned the>"touchiness" of the pitch. You hit my complaint on about 90%>of the aircraft created today. IMHO, both pitch and roll are>usually WAY TOO sensitive compared to real planes. MOST>aircraft are NOT Ferraris! They respond quickly, but not as>fast as modeled in most cases. Great little review/comparison.>I agree on touchiness of pitch/roll for some, but not 90%. Maybe it's because I delt with those short little 2" R/C sticks for so many years! :)I also might not be using the 90% figure because the majority of my planes are from the top three flight dynamic designers. At least I have a "top three" in my mind.L.Adamson

Yep, same goes for race sims. Its that combination of rw experience and PC sim experience that counts. Guys like Dale Jr. are real drivers who also just happen to be sim nuts and their comments re the sims hold alot of weight. But most of the time you get a situation where the driver is plunked down in front of a monitor for 2 minutes with no controller adjustments or anything and asked to evaluate a sim. Its pretty meaningless...

I just took my first flight in Australian Simulation's Piper Warrior II. I purchased it based upon preview images and the fact that it won Flightsim.com's 2004 Best Modern General Aviation Piston Prop Single Engine payware product of the year. It must be great, right? I have a lot of payware GA aircraft, and based upon this first impression, the Warrior II is a disappointment. My primary concern is with the visuals--The 2D cockpit is at best mediocre for a payware product, and the virtual cockpit, while functional, isn

The Warrior wasn't bad when it was released, but it's very dated by today's standards, especially the latest offerings by Dreamfleet. The biggest disappointment for me is that Brad Disher promised an update for it but well over a year later it has not appeared. At this point I doubt we'll ever see it.Jim