I hate to bring this discussion back up, considering it's gotten so heated before, but I'm looking at it and wondering how you've liked it so far. I'm a real world pilot and almost all of my training has been in Piper Cherokees (Warrior IIIs and Cadets). I'm working on my instrument/commercial in them still and I'm interested mostly in the flight dynamics and proceedural realism of the aircraft. I would respectfully request that all commentors would also state their reasons for how they feel about this aircraft.----------------------------------------------------------------John S. MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private 130+ hrs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

Okay, I'll start. I bought the Warrior because of the heat the Aussim guys were taking on this forum. Arbitrary? Maybe, but that's me. It seemed like no plane could be worth that kind of abuse. Now that I have flown it a while, I really enjoy it. The flight dynamic seem to this untrained eye to be quite nice, the visual model is excellent and the VC (my favorite part of any plane) is beautifully executed. This is one of the first addon planes I've seen in which the VC takes advantage of all the FS9 abilities like 3D switches that work, etc. You can turn on the dome light by reaching up to the ceiling and clicking the switch fer Pete's sake! Dim it from there, too. My opinion is that they've done a great job with this aircraft. I have never flown a real-world Warrior, so I don't know if it's perfect. Frankly, I don't care. I simply enjoy this one; it's highly immersive and it even sounds good! So there you go, my $.02.thanks,

All this flight dynamics talk is ironic since these aircraft don't fly! I mean let's be real (more pun), I would never buy an add-on to get a true sense of how an aircraft HANDLES or FEELS on a computer simulator. Now with that out of the way, if you set a certain RPM you might get a general idea of a climb rate under certain given factor such as weight, weather-tempt etc from the OM or flight performace manuals (but each aircraft of the same make is different too!) and of course what pushing this button or switch does (this is where fs realy excels) but anything more than this is wishful thinking. It does not fly and never will and nothing can simulate feeling other than full motion and even then it's only great trickery but is not real either and certainly not 100% although one can be certified in full motion sims alone. Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! 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 |

Valid point. I'm not looking for "by the numbers" performance. Handling and feel is definately out of the question, as I agree with you about flight sims and their handling. For me, it's more of whether it's performance fits in the envelope of where it should be. Flying in three different Piper Warrior IIIs for three or more days out of the week, every week, you do get a sense of what "normal" for that make and model is though. I can reasonably expect a 500-800fpm descent at 100kts on a 2000rpm setting, and a 100kt level holding speed at 2500rpm.Our Frasca sim at our flight center shows how bad handling and performance can be, even in a professional sim though. It takes full throttle and about 10 seconds to get it to even move from a stand still, weathervanes into the wind on the ground, and the it doesn't take must movement of the yoke to throw it into a steep climb or dive. So yes, handling is not a major factor, since I can fly that unrealistically squirrly $40,000 sim. :-lolRealistic to me is that it atleast performs like some Warrior III out there, even if it is an old, beat up, gutless pile rusting in a hanger somewhere. I just don't want it to out accelerate a rocket, or take a longer ground roll than a 737 (unless I over load it ofcouse). :-hah----------------------------------------------------------------John S. MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private 130+ hrs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

I bought the Warrior package for much the same reason as Bill. I felt Aussim was taking undue heat for their release. I'm also one of those people who can never have enough GA aircraft. For me, the Warrior has replaced the Dreamfleet Archer as the plane I fly most often. I really like it.The support at the Australian Simulationo website is second to none. And there are plenty of repaints available, thanks to people like Bill.I don't think you'll regret buying the Warrior package.Jim

"I felt Aussim was taking undue heat for their release."I remember that original thread here at Avsim. Somebody had asked how the new Warrior from Aussim was, and a respected member of the FS community who had purchased said he didn't care for it. Then some of the Aussim supporters showed up here to attack anybody and everybody who might not embrace the release with the same passion they felt. Those who arrived didn't miss a chance to tell us we knew nothing about the Piper Warrior (like no one in this forum has ever flown a Warrior???).And of course there were numerous posts at the Aussim forum about the folks here... this from Dainen on page 17 of the "Piper Warrior for FS9 Released" thread: "out of all the losers at avsim..."I've grown weary of this "boo-hoo, Avsim is just a bunch of meanies" nonsense. People here raised questions about the product, and we're wrong for doing so??? Perhaps some folks' initial impressions of the Warrior were incorrect, but I simply didn't care for the way some of the Aussim fans presented themselves in this or the Aussim forum.I've not purchased the Aussim Warrior for two reasons... I already own the Dreamfleet Archer (I know, I know, not the same but close enough for me), and some of those rabid Aussim supporters who could do with a heavy dose of maturity. Fortunately they seem to be the exception rather than the rule... most members of the forum there are quite knowledgable (many of them RW pilots with time in type, which says alot about the product right there) and friendly.I might get a wild urge to add the Warrior to my hanger. It looks to be a very nice model, and Aussim clearly works hard to support the product. But for now I'll pass, primarily because of the enmity between the two "camps".And Brad... when you hear about my post here (and I'm sure somebody will have a smart*** remark about it) feel free to delete the derogatory posts some are inclined to post at the Aussim forums about members of this forum. We all are, afterall, suppose to be sharing the same hobby.Just my 2 cents,Greg

I like the Warrior OK but I live and fly in Colorado in the real world and find the Aussim plane behaves very strangely at high altitude fields like KASE and KTEX. It should have plenty of power to get through the major passes but it starts to act squirrely, particularly in regards to pitch. Stalls and spins are particularly strange. I don't regret buying it but I'm not using much anymore either.David

I'm not really qualified to judge the flight model . I have one complaint with that however, and this was brought up by actual Cherokee pilots as well: When taking off, it needs *lots* of nose-up trim otherwise you have to pull the yoke almost all the way back. A patch is supposed to be in the works which will improve the flight model as well as sounds (they are not quite as good as those of the DF Archer but very nice still).Also, I have some minor issues with the graphics:The panel background bitmap for the Warrior III shows dithering - it's either an 8-bit bitmap, or, was converted to 8 bit and back some time during the creation process. I think the quality of the Warrior III VC and panel could be improved. Also I don't like the interior fabric but that's more a matter of personal opinion.The windows in the VC are untextured - textured windows has been a standard feature for quite some time now. It looks especially strange when you open the storm window - the lack of texturing makes it look as if the window frame is suspended in thin air.Finally, it's a little expensive. Yes, you do get two models (Warrior II and III) - however they use the same sounds and flight model. Other similar addons like the Aerosoft Katana, FSD, DF etc. are about $5-10 cheaper and this aircraft offers nothing special to justify the higher price.I don't fly the aircraft much any more, mostly because I can't currently use my CH Yoke - I'm looking forward to flying this addon again after I get that sorted and after the 1.2 patch is released.

I finally ended up getting it and it's been handelling quite well for my area (Spokane International). Not sure about the trim issue as it hasn't come up with mine, but I also have it set with the weights I'd have in real life in it (my skinny 130lbs, my instructors 160, 15lb flight back in the rear left seat, and 30lbs of toebar, emergency kit, and tie downs in the back), It has required a little nose up trim on climb out, but I've found that in my real world experience in the type.Yes there were the over zealous fans, but on the same token, there were some people bashing it about characterstics they percieved to "unrealistic" as well that sounded like normal complaints us UND students have about the real Warrior IIIs (we actually have plastic jugs and jerry cans filled with water for ballast that quite a few of the students have to use with their instructors to get the CG in limits).All in all, I'm happy with the model and the performance characteristics. And for the person that talked about the high altitude airports, you might have to lean it way out. I've been to 14,000ft in the real-worl counterpart (took about 12 minutes from 10,000ft and I doubt it'd have climbed higher if we wanted to :-lol). I also agree about the window textures in the VC, it could use some, as long as they don't look cartoonishly tinted like some aircraft I've used.I did find the complaints about the wheel size odd since they look about the same size if not smaller than the wheels on our Warrior IIIs here. Ours have regognition lights on the wing tips and no beacon or lights on the tail either, but I've seen other Warrior IIIs like this one with the beacon and without the recogs. I just pray we don't see another heated argument over optional features like which wheel size is the "real" size.Well, I'm off to do some paints of our fleet. Happy flying to you all. :-wave----------------------------------------------------------------John S. MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private 130+ hrs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

Don't forget to go here for updates and many top quality repaints:http://www.aussim.com.au/piper/downloads.asp?C=3

I have it and am happy with it. It does not surpass the Dreamfleet Archer, but it is still a fine addon. Positives:-The visual model is nice and very easy on framerates. Some newer GA models are very complex and it there is a noticable delay when loading the textures. The Aussim Warrior does not suffer this problem. The visual model is a nice tradeoff between quality and performance. -The Warrior II and Warrior III panels are very nice and quite different. -Good support and community. I can't speak for everyone, but I have had nothing but good experiences over at their forums. The author of the plane helped me with a technical issue (very quickly and effectively) and he also listens and is very open to constructive criticism. Negatives:-Documentation was a little lacking. I was looking specifically for real-world performance numbers. Although lots of real-world info is available for free, so this isn't a big problem.-The panel in the Warrior III is very hard on frames on my system. The Warrior II is fine, but I had to replace the Warrior III panel with another one to get performance up. This is a strange issue which impacts some people but not everyone. No matter what I do, the performance of the panel is worse than any other addon (including the PMDG 737). Other comments:I am not a real pilot, so I won't go into the FDE, but it feels ok to me. I didn't experience the problems some other people mentioned. I brought up one specific problem to the author, and it was fixed in a patch. If you already have the DF Archer, you may or may not want this plane. If/when I start real-world pilot training, I will likely start in a Warrior, so I wanted a sim version.

>I have it and am happy with it. It does not surpass the>Dreamfleet Archer, but it is still a fine addon.Considering they're two separate aircraft, I've never been much conserned with that debate. I feel both are excellent models on par with one another in their reproduction of their respective aircraft. That to me is the standard of add-on aircraft, not whether it's better than another aircraft of similar type, but whether it faithfully reproduces the aircraft it's supposed to be. Otherwise, you start debating in a field that real-world pilots debate about when looking to buy an actual aircraft. Yes the Archer will fly a bit faster than a Warrior, but it has a bigger engine as well. That was the one argument that was started in the other forum that kind of floored me. To even complain that the Warrior didn't behave just like the Archer just seemed so ludacris, it was like "DUH! It behaves like a Warrior!". Hehe.>-Documentation was a little lacking. I was looking>specifically for real-world performance numbers. Although>lots of real-world info is available for free, so this isn't a>big problem.I fly the Warrior III in real life so I have the actual POH. ;)>I am not a real pilot, so I won't go into the FDE, but it>feels ok to me. I didn't experience the problems some other>people mentioned. I brought up one specific problem to the>author, and it was fixed in a patch. So far I've found the FDE accurate (atleast from the general performance of the 3 warriors my flight school has that I'm familiar with). Keep in mind, accurate doesn't mean right on the numbers the guys in the white lab coats put in the POH, but from my experience after about 80 hours of actual Warrior time (no real Warrior actually listens to those numbers anyway. ;)). But flying with control-performance techniques, I'm finding I get what I'd expect from the real aircraft.----------------------------------------------------------------John S. MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private 130+ hrs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

Well I will jump into the debate with my PERSONAL opinion as it contradicts what is being said by many in this thread.I have held a UK PPL (A) since the age of 18 (1985) so think I am reasonably qualified to discuss some "real versus simulation" flight dynamics issues (I don't fly the Piper Warrior on a regular basis but have flown enough hours in them to know how they handle). I also own the Dreamfleet and Carenado versions of this aircraft so feel I am able to compare the Aussim version against the other FS versions.External model (2nd): Very nice. Not as clean as the Carenado model but better than the Dreamfleet. The availability of many extra "skins" are a big selling point for many.Internal 3D and VC (3rd): I found the 3D cockpit OK. Some of the VC detail suffers from shimmering (dithering? as mentioned in earlier post here) but is otherwise quite nice. Still prefer the Carenado (1st) and Dreamfleet (2nd) however for depicting a realistic looking interior.Flight Dynamics (3rd): This was (with the sound) the most disappointing aspect of this addon. Lots of trim required after take-off to prevent crashing back into the runway = Not realistic.BOOTFULS (nearly full deflection!) of rudder required for a standard rate turn = Not realistic. Overall it lacks fluidity. Dreamfleet comes 1st for handling, Carenado a very close 2nd.Sound (3rd): The Piper Warrior does not use a Rotax 582 engine so why does it sound like one? Buzzy and unrealistic. Carenado 1st, Dreamfleet 2nd.So as you can see I was really quite disappointed after spending

It is a fantastic airplane in it's own unique ways. I to have flown many hours in Piper Warriors and I must say that the Warrior II cockpit and exterior is just how I remember it. I can almost smell the used interior of the rental aircraft. Very worth while aircraft for the price. For $25 you get two models, many repaints with the option to create your own (I have created two so far), an executible that you can calculate weight and balance and new paints etc., plus fantastic support. :D