I think they plan on releasing the 180 first, getting feedback, then proceed with other models such as the 235.  Really looking forward to the Cherokee 235, which like it's competitor the 182, is a true 4 seater.  Like the 182, the 235 will haul a good load with decent speed and range.

Yes I feel ground physics are terrible in FSX. Some devs do a nice job - like Realair with their Duke 2.0

The planes I get a solid feel for landing are made by Real Air. They have the subtleties down and I feel a sense of control I rarely get to the same level in other planes. Feels good.

 

As for the C172... it doesn't just float, it refuses to lose airspeed, and it immediately gains altitude when you change aoa making it almost impossible to flare and slow down. That altitude, in turn, becomes speed again as you try to counter it. I end up having to pitch down (at 45 knots mind you) just to get it to land, which leads to a horrible nose first landing. You are either climbing in that plane or stalling.

I sure won't be passing this one by.  It's looking very good. 

look perfect. old and steam gauges!

As for the C172... it doesn't just float, it refuses to lose airspeed, and it immediately gains altitude when you change aoa making it almost impossible to flare and slow down.

 

You cannot possibly be referring to the A2A C172 Trainer...

Yes he is - I've got the same issue....

I've obviously got a good instructor. My initial problem was always too much speed! :smile: Now I can put that 'lil' thang on the deck, with flare, the stall horn goes peep, a split second later the tyres go chirp!  But then, I'm not a real pilot. :unknw:

Too modern for me. This is what a Cherokee dash should look like! B)

 

Now I can put that 'lil' thang on the deck,

 

I don't know about the Cessna or the Piper, but my image for the day is an older gentleman with a walrus mustache, saying "lil' thang," in a British accent.

 

I'll prolly buy this too but it won't get flown. Too slow.

 

For the Skyhawk I'm usually over the numbers at 60-65 KT with 50% fuel.

 the stall horn goes peep, a split second later the tyres go chirp!

Nice, Sounds like you have the full stall landing down pat. What speeds do you take on short final and then flare nowadays?

 

For the Skyhawk I'm usually over the numbers at 60-65 KT with 50% fuel.

I try to fly the final approach slower than 60 now, but ignoring the POH makes me feel like an irresponsible pilot. The big problem for me is short fields and 50ft obstacles. Even if I graze the trees close to stall speed, when I get past them and pitch down the speed rushes up again to 60+kts at the threshold. Side slipping doesn't help much either. 

I experience that as well don't feel bad.

 

 

According to the original announcement, it was to be a PA28 with options for 160, 180 and 235.  This is the older PA28 with original "Hershey Bar" wing.
 
Scott

 

Ok then it cover a large portion of the line. Mine is a PA-28-151, a 150 HP version that was produced only a couple of year around 1973. The serial numbers from 28-7415001 to 435 so not a huge amount produced. At the motor overhaul last year we added an Ram STC that added a 10 HP so now it run at 160 HP. Wings are the new taper design.

 

But I never was too much interested at matching exactly of the real plane in FSX. Performance is always changing according to the weight and balance and temperature and in simulation, I rarely change the weight and cargo while flying so I'm satisfied with a "close enough" modeling.

 

 

Nice, Sounds like you have the full stall landing down pat. What speeds do you take on short final and then flare nowadays?

 

60 on approach, flare..er..a lot less than that. Just above stall speed whatever that is. Hold it off, hold it off, hold it off, peep..chirp (I actually do recite 'hold it off' to myself)

I've found that with the A2A C172, a lightly loaded plane (one skinny pilot and 50% fuel) needs 55 KIAS on approach.  With a heavy load, 60 KIAS works.  This is with full flaps.  Basically, if you're floating, you're going too fast, regardless of what the POH says.

 

Installed equipment is going to change your flight characteristics subtly.  For example, I fly without flap seals, so I get a bit more drag.  The aircraft acts a bit like it has winglets installed, which will change the drag, lift and stall speeds. 

 

I suspect the POH numbers and flight model are calculated for a 2550 gross weight for the 172S, while the 172R is 2450.  This is just a wild guess, of course and I'm grasping at straws here.  If you carry a little extra weight, your approach speeds will be higher.

 

I personally don't care that the POH numbers are higher than what I need to fly.  I just go with the idea that my particular airplane has just enough variance from the average 172R to create the effect. 

 

Hook