Pretty much nothing on the Carenado Archer was right. 

 

RPM settings were way off for taxi and pattern work. You also couldn't tell where the trim wheel was set as no setting window was modeled. That made takeoffs interesting. 

A Cherokee is far from a complex plane I'd pay $50 for a twin Cessna or a Bonanza but not a Cherokee, I'm sure A2A makes awesome planes and I'm not knocking the plane at all its a looker but Cherokees are slow in real life and kinda boring to fly since its a very simple plane like I said I have about 100 hours in one.

 

It's not the most exciting plane to fly in a sim (I find it pretty fun in real life). 

But I disagree with the idea that it's not a complex plane. Yes, the plane itself isn't. It's a fixed prop single engine piston. But the A2A Cherokee is absolutely "complex" compared to most FSX add ons. There's more work put into this then a heck of a lot of "complex planes" currently for sale for FSX. 

There is no comparison...  A2A does much of the flight-modeling, and engine/prop modeling, outside of FSX.

 

No goofy bugs like fuel-flow increasing as you lean from a too-rich state.. no power tied to fuel-flow... realistic EGT modeling.. etc..  More realism on the subtle stuff..  ie.. torque / p-factor / stalls / control-response.. etc,,

 

All that on top of the realistic, cumulative wear/tear modeling.. and the pre-flight inspection.. and the maintenance hangar..

 

Heck.. I even got a "hiccup" from the engine when applying takeoff power too quickly... (after having to clear the plugs 'cause I taxied without leaning.. )

 

 

 

And that's honestly just the tip of the iceberg. There's also a whole range of vibrations and rattles (not just audio but actually shaking the aircraft and cockpit) from rough running engine, taxiing bumps, etc. Little things like a small chance of bugs nesting in the pitot and requiring you to clean it out before flight, or finding the stall detector broken. I mean you could write paragraphs about all the detail that goes into one of A2A's aircraft. 

 

There's always a place for a simple, fun to fly $20 Alabeo product (I have the Tomahawk and it is fun to fly) but they are going for different audiences I guess. One that just wants to press control e, max throttle and watch the scenery go by, or one that wants to learn what it's like to actually pre flight a plane, properly maintain it, and basically just be an actual pilot.

The sounds (all of them), are a $50 add-on, all by themselves... 

There is no comparison...  A2A does much of the flight-modeling, and engine/prop modeling, outside of FSX.

 

No goofy bugs like fuel-flow increasing as you lean from a too-rich state.. no power tied to fuel-flow... realistic EGT modeling.. etc..  More realism on the subtle stuff..  ie.. torque / p-factor / stalls / control-response.. etc,,

 

All that on top of the realistic, cumulative wear/tear modeling.. and the pre-flight inspection.. and the maintenance hangar..

 

Heck.. I even got a "hiccup" from the engine when applying takeoff power too quickly... (after having to clear the plugs 'cause I taxied without leaning.. )

I don't know if you fly in the real world but if you do, be really careful about leaning on the ground its a great way to ruin cyls, I leave the mixture full rich till 3000-4000 in the real thing.

Yeah.. I got my PPL in 1979..  Instrument rating in 1996... over 2,000 hours in PA28s..

 

Of course care must be taken, but leaning for ground ops is all I've ever known..

I don't know if you fly in the real world but if you do, be really careful about leaning on the ground its a great way to ruin cyls, I leave the mixture full rich till 3000-4000 in the real thing.

 

Current thinking in the aviation industry is to lean on the ground. You can ruin things if its done wrong but for the most part its now taught by most CFI's and recommended by many for a better running longer lasting equipment.

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182900-1.html?redirected=1

 

We model this as stock in Accu-sim simulations.

There is no comparison...  A2A does much of the flight-modeling, and engine/prop modeling, outside of FSX.

 

No goofy bugs like fuel-flow increasing as you lean from a too-rich state.. no power tied to fuel-flow... realistic EGT modeling.. etc..  More realism on the subtle stuff..  ie.. torque / p-factor / stalls / control-response.. etc,,

 

All that on top of the realistic, cumulative wear/tear modeling.. and the pre-flight inspection.. and the maintenance hangar..

 

Heck.. I even got a "hiccup" from the engine when applying takeoff power too quickly... (after having to clear the plugs 'cause I taxied without leaning.. )

 

 

Agreed.   I honestly can't see how anybody who has flown a real plane does not see the difference.  

Im sure it works if done right but I've seen a lot of people mess up their engines doing this, so I just leave the mixture alone as its not worth the risk to me to save a little of gas and carbon build up on the plugs. I will say though that it's amazing that such details are modeled in FS pretty awesome stuff, I can't wait for a plane with a bit more speed so I can try all this out.

I lean for 'density altitude'  You might be at sea level, but a warm day will probably put density altitude over 3000'  

 

I use this procedure, start engine, once engine stabilized ~1000RPM, throttle to 1200, then lean to peak RPM.  Reduce throttle to 1000RPM and continue with pre taxi checks.

 

I can see why A2A chose the Cherokee.  I agree the Cherokee is like the 172 in the sense that its the same class of airplane.  Cherokee v Skyhawk is like Airbus v Boeing, Bell v Eurocopter, Ford v Chevy, PC v Mac...etc.  Like those, Cherokee v Skyhawk they have different procedures, systems, flying qualities, quirks...etc that make comparison and contrasting fun, especially in a super detailed technical geek level for airplane geeks like us.  

 

When FSLabs finishes their Airbus, won't there naturally be a lot of comparisons to the NGX?  They have similar flight peformance but each present a different flying experience.   Every pilot and their uncle practically has flight time in either a Cherokee or Skyhawk, so the debate of which is better will always continue, even more so now that we have detailed simulations of them to compare.

 

From the GA peformance spectrum, we had both extremes with the Cub and Civil Mustang.  A2A is gradually filling the space between those extremes lol.

 

Is the Cherokee 'boring'?  Well it isn't a P-51 thats for sure, but the term 'boring' is relative when applied to this hobby lol.  Many folks ouside of FS would call what we do boring since we aren't blowing things up or racing each other.  

 

I see the Cherokee, (and Skyhawk), as testing my ability to not only fly and manage the plane at a checkride level, but to properly take care of it, so in the future if I am lucky enough to own an airplane, I will have practiced and developed good habits.

 

Cheers

TJ

Leaning on the ground is sometimes neccessary if you are high, hot and heavy but yeah I agree you do have to watch your temps...

The Cherokee 180 is now available in the AVSIM Market Place. You can find it here:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/store/product/101-a2a-cherokee-180-fsx/

 

Support your community! Buy the 180 from AVSIM.

Well, I've been flying the Lightning non-stop for the past few days, I'm pretty sure my nerves need something a little more... sedate. :lol:

 

Getting the credit card out as I speak.  Just trying to decide between the FSX version, or the bundle, since I'm likely going to get back into P3Dv2 as the releases mature.  At a $10 difference, I wouldn't hesitate, but a $20 difference is giving me a bit of pause.

 

Ignoring that for a moment, and focusing on a purchase for one platform or the other: Although I do understand the hesitance to spend $50 on an add-on, I feel it's worthy of the price.  When I pay $20 to $35 for any other GA plane out there with the knowledge it's only eye candy, I can easily justify adding on another $15 - $20 for a proper, complex, in-depth version of the same. 

 

We all sim for different reasons, but I personally enjoy the extra bit that goes along with following proper start-up and shutdown procedures, and treating the plane as if it were something real.  For me, it adds to the sense of immersion to be able to do so.  And the fact that it's a simple GA plane makes it all that much better:  It's a hell of a lot less time consuming to follow proper procedures in something like this than it is in something like the Q400. (Not knocking the Q400, I love it to death, it's just a wee bit time consuming to fly in a manner that lets me keep my beloved sense of immersion.)

 

Anyway, enough knocking about, I'm off to go download a Cherokee!

 

 

I wish they would do a cessna 421

 

So there at least two of us who feel the same.

I have put 10hrs on the plane so far, flown day, night, VFR, IFR, calm weather, stormy weather, flown LPV, ILS, NDB, and Visual approaches.   Everything works perfectly, no bugs, glitches, or crashes at all.  The one thing I thought was a minor bug is actually feature lol.  The night lighting is beautiful, functional, and at realistic levels.

 

I would be very hard pressed to 'demote' my beloved BTS RV-7 to 'second' favorite GA, but this Cherokee is something special.  Sure, it isn't exactly a speed demon, but it has lots of character and what a sweetheart to fly.  I could hand fly approaches all day in it.  It's simple S-Tec AP has no glideslope or VS control.  Who needs that stuff anyway when this plane flies so wonderfully by hand.

 

Cheers

TJ