Revisiting GA flying

[mikea76 184]

Bob, your OP brought a smile to my face. I'm in flight training right now, and started in a 172 and have switched to low wing (28-161 Warrior II), so I'm flying these A2A GA planes all the time to practice procedures and to reinact the maneuver curriculum of my RW lessons after the fact. They are amazingly accurate (although I find the 172 flies more true to the RW than the Cherokee, although admittedly I'm in the slightly different Warrior). When first flying the A2A 172 I didn't do the run-up properly and had the engine quit about five minutes after takeoff because I'd fouled the plugs. Another time I was in the 172 when my airspeed dropped to zero. Turned on the pitot heat and everything was right as rain. And you're right on the RPM behavior and sounds - amazingly like the real thing. We're really lucky to have devs like A2A (and others) so focused on getting the texture of the experience right.

The 161 will fly quite a bit different than the 180 with the Hershey bar wings

[Bobsk8 12,578]

Bob, your OP brought a smile to my face. I'm in flight training right now, and started in a 172 and have switched to low wing (28-161 Warrior II), so I'm flying these A2A GA planes all the time to practice procedures and to reinact the maneuver curriculum of my RW lessons after the fact. They are amazingly accurate (although I find the 172 flies more true to the RW than the Cherokee, although admittedly I'm in the slightly different Warrior). When first flying the A2A 172 I didn't do the run-up properly and had the engine quit about five minutes after takeoff because I'd fouled the plugs. Another time I was in the 172 when my airspeed dropped to zero. Turned on the pitot heat and everything was right as rain. And you're right on the RPM behavior and sounds - amazingly like the real thing. We're really lucky to have devs like A2A (and others) so focused on getting the texture of the experience right.

 

In the real aircraft, if engine starts running rough, just lean out your mixture for about a minute, and that will usually clear the plugs. Only once were they really fouled and I opted to land since i had just taken off. The rujnup was OK, but the fouling occurred soon after lift off. 

[sd_flyer 6,034]

In the real aircraft, if engine starts running rough, just lean out your mixture for about a minute, and that will usually clear the plugs. Only once were they really fouled and I opted to land since i had just taken off. The rujnup was OK, but the fouling occurred soon after lift off. 

 

I have  a question. You are at airport with elevation 5000 ft. Your engine is running rough before take off. Is this faulty plug or incorrect Air-fuel ratio) ? 

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

 

So anyway, I am having a blast with these two aircraft, and I think that I will stay with these two for quite awhile. Having too much fun. Oh, BTW, GA flying and Pro ATC work very well together. 

 

And if you would like to fly something a bit faster, here is a nice step up from the Cherokee:

 

http://www.simforums.com/Forums/flight1-gtn-750-in-seminole_topic56121.html

[basementflyguy 156]

The 161 will fly quite a bit different than the 180 with the Hershey bar wings

 

Indeed. I wish I could find a really solid Warrior II for P3D, but haven't been able to. If anyone has a recommendation I'd love to have it. Flight model is the most important thing to me ...

[Bobsk8 12,578]

I have  a question. You are at airport with elevation 5000 ft. Your engine is running rough before take off. Is this faulty plug or incorrect Air-fuel ratio) ? 

 

I would lean for max rpm for takeoff at that altitude, and if it is rough at max RPM , I would taxi back and let a mechanic look at the engine. 

[mikea76 184]

Indeed. I wish I could find a really solid Warrior II for P3D, but haven't been able to. If anyone has a recommendation I'd love to have it. Flight model is the most important thing to me ...

 

Sorry, wish I knew of a 161 or any later 28 with decent flight modeling... none I have tried flew like the real thing.

[ryanbatc 12,814]

I tried it twice, once about a year ago and once recently. It's just not for me. The ATC is very realistic, but you can't let it bother you when you submit a flight plan, get your GPS set up, and call for clearance, and they change your routing and  you have to start all over again. Even to fly VFR, you better study the sectionals and know where all the restricted airspace it , and there is a ton of it in California. You are also confined to a very small area of the world, and after awhile flying to the same airports over and over gets pretty monotonous. I think for the aspiring pilot, it is good to get over mike fright and get used to talking to ATC, but I learned that many years ago, so not really something I am interested in. . 

 

The routing changes are because socal is so busy they use the TEC route system.  The routes are almost always published and once you file that, you'll get that 99% of the time.  PE tries to simulate the busy socal airspace so that's probably why you didn't get the route you wanted.  I can understand the part about small area of coverage - but virtually every type of airspace is contained in ZLA (los angeles center) so if you're flying GA there's plenty of miles to explore.  I agree though it is intended for RW pilots wanting to sharpen up their skills or new rw pilots who need more mic time.  Still I've yet to find a more realistic service for the flightsim world.

[sd_flyer 6,034]

I would lean for max rpm for takeoff at that altitude, and if it is rough at max RPM , I would taxi back and let a mechanic look at the engine. 

 

 

How can get max RPM on the ground?

The routing changes are because socal is so busy they use the TEC route system.  The routes are almost always published and once you file that, you'll get that 99% of the time.  

 

I've been filing CRQ SDM for 13 years and in 99% of the time have never got TEC published route

[MarkSC 122]

And if you would like to fly something a bit faster, here is a nice step up from the Cherokee:

 

http://www.simforums.com/Forums/flight1-gtn-750-in-seminole_topic56121.html

Looks a lot like the Saratoga. The Alabeo Saratoga is my favorite GA plane without a doubt. Fun to fly, great visibility, seats 6, and GTN 750 built in. Alabeo is doing some nice things with GA planes.

[Gilandred 690]

Looks a lot like the Saratoga. The Alabeo Saratoga is my favorite GA plane without a doubt. Fun to fly, great visibility, seats 6, and GTN 750 built in. Alabeo is doing some nice things with GA planes.

 

I also like the Saratoga, but it's not yet available for P3D V3.  I agree with Bert above - the Seminole is a nice aircraft to fly, although side visibility is somewhat limited due to it being dual engine versus the Saratoga's single engine configuration.

[Jean-Jacques 120]

quote name="ryanbatcund" post="3459606" timestamp="1469850067"]The routing changes are because socal is so busy they use the TEC route system.  The routes are almost always published and once you file that, you'll get that 99% of the time.  PE tries to simulate the busy socal airspace so that's probably why you didn't get the route you wanted.  I can understand the part about small area of coverage - but virtually every type of airspace is contained in ZLA (los angeles center) so if you're flying GA there's plenty of miles to explore.  I agree though it is intended for RW pilots wanting to sharpen up their skills or new rw pilots who need more mic time.  Still I've yet to find a more realistic service for the flightsim world.

 

Pilot2atc v2 might be an interesting alternative.

 

http://pilot2atc.com/V2Downloads

 

JJ

[MarkSC 122]

I also like the Saratoga, but it's not yet available for P3D V3.  I agree with Bert above - the Seminole is a nice aircraft to fly, although side visibility is somewhat limited due to it being dual engine versus the Saratoga's single engine configuration.

The Saratoga works fine with v 3. Just point the installer to it.  There is a P3D bug (not just v 3) with the gear warning, but a search of the AVSIM support forum will show the solution (a change in the config file). 

[mikealpha 266]

Why a Carenado/Alabeo aircraft if the Comanche is available from A2A ?

Sure a bit more expensive, but it has a lot more to offer.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Why a Carenado/Alabeo aircraft if the Comanche is available from A2A ?

Sure a bit more expensive, but it has a lot more to offer.

 

I have both and like the Seminole better as a regular plane.

 

It has a modern, well laid out cockpit and is a treat to fly.

 

The Comanche has more personality, for sure, but the knobs,

buttons, and dials are in awkward places..