Thanks Thomas for the explanation and confirmation.I reckon you're right... perhaps I should purchase both :)Vox

It's also cool because then you'll have a selection of gauges to choose from to build your panel if you so choose.BTW, I should have said a PA28-180 is a PA28-180. There will be differences in performance between these and 140s and 160s. I've never flown a 140 or a 160, so I couldn't tell you the difference.Ok, so, how come nobody's ever done a low tail Arrow?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Aw no... just found that Carenado do an Archer II just to confuse me further! This could get expensive :)Any idea if it is as good as the Cherokee 180F?Vox

As I noted above, it's a pretty old release. A little more clickable in VC than the Dreamfleet, but not much (can do throttle/mixture and flaps, not brake or fuel tanks). But it is a very nice, smooth flyer with good feel. Not quite as sharp on the textures either, but still nice. Excellent for its time period. And easier on the frames than the 180F (which, as noted, if you have any sort of good machine you won't notice a difference).I should note, as well, the 180F is pretty sparse on the avionics (in keeping with its vintage).I believe the 180F was from '71, 180G was '72 then my year they changed the name to Challenger (but everyone still calls it a Cherokee) and increased the fuselage (to Archer specs, but still does not have headrests on seats) and power but kept straight (hershey bar) wings, then in '74 went to the Archer design with new wings. But performance specs are pretty much the same through all the model changes. The changes you might notice get washed away by real world changes (no two planes perform the same, and I'd never notice the difference in a knot or two in airspeed).Oh, interestingly, the 180F doesn't have pitot heat, but I guess it's not supposed to be an IFR flyer, it doesn't even have glideslope on the VOR (mine has dual glideslope one from a KX-155 and the other radio is the same as in the 180F, but includes glideslope).I don't find myself flying the Carenado Archer II that much because I have the other two. But it's a nice plane. Definitely worth it.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Sorry about that Vox

Thanks again Thomas for the extra info.Based on everyone's advice and comments, I'm now going to 'pay up an look big' with a purchase of the 180F - and if I get gung-ho on the mouse, I might even throw in the Archer II :)Appreciate all the assistance - happy flying all!Vox

I really like the Carenado Cherokee 180F for just VFRing around. Very smooth. Great VC.I also have the Dreamfleet A36. Great plane. Great for IFR.One thing I noticed though after flying both planes. When looking in external view the pilot seems about properly proportioned to the plane in Dreamfleet A36 but the pilot seems too small (or plane too big) in the Carenado Cherokee. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed this?