I purchased this plane a couple of days ago. My first observation is that it doesn’t have a DME which is mandatory for flying ILS approaches. I tested the aircraft on a procedural ILS approach into Oxford, EGTK, which I have flown many times in the real world. I have the PMS50 GTN 750 which performed well on the ILS but on GPS gave no guidance to the HSI so I had to follow the Magenta line on the display. I also found the aircraft unstable when setting up the avionics in flight, the aircraft had drifted well of course whilst I set up the procedure and tuned the ADF to OX. I will try the flight again including flying the hold with real world weather switched off.

 As this is Marketplace only it's a no go for me, and I have all the JF Pipers so I don't think I'm missing something.

Edited February 4, 20233 yr by Ixoye

26 minutes ago, Ixoye said:

 As this is Marketplace only it's a no go for me, and I have all the JF Pipers so I don't think I'm missing something.

I fully understand.   And yes - sitting in the cockpit, it is very similar to sitting in that of the excellent JF versions (I also have them all).  But it does handle differently, it does sound different and, through my VR set up, it is just a touch sharper on the externals.  At the price, I have no regrets but fully understand anyone who has the JF versions passing on it.

2 hours ago, rjevansuk said:

a DME which is mandatory for flying ILS approaches

Although DME-required approaches still exist, they are increasingly rare. Avionics vendors have quit selling new DME transponders in some cases.

DME is required if you fly the LOC-only procedure, a non-precision approach to an MDA with a missed approach point identified by a DME fix.

.............

Effective July 16, 1998, pilots may substitute IFR-certified GPS receivers for DME and ADF avionics for all operations except NDB approaches without a GPS overlay. GPS can be used in lieu of DME and ADF on all localizer-type approaches as well as VOR/DME approaches, including when charted NDB or DME transmitters are temporarily out of service. It also clarifies that IFR GPS satisfies the requirement for DME at and above Flight Level 240 specified in FAR 91.205(e).

This approval represents a major step toward removing the need to retain DME or ADF in our cockpits for any reason.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1999/december/13/use-of-gps-in-lieu-of-dme-adf

..............

Edited February 4, 20233 yr by turbomax

30 minutes ago, turbomax said:

Although DME-required approaches still exist, they are increasingly rare. Avionics vendors have quit selling new DME transponders in some cases.

DME is required if you fly the LOC-only procedure, a non-precision approach to an MDA with a missed approach point identified by a DME fix.

.............

Effective July 16, 1998, pilots may substitute IFR-certified GPS receivers for DME and ADF avionics for all operations except NDB approaches without a GPS overlay. GPS can be used in lieu of DME and ADF on all localizer-type approaches as well as VOR/DME approaches, including when charted NDB or DME transmitters are temporarily out of service. It also clarifies that IFR GPS satisfies the requirement for DME at and above Flight Level 240 specified in FAR 91.205(e).

This approval represents a major step toward removing the need to retain DME or ADF in our cockpits for any reason.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1999/december/13/use-of-gps-in-lieu-of-dme-adf

..............

In the UK VOR and DME are still required for IR training.

11 minutes ago, rjevansuk said:

In the UK VOR and DME are still required for IR training.

and do they still have to taxi on the left side ?

Edited February 4, 20233 yr by turbomax

I've done a few identical flights with the Just Flight PA-28 Warrior and the Carenado PA-28 Archer to see what the essential differences, from my point of view, are.  These were all in VR (HP Reverb G2), flying a simple start up, takeoff, circuit, landing, shut down, round EGNX.  

As above, these two renditions of the PA-28 are both very close as an overall experience and most folks who like flying older GA aircraft would, I'm sure, be happy with either.  But the main differences I have noted are:

JF Warrior:

• Steam gauge clarity a little better, including the Garmin Screen.  Very sharp and readable dials on my system.  For fixed printed text in the cockpit, on the other hand, both versions are about equal - with both more fuzzy than equivalent-sized text on the gauges themselves (and no, I'm not running DLSS so it's not that)
• Offers a fully-steam gauge option.  On the Carenado, I can't see an option to hide the Garmin (and there doesn't seem to be any documentation for such things) .
• VERY comprehensive documentation.  The Carenado has tech specs, speeds and checklists on the website, but no general documentation that I can find at all on their website or in the rabbit warren of files in the sim.

 

Carenado Archer:

• External rivets and screws are spot on.  The JF Warrior is great from a bit further away, but closer up the rivets and screw heads are clearly generally 2D representations with the 3D illusion achieved by shading.  The Carenado rivet heads are proper 3D. 
• General sounds seem closer to the memories of the PA-28 I used to fly in as a passenger many years ago.  The external and internal noise when the engine is cut is splendid!  Again, the JF is fine, but a little quieter and more 'refined'.  Both have some really nice external prop sound variations when you change the position of the external camera .  The landing sound and taxiing again sounded closer to the clattery old experience I seem to remember from my passenger days than the slightly more refined JF Warrior.

Equal:

Most of the rest, to be honest....

• Both are very good and only crazy folks like me are likely to want or need both!
• Internal cockpit and passenger space, other than the small differences in the panels above, are equally convincing.  Both are nicely 'well used' but neither are overdone.
• Flying feel...well, I actually prefer the Carenado Archer, but goodness knows which is the more accurate (if either).  They both feel convincing to me...just slightly different to each other.
• I had switched off the FPS monitor, but both seemed equally smooth in VR across the duplicate flights with identical conditions.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, AJZip said:

I've done a few identical flights with the Just Flight PA-28 Warrior and the Carenado PA-28 Archer to see what the essential differences, from my point of view, are.  These were all in VR (HP Reverb G2), flying a simple start up, takeoff, circuit, landing, shut down, round EGNX.  

As above, these two renditions of the PA-28 are both very close as an overall experience and most folks who like flying older GA aircraft would, I'm sure, be happy with either.  But the main differences I have noted are:

JF Warrior:

• Steam gauge clarity a little better, including the Garmin Screen.  Very sharp and readable dials on my system.  For fixed printed text in the cockpit, on the other hand, both versions are about equal - with both more fuzzy than equivalent-sized text on the gauges themselves (and no, I'm not running DLSS so it's not that)
• Offers a fully-steam gauge option.  On the Carenado, I can't see an option to hide the Garmin (and there doesn't seem to be any documentation for such things) .
• VERY comprehensive documentation.  The Carenado has tech specs, speeds and checklists on the website, but no general documentation that I can find at all on their website or in the rabbit warren of files in the sim.

 

Carenado Archer:

• External rivets and screws are spot on.  The JF Warrior is great from a bit further away, but closer up the rivets and screw heads are clearly generally 2D representations with the 3D illusion achieved by shading.  The Carenado rivet heads are proper 3D. 
• General sounds seem closer to the memories of the PA-28 I used to fly in as a passenger many years ago.  The external and internal noise when the engine is cut is splendid!  Again, the JF is fine, but a little quieter and more 'refined'.  Both have some really nice external prop sound variations when you change the position of the external camera .  The landing sound and taxiing again sounded closer to the clattery old experience I seem to remember from my passenger days than the slightly more refined JF Warrior.

Equal:

Most of the rest, to be honest....

• Both are very good and only crazy folks like me are likely to want or need both!
• Internal cockpit and passenger space, other than the small differences in the panels above, are equally convincing.  Both are nicely 'well used' but neither are overdone.
• Flying feel...well, I actually prefer the Carenado Archer, but goodness knows which is the more accurate (if either).  They both feel convincing to me...just slightly different to each other.
• I had switched off the FPS monitor, but both seemed equally smooth in VR across the duplicate flights with identical conditions.

 

 

 

Great writeup.  Also of note the price difference.  JF wants 45 USD for their warrior.  20 USD for the Carenado.  I'm surprised you find the JF instruments more clear.  I dont have the warrior but I do have the T Arrow. On my end with TAA at 1440p the Carenado has nicer clarity.

 

 

Well despite saying I wouldn't get it, due to the lack of AP and Marketplace encryption meaning it cannot be added, I picked this up on Friday too.

I have to say it is one of the best all round Carenado products, out of the box, for MSFS.   It's basic and simple and doesn't 'do' a whole lot, but... (rarely for Carenado) what it does do, it does exceptionally well.  As others have said, the sound is absolutely spot on, the visuals are fantastic (even by good usual Carenado standards), and the flight handling characteristics very convincing and high fidelity.

My absolute go-to now, for a simple PPL single for short distance sightseeing.

I picked it up a few days ago as I am an Archer II fan. I wasn’t disappointed either.  

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

JF wants 45 USD for their warrior.  20 USD for the Carenado. 

Well for most of us that already own Arrows there is a substantial discount on the Warrior.

But yes, for those people out there that are NOT PA28 addicts with a hanger full of variants, that price difference is significant.

57 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Well for most of us that already own Arrows there is a substantial discount on the Warrior.

But yes, for those people out there that are NOT PA28 addicts with a hanger full of variants, that price difference is significant.

Ahh yeah good point.  What are they charging then if you have the other arrow?

2 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Ahh yeah good point.  What are they charging then if you have the other arrow?

Assuming nothing has changed I believe the JF PA28 discounts were:

1. Standard Arrow - no discounts
2. Turbo Arrow -  66% discount with a code you got emailed when you purchased the Standard Arrow
3. Warrior II - 25% with a code you were emailed with either the Standard Arrow or Turbo Arrow purchase (no if you own both they do not stack)

I believe these still work and also work with any specials.

So $33.75 for the Warrior ?  Still more expensive than the Archer but it does have more features including saved states, fully functional electrical system including circuit breakers,  spark plug fouling and limited battery life and some nice WWise stuff like panel rattle at low rpm.

Really depends what you want.

• if you just want a PA28 to toss about the Carenado Archer is a bargain
• if you are happy to pay a bit more (especially if you have the discount) the Warrior offers a lot of extra features

 

 

Edited February 6, 20233 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

Carenado emailed me back...perhaps some already know but here is documentation for the Archer

https://www.carenado.com/sitecarenado/product/pa28-181-archer-ii-msfs/

I'd save money and wait for A2A Comanche it almost around the corner!