DF Archer Update released...

[Guest Twister]

Hello Kathy,Good idea, I might do that (if time permits...)- I always wanted to become a test pilot....Take careTwister

[brucek 38]

Hi David,I just downloaded the Archer last night, and agree with everything good being said here. Like Kathy and Twister, I fly the C172; and although different from the Archer in some respects, you can really get a feeling of real flying with this product. Kathy, I love your theory on "mentally filling in the blanks", that's so true with a flight model that affirms what we expect to see/hear in response to inputs.A question: You refer to "TrackerIR". I have no idea what this is, maybe a part of the Archer package that I have yet to discover (and I shamefully admit to not having read the manuals yet, and being at work right now the manual isn't accessible to me).Thanks. The creators of this aircraft should be very proud of this accomplishment (which I'm sure they are).Bruce.BJC, Jeffco, CO.

[Guest]

So the "alt" aircraft.cfg damps out the left pull? Is it, then, more like the original flight model, pre-patch? The description of it next to the Config-o-Matic check box made it sound like it was optimized for rudder pedal users, but your description makes it sound like that's not the case. Can you elaborate on the differences between the two new flight models? Thanks!Alan Ampolsk

[Guest Moghdad]

I tried the "alt" flight model. That killed the left pull problem but the rotation problem was back, so it feels more like the pre-patch model. However, I'm having some luck with the rudder trim, although the slip seems to take a little speed off the top end.

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>A huge improvement to what was already a work of art! If >only (oh boy, here he goes again...;-)) they could move the >yoke in the VC view so it didn't block the tachometer. It >sure would be nice to see the tach...but that's the only >improvement I can think of. >David I was happy when I saw I could move the Virtual Panel so I could see at least the top of the Tach. I tend to set it so I'm near the middle, and the Yoke handle covers only the left side of the Tach. Once set, the VC comes back in the same place when you return to it. I don't know how it was done, but it sure helps! Ron

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>I tried the "alt" flight model. That killed the left pull >problem but the rotation problem was back, so it feels more >like the pre-patch model. However, I'm having some luck >with the rudder trim, although the slip seems to take a >little speed off the top end. Yes, the "ALT" setting is the original aircraft.cfg but with the LG strut distances set so the pitch on the runway is appropriate. Quite a bit more nose up, which significantly affects TO. The "non ALT" removes the engine offset so there is no compensation for "P=Factor". Which seems to have given people with the Prop Sliders set to zero some problems at times. It also has some different LG settings. I installed the official patch over my already 'fixed' configuration and checked the lines in aircraft.cfg. They changed appropriately, depending on whether the ALT or non ALT box was checked and the configuration saved with Config-O-Matic. Both versions took off nicely, but I think there were differences in Pitch trim. Now appropriate TO pitch and rudder trim will change, depending on the Prop Realism Sliders and the loading. It doesn't appear to take that much pitch trim: between the mid line and perhaps 1/4 up trim (which is down on the indicator). Seat loading has some effect (certainly it should), but this doesn't affect the pitch trim as much as one would think since an aft loading increases the pitch on the runway, thus the wing develops more lift for the heaver load. Fuel tanks are behind the CoG, and tend to automatically change CoG to correct for weight as fuel is burned. Thus, little change in pitch trim is required as fuel is burned on a long trip. I always work to set fuel tanks, payload stations, LG, etc. to the real mfg. distances. AC are designed to automatically balance out as much as possible, something I've noted as I've developed more FS aircraft. I experimented to find a good TO trim that doesn't take much pull to get off the runway around 60 kts. Then I watched the airspeed as I let the Archer climb with no JS input. The best trim for TO appears to be when it will climb at significant pitch and reach about 75 kts before starting to slow below that speed. That's the time to hold the nose down a bit and trim down a little to hold the best climb speed of 75 kts. Actually, 80 kts climb is near as fast in climb rate and lets the engine turn a bit faster to generate more HP. BTW, you only get the 180 HP you paid for when at 100 ft MSL and can get the RPM to 2700 RPM. Most of the time is is more like 165 HP or less, maximum. Also, 2650 RPM is the maximum continuous RPM, the short yellow arc starts at 2650. Ron