Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jchpa32

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Iowa, USA

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

1,669 profile views
  1. Ron, can I ask, you don't like the fixed gear? I don't care if you leave the fairings plain white. I mainly want the fuselage scheme done right. I offered on another forum to pay up to $25 to get a scheme I liked, would that suffice for you? JCH
  2. Ok, thanks for considering it Ron. Best Regards. JCH
  3. Very good, looking forward to hearing from you! JCH
  4. Something like this: Or this: I would prefer N69115 if it isn't too hard. Thanks, JCH
  5. Ron, I see you've done some paints of the Carenado Archer. Would you be at all interested in doing a repaint to spec for me? I have always wanted a particular scheme for that one. I have about 400 RW hours in the Archer, in fact I passed my Private check ride in one. JCH
  6. That would be fine! I would like the blue Carenado 172N scheme. If the N number can't be made large enough, is there a way to remove the break in the stripes, and put some 2" reg numbers just forward of the horizontal stabilizer leading edge, in black? I understand they can' be on the tail because of the way Carenado did the texture. (The FAA still allows these leftover registrations from the '80's if the aircraft hasn't been repainted). JCH
  7. Ok, thank you for the information. I guess I can't have what I can't have. JCH
  8. Not being a painter, I wouldn't have guessed that-but I have read many complaints about Carenado/Alabeo paint kits being very difficult to use. So how hard would it be to get rid of the existing reg and put the small style reg on the vertical stab? Would that would be easier with the paint kit? (The FAA still allows those small reg numbers if the plane has not been repainted, and I have seen some still around, believe it or not.) JCH
  9. No, they are too small. Again, I know it seems nitpicky, but it drives me nuts. Have a look at a number of RW photos and you'll see what I mean. They should be much larger. If it is too hard to make them bigger, could they be covered up and the old, '80's small reg numbers be put on the tail, like a lot of Cessna's had? I could send photos of what I mean. (Can't put images here). JCH
  10. Frank, the one I would like most is the Carenado 172N, as it has the old school panel and scheme. I don't even need a custom reg, I would just like it to have the proper sizing. The orange and gold scheme that comes with the package. Do you have that simulation? Sorry, FSX. JCH
  11. Cai, I went there and they seem to only do a couple aircraft. JCH
  12. For years now, Carenado/Alabeo have put various sized N numbers on their aircraft, but they never seem to be the RIGHT size, at least until just the more recent releases. US N numbers are to be no less than 12" high and have certain spacing, color and background requirements as well. Carenado just seems to make them whatever size will fit in the space they decide to put it or that looks good with the livery. I notice most repainters do this as well. Look at photos of the real aircraft, then look at the sims. Not even close to the right size. I know it sounds nit picky, but it really detracts from the realism for me. I also wish they would at least include ONE original factory livery for each aircraft. I love the old school 60's and 70's liveries for the Piper's, Cessna's and Beech's but can never get one that really looks like it did when first delivered. JCH
  13. Wow, I forgot about this post. Jesse, the Tomahawk uses the springs to set the elevator, yes, but not the stabilizer. In the Alabeo simulation, the entire stabilizer moves to a new position. This is incorrect, and took a while to notice. I took screenshots and forwarded them to Alabeo, and got the usual "we'll send this to the dev team" then never a word again. So I guess I have to live with it. I did my initial training and first solo in a Tomahawk, and the stabilizer was fixed, only the elevator was trimmed. JCH
  14. For some reason, most developers and repainters do not use the proper size US registration on their paints. It has driven me to distraction for years, as it detracts from the realism for me. I search and search, but can never seem to find a repaint for my various airplanes with a good scheme AND properly sized reg. So I am willing to pay a painter $25 if they will fix the registration on an existing scheme for me. That is all I want, the registration to be the right size. If you will contact me, we can discuss which airplane and what reg. I would like, and of course payment details. Thank you. JCH
  15. I know the Seneca V has been available for some time now, but it is new to me. Bought it because it is on sale now. My biggest issue with it is the model-the RW Seneca (any series) does NOT have a pitot tube and stall warning blades on the right wing. Only the left. Nit picky, I know, but they have usually been pretty accurate with the modelling. I am me, little things like that make me nuts. (The Justflight Arrow, same problem-pitot under both wings! Never have I seen a Piper with a pitot under the right wing. And I have flown a LOT of them RW). I also have issues with the Carenado 430 in the number 2 position. The screen stays on the initialization page until I turn it off and then back on. ENTER does not work.And it should say COM2. I figured out the ADF tuning, I am used to that from them. And the beacon will not work until I turn it off and back on. That said, I have to say the flight modelling is spot on. I do my part and set MP, RPM and lean correctly, it is SPOT ON for TAS, by the book. Very pleased with that. I know Carenado's rep, but I love their models, and usually the other things work OK as well. I just don't get how they don't catch these things during BETA, and I have offered many times to test for them. Oh, well. One other general gripe with Carenado AND Alabeo-the registration numbers on their aircraft, until recently, do NOT conform to U.S. regulations. They size them to fit and look good, but the FEDS require them to be 12". Again, just my pet peeve, but with such great models they should be spot on accurate, ruins the RW immersion for me. Rant over, I just don't look at the right side of the aircraft. RW commercial pilot, multi, instrument, 1,820 TT, 9 years flying skydivers, 24 years flying, s i do speak from some experience. JCH
  • Create New...