Jump to content

Carenado Piper PA-28RT201 (FSX) nosewheel steering problem?


narvik1a

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Has anyone been experiencing difficulty maintaining directional control during takeoff and landing rolls? During my first two flights I experienced an extremely strong tendancy for the a/c to veer off to the right. So much so that it's nearly impossible to stay on the runway! I haven't checked whether or not the aircraft has rudder trim.

Any word on a patch or fix?

Otherwise, fantastic modeling! Looking forward to some low and slow flying for a change! Sure brings back memories!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reinstall and modification of the aircraft.cfg file loacated: \Program Files\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\SimObjects\Airplanes\Carenado ARROW PA28RT201

with:

[contact_points]

static_pitch = -0.5

static_cg_height = 3.6

max_number_of_points = 9

point.0=1, 5.00, 0.0, -3.75, 3200, 0, 0.57, 33, 0.20, 2.0, 0.8, 3.5, 3.5, 0, 130.0, 130.0

point.1=1, -3.88, -4.5, -3.88, 3200, 1, 0.69, 0.00, 0.3, 2.5, 0.8, 5.0, 5.0, 2, 130.0, 130.0

point.2=1, -3.88, 4.5, -3.88, 3200, 2, 0.69, 0.00, 0.3, 2.5, 0.8, 5.0, 5.0, 3, 130.0, 130.0

point.3 = 2, -2.95, -18, 0.62, 1600, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0

point.4 = 2, -3.10, 18, 0.62, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0

point.5 = 2, -18.80, 0, -1.0, 3200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0

point.6 = 2, 5.5, 0, -1.5, 3200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0

point.7 = 2, -19.5, 0, 4.7, 3200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0

point.8 = 2, -3.0, 0, -1.8, 3200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0

gear_system_type=0

[brakes]

parking_brake = 1 //Parking brake available

toe_brakes_scale = 0.5 //Brake scalar

auto_brakes = 0

differential_braking_scale = 0.9

Solved my problem!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you state neither operating system, nor controllers in use your observations are about as relevant as snow in the desert.

FWIW on XP SP3 and using either a CH yoke or a MS FF2 joystick and CH pedals I do not see the problem you describe.

The aircraft is NOT fitted with rudder trim in real life, but the code is live for use of the buttons in FS if you must, but as with most aircraft in FS the `cure` is not to mess around with the .cfg files to uncertain result and possible side-effects, but to simply trim the aircraft properly before starting the take-off roll, and to use a little nose down elevator to push more weight into the nosewheel. That and applying power smoothly and correct use of rudder pedals. Use the numpad `5` key to synchronise trim and test for full and free movement of all controls and this is simply not a problem.

What Carenado have tried to achieve - in a somewhat hamfisted way - is the effect of the absence of prop wash on the high mounted tailplane. In doing some they have also unwittingly introduced some side-effects of their own.

Your suggestion for a fix actually exacerbates those effects, not ameliorates them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Sorry for the up, but I wanted to say that real Piper Arrow IV has got Rudder Trim! (as well as Archer II)...

But Carenado guys haven't modeled it... I mean, you can see it in the cockpit, but it's inoperative. I'm a bit disappointed about this. There are also other problems, like the absence of a pitch trim position indicator and unrealistic speeds, primarly about takeoff (VR at 80 kt with lots of TRIM UP is totally different from the real one, which takeoffs normally at about 70 Kt)...

This is the real Arrow IV manual:

arrow4_a.jpg

arrow4_b.jpg

Real cockpit:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Salpauslento/Piper-PA-28RT-201T-Turbo/1268989/L/

I've flown a PA28RT-201 in real life and I don't understand why in lots of reviews about the Carenado one, people say that the model is realistic and instruments are accurate: IT'S NOT TRUE!

Yes, you can say that the visual model is very accurate, the virtual cockpit is highly definited, but you canno't say that the flight dynamics are realistics... I know that not many simmers fly planes in real life, but I'd like to read objective reviews, instead of the same stuff "Carenado has done another wonderful GA plane..."

Reviewers only need to gather better informations about what they are reviewing, not only installing the plane, CTRL+E, full power and takeoff.... :S

In my opinion, A2A Piper Cub is a nice plane, as well as Realair SF260, but not Carenados! Note that with NICE, I mean visual model but above all I mean FLIGHT DYNAMICS and realistic and complete instrumentation, compared to the real ones. In conclusion, Carenados (I can talk about Archer II and Arrow IV) are nice planes for screenshots and nothing more... and I regret saying this, because i fly those Piper in real life, but I can't do the same in FSX, maintaing a certain grade of realism.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not every simmer want accurate realism. I don't know guys, I only wanted to share my opinion about Carenado and superficial reviews nowadays, also from important websites like FlightSim or Avsim.

That's all. Any comment is well accepted! And sorry if it's not clear, this is not my mother tongue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all are equipped with rudder trim. This particular aircraft wasn't, and isn't. But I believe the rudder trim buttons in the sim still work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all are equipped with rudder trim. This particular aircraft wasn't, and isn't. But I believe the rudder trim buttons in the sim still work.

Yes, it is. It's from the PA28-RT201 manual (description/operation)... not a supplement. So it's a default feature in every Arrow IV... But the point is another: it's clearly visible in the virtual cockpit, but not operational...

1.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly this one in reality, mostly the Archer II. And every aircraft had ruder trim, according to the real POH I have it is standard in the series this manual was made for, but that does not mean it is standard on every Archer or Arrow. In fact I don't know it, but I think it is standard as it really helps to reduce the yaw caused by the propeller.

When talking about behaviour of the real one and the Carenado one (I own the virtual Arrow and Archer) I fully agree with ardix. It' not realistic, but if you change some parameters in the aircraft.cfg it feels a bit more like a real PA28.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi ardix,

I agree with you on the "not so realistic" flight dynamics of the Carenado PA28RT-201 Arrow IV. It feels rather underpowered on take-off run and also the elevator seems to be too ineffective, even when considering the T-Tail and its low speed problems. Also, the Carenado Arrow feels extremely nose-heavy in default configuration and requires FULL up-trimming on approach and take-off.

Funny thing is that I do love this plane however - in real life as much as in the simulator - so I spent some time to find some workarounds to adjust it more to what I expect from an ARROW IV.

(Need to say though that I never flew one in real life, I only clocked some hours in our clubs PA28-181 Warrior III in real life.)

Here's what I did:

  1. In order to improve the imbalance I always load about 50kg luggage in the luggage compartment. This doesn't affect flight performance much however helps to improve the overall balance a bit.
  2. I "improved" the elevator a little bit by increasing the "elevator-effectiveness" in the section [flight tuning] from 0.7 to 0.8 in the aircraft.cfg
  3. As the engine of the Carenado PA28RT-201 felt more like a rather old 180HP engine from the Warrior III, I also increased the "power_scalar" from 1.0 to 1.1 (a modest 10% boost) in the section [piston_engine] of the aircraft.cfg. This boost does not only help during take-off but also increases the cruise speed to a more realistic level.

These modifications improved the "feel" and performance of my Carenado PA28RT-201 to a level which makes flying this bird a bit less troublesome. Takeoff with full tanks is now also a bit closer to specs... - no 2000ft runways required any longer!

I will take some more time to fiddle around with the engine settings (The Carenado engine has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the real airplane!!!).

Carenado simulates a carburator aspirated 4 cylinder engine with no turbocharger in this "weird" PA28RT-201 Arrow IV whereas the original plane comes with a Continental TSIO-360-FB, which is a 6 cylinder, fuel-injected and turbocharged engine... No wonder that performance deteriorates in higher flight levels!

I will also look into the balancing section... - maybe I can cure the nose-heavy behaviour via edits there,too.

Overall I am sort of disappointed with Carenado as this plane is really way off ANY logic behaviour and the config file underlines this feeling! I expect some more accuracy from a payware product, especially as I am NO expert and I have no idea if my modifications will sacrifice other areas of realism... (fuel burn rates, handling, etc.). Sigh!!!

One more point: some users complained about the missing markers on the trim wheel of the Carenado PA28RT-201. Well, they are not missing at all but exactly as "hidden" as in the original plane. You need to lean to the right to see these markers in a real Arrow and so you need to press [CTRL-SHIFT-ENTER] several times to move your viewpoint to the right in the sim to see the marker.

post-35107-0-47047700-1323087245_thumb.j

Happy Flying!

Bernd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hello Bernd, thanks for your reply. I will try your edits.

I just wanted to clarify one thing:

Carenado simulates the PA-28RT-201 Arrow IV (Four place, retractable landing gear landplane, Lycoming IO-360-C1C6 engine of 200 hp (149 kW), gross weight 2,750 lb (1,247 kg). First certified on 13 November 1978. Features a T tail), this is not a PA-28RT-201T Turbo Arrow IV (Four place, retractable landing gear landplane, turbocharged Continental TSIO-360-FB engine of 200 hp (149 kW), gross weight 2,900 lb (1,315 kg). First certified on 13 November 1978. Features a T tail).

So the Carenado PA28RT-201 is correctly not turbocharged, but it has to be fuel injected like the turbo version!

PS: info wikipedia and real manual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooop, my bad!!! Thanks very much for the clarification, ardix!

I was actually not aware of this model... - I always thought the PA-28R were the planes with retractable gear but without turbo and the PA-28RT model was with turbo charger... (T = Turbo???)

Unfortunately this plane is shipped without much documentation, leaving room for errors like this...

My oh my... - I haven't even seen a PA-28RT without turbo engine yet but flew as passenger in two different Turbo PA-28RT already - nice birds with a good performance at 9.000ft...

Anyway, due to the much better performance in higher flight levels I will keep my FSX version turbo-charged. With the original settings this Carenado bird is a lame duck despite its sporty looks...

Unfortunately my modifications in the aircraft.cfg didn't help much yet concerning the heavy nose and the requirement to trim up a lot even during high-speed cruise... - the most efficient one being still a full baggage compartment at max. allowed weight.

Maybe Piper-Pilot can share some of his modifications...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, why modifiy what is a reasonable attempt to actually replicate the real aircraft?

The real airplane IS underpowered and is know for a heavy nose. It does nothing, does nothing, does nothing... then leaps off the ground with an exaggerated pitching moment! All due to the high tail, so Carenado is doing a reasonable job with the air.file.

Real pilots also mention having to pull back more on the yoke than expected when rotating because the T-tail doesn't have a lot of authority and the extra weight of the retractable nosegear for'ard. But once it "bites", if you're not careful, the nose will pitch up and the aircraft can stall.

I would guess the Carenado bird is fairly accurate, and what is required is a skillset to fly what is there, not mess with it unnecessarily.

As a real pilot who I have respect for commented:

"The Arrow does feel, in the sim. pretty close to how the real life Arrow does. It is a relatively heavy aircraft relative to it's power, so it is not quick by any means. It is basically a Cherokee PA-28-180 with a LOT more fuel and the added weight of gear retracts, as well as the constant speed prop equipment. So, yes, it is underpowered."

Hope this helps.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments Snave. It's true this is an underpowered model, but I still think the amount of trim up required for takeoff (let's say VR 75 kt) is too much.

Unfortunately, I can't explain this in other words... it's about feelings. I have about 8 hours flight time in a real PA28RT-201 Arrow IV (not so much... it's true) and I don't agree about the exaggerated pitching moment. I need to fly this bird again, maybe I will notice it.

;)

PS: this is the real one I flown:

1975002.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooop, my bad!!! Thanks very much for the clarification, ardix!

I was actually not aware of this model... - I always thought the PA-28R were the planes with retractable gear but without turbo and the PA-28RT model was with turbo charger... (T = Turbo???)

PA28RT-201T

The first T is T tail, the second T is Turbocharged. So the "normal" version is only called PA28RT-201.

They put a T after the R to distinguish from the Arrow III (PA28R-201). The turbocharged version of the Arrow III is so called PA28R-201T.

Hope it is clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it, ardix! :lightbulb_s::)

Regarding my doubts about the accuracy of the Carenado flight model I have to stress again that I have never flown the real plane and only clocked some hours in a PA-28-181 - which is also not a powerhouse but still feels much more agile than the Carenado PA-28RT-201T and flies very smoothly and well balanced. It is actually a pleasure to fly.

The flight model of the Carenado PA-28RT is not "a real problem" as I can take off and land smoothly but I completely agree with ardix that it doesn't "feel" right, especially on take-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly the result of putting all the extra weight of gear retraction systems and the c/s prop on an airframe not originally designed for it, then sticking a then-fashionable T-tail on it without thinking about the consequences on elevator authority at low IAS without prop wash enhancement. And then accepting those consequences because the plane was never going to be a big seller anyway...

As for the takeoff characteristics, it is simply a question of beginning with the correct trim setting, then pulling the yoke back at Vr, then trimming again to get the plane to leave the ground. This is the difference to doing it in the real world - but given the limitations of the sim insofar as trim is concerned I suggest trying what at first seems like anathema and fly the aircraft off with trim, not elevator. But you do need to be in a near-trimmed state while rolling, or else the trim response will arrive only after you've parked nose-first into the end of the runway!

Thereafter, (and this is one area that Carenado did get wrong) the aircraft needs to be kept in that attitude and accelerating, while the gear is tucked away to enable someting resembling resaonable acceleration to Vy. The danger is trying to achieve Vx while still `dirty` as the old girl does not have enough power or tail authority in that configuration. If you observe the take-off of the real deal you would see they have a pronounced flatter initial climb out than almost anything similar. The reason for this is that almost any sink condition while in climb attitude starts to induce elevator blanking so the key is to get fast, as fast as possible (although it's a bit relative in the `RT.... :))

I have to say that my predilection for any modification for the old bird would be to introduce a large horsepower increase - this would be a very different airplane with 260hp rather than 200!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add something, Piper manual is not detailed at all about takeoff technique.

The normal takeoff technique is conventional for the Arrow IV. The tab should be set slightly aft of neutral, with the exact setting determined by the loading of the airplane. Allow the airplane to accelerate to 65 to 75 KIAS depending on the weight of the aircraft and ease back on the control wheel to rotate to climb attitude.

[...]

SECT 4-19 NORMAL PROCEDURES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at 65 kts the Carenado PA-28RT is still like glued to the runway... - even with just the pilot on board, 50% fuel and no more than 40 kg baggage in the baggage compartment.

The term "rotation" is also a bit misleading here because at 75 kts the plane almost jumps into the air - elevator almost fully pulled and 75% aft trim... If you want a smooth rotation you need about 85 - 90 kts IAS (and 3.000+ ft runway length) before the elevator allows for fine pitch adjustments and that is what I feel is a bit exaggerated...

Without having read the manual I'd expect a behaviour as described there..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also feel that there is something wrong with the flight model. In the real one it is far easier to rotate the aircraft like this replication. Using flaps 10 the addon will fly like the real one without flaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use