I think it is quite good… so what it may be a touch overpowered in the climb. Otherwise it flies like a Warrior.
1 Like
Agreed. Pretty much all I fly anymore is the WB 172.
1 Like
I fly the WB-SIM 172 and the Bonanza mod, the Warrior’s pitch is out of control for me, and the devs are waiting for a stable SU to address it. Though I think I read this is a 10-year project by Asobo, so…
Yet here is an entirely different perspective in a thread about CFD on this forum :
CFD is still not complete, nor is it adequately documented (though I believe a recent SDK update has improved things slightly). There is no ‘need’ to implimented it other than some end users’ desire to have it just because it is the latest thing. When it is fully understood, documented and proved to be working accurately, then it may become desirable.
Regarding the PA38, it was built accurately prior to CFD becoming available. In that state, it was described by one of our testers (a serving RAF pilot) as having the best incipient spin characteristics he had seen in a sim. Adding the ten or so lines of CFD to the flight model and it won’t stall, let alone spin despite making various adjustments to try and compensate. I don’t believe that at the moment there is any urgent need to release it so work will continue. IF there is a way to get it to stall and spin correctly with CFD, all well and good. If better results are obtained with the older method, then that is what will be released.
Edit: to save repeating myself too much, here is a post I made a week ago outlining my views on CFD as it currently stands: CFD is amazing - #60 by GrimPhoenix9349
1 Like
You should fly the WB-Sim 172. The Piper flight model is good and it was developed early on in the sim, but flying the WB Sim 172 with New Prop + full CFD + soft body simulation is at another level. I’m a Piper fan and have many hours in most single-engine GA models and less time in the Cessna 172. The first time I flew the WB-Sim 172 I was amazed at how ‘real’ it flew to how a single-engine GA flies. It’s been hard to fly the Pipers since then, even though I prefer them over Cessna. I admit that I haven’t tested stalls and spins, but then again I try not to get myself in that envelope in the first place. I am a big Just Flight fan.
1 Like
A comment further up (down?) got me thinking, Im not a small chap and regularly fly with a friend/safety pilot/FI who is also blessed with an ample frame, fuelled to tabs we are on the edge of the W&B envelope, I have never changed this setting in the sim so that will be sure to make a difference. Also when doing any forced landing drills, the prop is always rotating unlike the sim where I just chop the engine. Both those things combined with the age of the fleet of warriors I fly regularly may well be the cause. As it looks as though there will be no flying IRL this weekend I will do some experimentation.
Yeah, I flew at the very edge of W&B the other day (4 people on board and fuel to tabs)… performance was decidedly NOT at 1000 fpm on climb, lol 
(Yes, I was still in the envelope, but, at the very edge… a little scary for me, I’d never flown that close to the edge of W&B in a Warrior before. I didn’t notice any control issues (still in the middle of range), just sluggish)
There is a margin there but if your take-off is delayed you really need to watch for density altitude changes as the day warm ups.
2 Likes
crikey, a family of dwarves? If my flying buddy and I want to fly with full fuel, we have to take the covers out of the baggage hold to remain legal! (We have to do an electronic W&B to release the plane at the rental office)
Thankfully DA is rarely an issue in the UK
1 Like
I weigh about 180 lbs, my other passengers, a friend and a couple of young teenagers, weighed between 100 and 140.
It was a beautiful fall day…
A little fuel burn and all’s good…
Bear in mind body CfD is currently simulating a tube, which is ok if you’re flying a tubeliner but quite possibly detrimental for anything else.
All the JF PA28s can get in a really bizarre “flat-spin-on-it’s-side” where the pitch axis is almost vertical and it’s spinning around that, like it’s in a flat spin but 90 degrees off 
that’s the only real oddity I found, and given you have to really work to spin one, not really bothered. If you’re testing climb rates remember to do it out at sea so there’s no thermals interfering.
4 guys lost their lives (in a Warrior), around my local aero club at the time, due to this exact issue. This was a number of years ago.
They knew they were close to limits and elected to go ahead anyway.
Very sad.
You also need to make sure nothing has changed since you did your calculations (OAT gone up, someone “helpfully” topped up the tanks on the rental (should show up on the pre-flight) passengers slipped an extra last minute package in the luggage, etc) .
Some friends came unstuck with this in a 172 in PNG. Did all the W&B for a 7.00 am take-off but were delayed. A few hours later when they finally got under way the OAT was significantly warmer and they ran off the end of the runway. Fortunately they came to a halt in long grass and not trees and no harm was done other than an incident report for the pilot and reprimand.
3 Likes
Exactly, this is why “close to the limit is fine”, is absolutely not the advice to listen to. Unfortunately, many of the guys who go by this attitude are no longer around to talk about it.
And bearing in mind that close to the limit may be “fine”, if everything continues perfectly in flight. But that is often not the case and things can go pear shaped much quicker than you would expect.
Hi all. As mentioned we are currently working on the flight models for all our PA28s and Hawk T1. The most commonly reported issue affecting those was the ‘pitch jerks’, however we’ve seen some reports that the SU11 beta addresses that, or at least significantly improves it. Can anyone here with the SU11 beta installed confirm that either way?
Martyn - Just Flight
6 Likes
I’ll test it once SU11 is released, but I’m not in the Beta. I’ve been one of the most vocal about the pitch oscillations, so would love to have the Warrior back in my hangar.
1 Like
Still super jerky and/or unresponsive in rotation on the pitch axis from the couple of flights I’ve take it on with SU11. Wondering if there’s any news on this front.
I’m not sure I’ve experienced this. Or maybe I’ve just gotten used to it. It does take more muscle on the yoke for take-off rotation, and on landing flare, but to me it just makes it feel heavier and more realistic. I’ve never flown a Piper in real life though, so…
I like the heavy feel for sure. That it’s stable and has inertia. You point it and it stays there, unlike the twitchy Asobo aircraft.
But since I’ve bought the JF Warrior in September, at slow speeds it rotates in the pitch axis like it moves in discrete polygonal angles. I’m pulling pulling pulling on the yoke, then it suddenly jerks up and stays there, pull pull pull, another jerk up to the next angle.
I’m current on a real Archer II btw, not that you actually need to fly these to notice these things. The real aircraft of course smoothly rotates when you flare.
I can manage to fly it like that, but I pretty much leave it in the hangar now.
I’m actually looking forward to the Carenado Archer to see if it fairs better.
1 Like
Just curious, have you tried checking the yoke input on those kinds of large flare deflections?
Almost sounds like dirty potentiometer behavior?