C182 Expansion poll

[pilottj]

With the release of this fantastic Jack Of All Trades 182, we now have an accusimmed model of a real life airframe that is capable of so many variations and modifications. What variations would you like to see? I know there was an RG poll a little while back, I was curious how other modifications would compare in terms of general popularity.

No doubt any modification would require a significant amount of time and work to be on par with A2A standards, and it is up to them of course to decide if and how far they would want to go with this without sacrificing other projects.

Multiple choice, please choose all that you are interested in. Obviously some choices are likely not possible or would be very difficult to model. Again this is just personal curiosity, not some official poll

Cheers
TJ

[taildraggin68]

If all wishes could come true....then Tundra, Float, Tex Taildragger conversion, and straight tail 50's model But a round engine Canadian Bush plane workhorse would be at the top

[Sazoga]

Guys RG! Then it definitly would be the best A2A airplane ever!

[Molly - A2A]

Anything would be of interest to me, but #1 would be the turbo variant.

[tbaac]

I think its brilliant at the moment.

But yeah, at some point in the future I'd like to try the bush taildragger version. And I'd be interested to see A2A's take on a G1000.
Turbo would be alright as well.

But part of me feels the same way as if someone asked, "Obviously you like your new wife. But given the choice, what 3 things would you upgrade about her?"

Interesting poll, I've still got the new plane buzz though.

[Dominique]

Voted for the Tundra and the TX taildragger to reinforce the bush dimension of the A2A aircraft but also for the RG as retractable gear would add a new interesting difficulty to manage.

An amphib/floatplane would be great too but is P3D water physics ready for it right now for a good simulation ? FSX was not. Maybe A2A can pull some trick out of their accusimed hat !

[AKar]

Hehe..., I wish to say none of the above! (Well, okay perhaps the T182 version!)

Speaking from real-life perspective, and stating purely my own opinion, I kind of think that this 'jack of all trades' is somewhat of an exaggeration. I think the 182 is a beautiful airplane; I'd say the 172 is a trainer - the 182 is an airplane. A great first airplane for everyone. It is an easily approachable, well-performing airframe with docile handling, good specs, it's relatively affordable and rugged, and so on. But if we start to put some missions on its log, then we quickly find out that if anything is bolted on it (floats, tundra tires...), then it's seriously underpowered and draggy. If we want to get anywhere around the year, or someplace higher even in summer, then we lack de-icing. If we want to use some suspicious bolt-on retractables on it, then we kill its ruggedness and affordability. Besides, those are older models anyway! The 182 is a great basic airplane.

I flew today almost 5 hours with it, just going through the very basics and testing the power plant simulation and new features. So far I love it! In fact, I think it is so good, that I hope that instead of pushing out the next release in these to-the-third-decimal accurate GA airplanes, it could be given more time. This is to pursue those aspects that are not yet thoroughly Accusimmed. I'll post my list of wishes later on, but I don't think it should matter anyway!

As far as 182 goes, I think you at A2a have truly achieved something on that moment when I keep the throttle full in after takeoff, but pull the prop back just a little bit...a 100 rpm or so for climb, cowl flaps closed and slightly nose over to get some airspeed. After a good moment of climb and a good pull on mixture, settling in and starting to focus on enroute navigation, you notice how quiet the engine has gotten while the wind noise gets more noticeable, subtly revealing the acceleration. Only a look into variometer reveals that you're still climbing almost some 1000 fpm at 110 KIAS - and tells that you've timed it all perfectly.

A true 182 moment. I think I want to relive that over and over again a few times before the next release!

-Esa

[gulredrel]

I would like to see an digital engine monitor.

[tbaac]

That's interesting Esa.

I initially was disappointed by the lack of RG but the manual points to the ruggedness of the landing gear and its something that I've felt in my landings so far

[dfeldman]

IO 550 please.

Dave.

[Ian P]

From my research so far, Cessna seem to be selling a lot more G1000 equipped C182Ts than analogue panel C182Ts... Therefore I've had to go with that option, plus the Turbo because, again, there seem to be quite a few of them. I also chose the Amphib option, just because I really want another A2A aircraft on floats. Accu-Feel v2 added a lot to water operations in FSX.

The RG - as has already been pointed out several times - stopped being made well before the "T" model started being made. Therefore, it would be a completely made-up aircraft and not something I'd ever expect to see from A2A.

Ian P.

[AKar]

That's interesting Esa.

I initially was disappointed by the lack of RG but the manual points to the ruggedness of the landing gear and its something that I've felt in my landings so far

Just my uneducated opinion! I've never even seen an RG model up close, but actually those who I know and have worked on it think it's not that bad for a GA retractable. It is said to lack any specific issues (which is much to say, really!), while for example the landing gear of PA-28R (the Piper Arrow), used all the way up to Senecas and so, is mechanically rather complex compared to its build and tends to develop ridiculous amounts of play in quite short times. This I know in person! But in Cessnas, the basic, fixed spring tube landing gear design is surprisingly efficient aerodynamically, it is rugged, it is good on landing, it doesn't use hydraulics nor nitrogen pressure, therefore lacking any seals prone to issues in use, it is simple to maintain even up the food chain into well over 8.000 lb Caravan (though there it requires some equipment due to unbelievable force needed to pull the spring tubes apart from each other..). The few knots brought in by retractable are most likely given back to great extend by fairings and other developments put into the later production.

BTW, if one wants a Cessna that has the wildest versions around from the factory line, then see the 210 series. There are some truly... well, I just say suspicious models of that thing around - even though the basic 210 seems rather fine machine, being quite much what the 182RG should have been, if you ask me.


dfeldman;

The TCM IO-550 is a very good STC on the older 182s, unfortunately not sure it's not available to the latest Lycoming-powered S and R models, however. It appears to be a great improvement over the TCM O-470 used in the older 182s, the IO-550 being one of the best GA engines around. I've seen one of such modifications going through it early paces, and it did so very well.

-Esa

[jeepinforfun]

I would probably like to see the Beaver first but I did notice that Knots2U does sell a STOL kit http://www.knots2u.net/sportsman-stol-kit-cessna-182/ for the C182, would probably go nice with some tundra tires.

[n454mw]

I second that Brett, if we're going for a bush plane with the Tundras then it would absolutely help to have the STOL kit on it.

However, that being said, I'm like others here and still have new plane fever. I like it just the way it is.

[Scott - A2A]

I'm with Esa on this.

The landing gear in the 182 is probably one of the top three of it's best features. It's just a marvel of simplicity and strength, and on the T model, more aerodynamic than all previous models.

Scott.