Comanche 400

[Aymi]

One of the blades has an internal crack, which is what these blades were at risk of so I'm glad to have it off the airplane.

Regarding selling the 250, I can't justify keeping it. The key for me and A2A moving forward in regards to airplane ownership is it needs to continually challenge and never get complacent. If after a year both the Comanche and Aerostar are sold, then that allows another airplane to come in, and so on. So rather than think of "hold on to this airplane" think "keep experiencing new airplanes and grow." I have to push back against being comfortable.

Scott.

Do you think that, one day, you'll be able to own the next comfort/performance step after the Aerostar - a King Air ?

Of course not the obnouxious latest versions with airbus grade avionics and whatnot.

But some old C90, with a pair of mighty PT-6 that provide you the power of a warbird's V12...

Completely unrelated but they have the exact same looking moving surfaces (down to the little maintenance access screws) as the Bo !

[caleb1]

One of the blades has an internal crack, which is what these blades were at risk of so I'm glad to have it off the airplane.

Regarding selling the 250, I can't justify keeping it. The key for me and A2A moving forward in regards to airplane ownership is it needs to continually challenge and never get complacent. If after a year both the Comanche and Aerostar are sold, then that allows another airplane to come in, and so on. So rather than think of "hold on to this airplane" think "keep experiencing new airplanes and grow." I have to push back against being comfortable.

Scott.

Do you think that, one day, you'll be able to own the next comfort/performance step after the Aerostar - a King Air ?

Of course not the obnouxious latest versions with airbus grade avionics and whatnot.

But some old C90, with a pair of mighty PT-6 that provide you the power of a warbird's V12...

Completely unrelated but they have the exact same looking moving surfaces (down to the little maintenance access screws) as the Bo !

An A2A Areostar or King Air would be very nice.

[Paughco]

Maybe A2A "needs" a B-25?

Seeya
ATB

[jeepinforfun]

I still think a Beech 18 would be perfect for being Accu-simmed, it would take a lot of practice to fly it well, it would sound great, the panel is confusing and it's a twin. The aircraft is perfect for VFR flying and would make a good cargo bush plane too. It also doesn't come close to anything in the A2A lineup at this point. http://www.pilotweb.aero/features/fligh ... -1-4923761

[caleb1]

I still think a Beech 18 would be perfect for being Accu-simmed, it would take a lot of practice to fly it well, it would sound great, the panel is confusing and it's a twin. The aircraft is perfect for VFR flying and would make a good cargo bush plane too. It also doesn't come close to anything in the A2A lineup at this point. http://www.pilotweb.aero/features/fligh ... -1-4923761

A Beech 18 would be an incredible Accu-Sim aircraft. I agree with this 100%

Caleb

[Chunk]

I am wishing I had to funds to make you an immediate offer on the Comanche, Scott. I love that damn bird!

[Medtner]

I am wishing I had to funds to make you an immediate offer on the Comanche, Scott. I love that damn bird!

It's $50 in the A2A-store. A bargain.

[Lewis - A2A]

I am wishing I had to funds to make you an immediate offer on the Comanche, Scott. I love that damn bird!

It's $50 in the A2A-store. A bargain.

hahahahha

oh that made me laugh

cheers,
Lewis

[AKar]

Years back, Beech 18 by Milton Shupe was one of my absolute favorites in FS. I wouldn't mind at all having one in my Accu-Sim hangar, it has just the right kind of utility to rise my in-simulator interest.

I understand it was well-regarded by at least some of its pilots - the only real complaint by one was that it was incredibly loud inside.

-Esa

[caleb1]

I am wishing I had to funds to make you an immediate offer on the Comanche, Scott. I love that damn bird!

It's $50 in the A2A-store. A bargain.

Yes, quite a bargain!

[pilottj]

Years back, Beech 18 by Milton Shupe was one of my absolute favorites in FS. I wouldn't mind at all having one in my Accu-Sim hangar, it has just the right kind of utility to rise my in-simulator interest.

I understand it was well-regarded by at least some of its pilots - the only real complaint by one was that it was incredibly loud inside.

-Esa

Milton Shupe's lineup was one of my favorite collections of airplanes ever done for FS. Dash 7, Howard 500, Aero Commander, Beech 18, Spartan Exec...all fantastic choices...they are all unique, yet practical designs. Each one would also be a fantastic choice for an accusim project, particularly the B18. I think an accusim B18 project would be a perfect 'twin' companion to the T-6.

The B18 truly is a Jack of All Trades plane, Executive aircraft, small airliner, bush plane, cargo plane, military trainer, utility aircraft, camera plane, aerobatic performer, skydive ship. It really does everything and looks great doing it lol. This picture really shows engine out performance lol....All those skydivers on the engine out side...including a guy hanging on the prop...all on the critical engine side.


Anyway, I would be overjoyed if A2A announced a Beech 18, tho to be honest I would prefer they get their accusim twin dynamics worked out on something else first ie Seminole, Aerostar, Baron or whatver so by the time the B18 was ready, the dynamics would be perfect.

Oh well whatever A2A makes will be exciting regardless.

As for what Scott could fly after the Aerostar, I could see him in a Mu-2. You notice he doesn't go for a plane because it is popular, he picks one that suits his needs. The Mu is very fast, has fantastic STOL ability, can do things you wouldn't dare do with a King Air, lots of cargo hauling room, and like the Aerostar requires a very proficient pilot, but will provide great rewards for the proficient pilot. The Mu has quite a loyal following. Also Mitsubishi has stated that they will fully support the aircraft until the last Mu is done flying. A Turbo Twin Commander might also be a great choice.

Cheers
TJ

[Redglyph]

I'm sure it must be possible to buy an Avro Lancaster these days

[aussietomcatter]

Do you think that, one day, you'll be able to own the next comfort/performance step after the Aerostar - a King Air ?

Of course not the obnouxious latest versions with airbus grade avionics and whatnot.

I happen to fly one of those "obnoxious" versions of the King Air. Considering the demands on modern day IFR aircraft, I wouldn't consider the new avionics obnoxious, but very safe and practical.

[Aymi]

Do you think that, one day, you'll be able to own the next comfort/performance step after the Aerostar - a King Air ?

Of course not the obnouxious latest versions with airbus grade avionics and whatnot.

I happen to fly one of those "obnoxious" versions of the King Air. Considering the demands on modern day IFR aircraft, I wouldn't consider the new avionics obnoxious, but very safe and practical.

Obviously they are. Might have chosen the wrong word. Not my native language. Part of my job is about retrofiting King Airs with G1000 or Collins kits. And they do work very well. I love them.

G1000Nxi displays are incredibly sharp and colorful, almost like a giant Ipad. But where the pilot can't look - this is another story. Very cheap and fragile connections, they don't like being moved around. Wouldn't last a year in an Airbus where they constantly swap calculators in-between planes and shops.

On the other hand, the collins avionics suite have a more modest look, smaller displays (they used to be, might have changed since), but are very straight-forward and easy to read. For simmers out there, the Collins avionics is closer to the Thales one we find in Q400/CRJs.
Behind the scenes, collins calculators and connectors are way more rugged and reliable than Garmins's.

FYI, for your king air, a Garmin upgrade will cost you about $1M and a Collins one $2M.

[aussietomcatter]

Do you think that, one day, you'll be able to own the next comfort/performance step after the Aerostar - a King Air ?

Of course not the obnouxious latest versions with airbus grade avionics and whatnot.

I happen to fly one of those "obnoxious" versions of the King Air. Considering the demands on modern day IFR aircraft, I wouldn't consider the new avionics obnoxious, but very safe and practical.

Obviously they are. Might have chosen the wrong word. Not my native language. Part of my job is about retrofiting King Airs with G1000 or Collins kits. And they do work very well. I love them.

G1000Nxi displays are incredibly sharp and colorful, almost like a giant Ipad. But where the pilot can't look - this is another story. Very cheap and fragile connections, they don't like being moved around. Wouldn't last a year in an Airbus where they constantly swap calculators in-between planes and shops.

On the other hand, the collins avionics suite have a more modest look, smaller displays (they used to be, might have changed since), but are very straight-forward and easy to read. For simmers out there, the Collins avionics is closer to the Thales one we find in Q400/CRJs.
Behind the scenes, collins calculators and connectors are way more rugged and reliable than Garmins's.

FYI, for your king air, a Garmin upgrade will cost you about $1M and a Collins one $2M.

All good dude, I probably jumped the gun a tad.

Off topic but very interesting with regards to the Garmin suites. I fly Collins equipped aircraft, I've found it to be a very robust and effective avionics kit. I love the King Air, from landing at YSSY one day to landing on a dirty highway in the middle of the bush at night the next, there isn't much it can't do in its little niche role.