GA Twin

[Ian Warren]

I've always liked the twins with yellow skin .... GAWD I have to quit watching the 'Simpsons' so much

[Lewis - A2A]

Nice Cessna, they operated as training aircraft during the war didn't they? I've recently seen a picture of one with engine covers to keep warm flying up Alaska dated during WW2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DHenriques_]

Nice Cessna, they operated as training aircraft during the war didn't they? I've recently seen a picture of one with engine covers to keep warm flying up Alaska dated during WW2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Bamboo Bomber (UC78) was made popular over here by the TV series "Sky King" where the "hero" flew one before upgrading into a Cessna 310.
Dudley

[pilottj]

I remember having a great time with Bill Lyon's Cessna Bobcat back in the days of FS2k2. A vintage twin trainer/utility aircraft such as the Bobcat or Beech 18/AT-11 would be a fantastic eventual follow up to the AT-6 project. Something like that would be a nice link in the vintage aircraft training chain for the B-17 and 377 pilots. ie Cub -> AT-6 -> AT-11/B18 -> B-17/377 & future transport/bomber projects.

On the modern GA side, the Seminole is a great choice. These days, if you go to any big flight academy or college, you will find either Seminoles or DA42s. While I love the DA42's safety gadgets and innovations, the Seminole makes for a better trainer. IMHO it is better to learn true multi engine manual management with 6 levers on the quadrant instead of 2 levers + FADEC. The Duchess is a great multi trainer as well, but the Duchess fleet are all mostly all high time airframes, and will eventually be phased out entirely from the flight training side of things. I think after the Seminole is done, A2A will have gotten some great multi experience, to then go on to whatever more advanced utility twin...ie Baron, Aerostar,340...etc.

There is a very logical path to A2A's project development, it mirrors the training path/career of a real pilot. Since we value A2A's 'realism', I think we have to value the training aircraft and respect the realistic training progression. What's the point of A2A taking the effort and time to produce very realistic aircraft if we don't take the time to fully learn how to operate them. Be honest, ask yourself, at your current level of flight experience, could you realistically pass an IFR & multi checkride in a high peformance cabin/utility twin (with little/not current/no previous MEL experience)? Maybe some could, but I think for most of us (me included) to realistically master a type of aircraft, you have to do it in steps. Maybe in my dreams I can hop into an AC680 and fly it like Bob Hoover, but in reality my twin skills are very rusty at best. A Seminole is a perfect answer to get us up to a quality MEL checkride level.

The Seminole isn't some mundane slowpoke either, it will easily keep up with the Comanche. Fly an IAP by hand with engine out & partial panel in IMC/hood (something you must do for a multi IFR checkride)...your brain WILL be busy...trust me lol. I remember the training sessions, and feeling mentally 'drained' after the debrief lol. You will want to get comfortable doing that kind of intense flying in Seminole before you hop in to a Baron or Aerostar or whatever.

Cheers
TJ

[Dogsbody55]

Agreed. A Seminole would be a great starting point for the A2A twin experience, and to my way of thinking, it's the next logical step. Twin engined Accusim will open up a whole new world for both RW and desktop pilots in a way that no other Accusim release could. There isn't a decent twin GA out there yet that properly replicates multi engine operation. So I hope once the Texan is released, the Seminole will go into full development, because another single engined plane, worthy as so many candidates are, will not extend the A2A experience for me.

Just my thoughts.


Cheers,
Mike

[AKar]

Twin engined Accusim will open up a whole new world for both RW and desktop pilots in a way that no other Accusim release could. There isn't a decent twin GA out there yet that properly replicates multi engine operation. So I hope once the Texan is released, the Seminole will go into full development, because another single engined plane, worthy as so many candidates are, will not extend the A2A experience for me.

I totally agree the Accusim twin will be one of the most significant releases of thease years, as we are seriously lacking in that segment. I can play with helicopters, fly with jets and dogfight with WW2 planes modeled to near-perfection, but we just don't have a near-perfect light twin.

However, in world of GA singles we are still to open the game on high-flyers: a turbocharged airplane would still make me excited, as it would give us a completely new world of engine handling.

-Esa

[Warbirds]

Twin engined Accusim will open up a whole new world for both RW and desktop pilots in a way that no other Accusim release could. There isn't a decent twin GA out there yet that properly replicates multi engine operation. So I hope once the Texan is released, the Seminole will go into full development, because another single engined plane, worthy as so many candidates are, will not extend the A2A experience for me.

I totally agree the Accusim twin will be one of the most significant releases of thease years, as we are seriously lacking in that segment. I can play with helicopters, fly with jets and dogfight with WW2 planes modeled to near-perfection, but we just don't have a near-perfect light twin.

However, in world of GA singles we are still to open the game on high-flyers: a turbocharged airplane would still make me excited, as it would give us a completely new world of engine handling.

-Esa

You don't consider the RealAir Turbine Duke "near perfect"?

[AKar]

You don't consider the RealAir Turbine Duke "near perfect"?

To my purposes, no. The turbine one specifically because it is not representative of a typical light twin, but simulates a highly modified STC monster. PT6 needs to be handled very differently from piston engines, besides the simulation of it is quite.. relaxed. An old-school mechanical turboprop translates rather poorly in FSX, but certain issues are not avoided there. Same applies to the 'regular' piston variant: the engine simulation leaves lot to be desired, and systems and their interactions are not that in-depth in many occasions.

Fun they are, for sure, and they look good - some of my favorites in those respects, making great planes for flying around for fun and scenery. But as a true study level simulations...not really.

-Esa

[DHenriques_]

You don't consider the RealAir Turbine Duke "near perfect"?

To my purposes, no. The turbine one specifically because it is not representative of a typical light twin, but simulates a highly modified STC monster. PT6 needs to be handled very differently from piston engines, besides the simulation of it is quite.. relaxed. An old-school mechanical turboprop translates rather poorly in FSX, but certain issues are not avoided there. Same applies to the 'regular' piston variant: the engine simulation leaves lot to be desired, and systems and their interactions are not that in-depth in many occasions.

Fun they are, for sure, and they look good - some of my favorites in those respects, making great planes for flying around for fun and scenery. But as a true study level simulations...not really.

-Esa

One of the decision factors we will be considering when we do a twin is whether or not to choose a counter rotating system such as the Seminole or a standard twin system that gives us a critical engine for Accusim to handle.
The Seminole has all the single engine out characteristics but lacks the added factor a critical engine throws into the equation. This will be a serious factor to be decided. The Seminole is currently in wide use and is definitely in the running. Then again we have a wonderful Aerostar with it's terrific and unique performance characteristics that Scott will be flying regularly.
Decisions decisions.........................what to do? What to do???? )))))))))))))

Dudley Henriques

[AKar]

One of the decision factors we will be considering when we do a twin is whether or not to choose a counter rotating system such as the Seminole or a standard twin system that gives us a critical engine for Accusim to handle.

Yes, and not too many training-class light twins without counter-rotating props really that come into mind. It seems to be a relatively standard feature on most planes specifically designed with twin training in mind. Then, having a critical engine would make all a bit more interesting.

-Esa

[DHenriques_]

One of the decision factors we will be considering when we do a twin is whether or not to choose a counter rotating system such as the Seminole or a standard twin system that gives us a critical engine for Accusim to handle.

Yes, and not too many training-class light twins without counter-rotating props really that come into mind. It seems to be a relatively standard feature on most planes specifically designed with twin training in mind. Then, having a critical engine would make all a bit more interesting.

-Esa

One thing's for certain. When the decision is made the resulting twin will be the best ever produced for flight simulator.
DH

[pilottj]

You don't consider the RealAir Turbine Duke "near perfect"?

To my purposes, no. The turbine one specifically because it is not representative of a typical light twin, but simulates a highly modified STC monster. PT6 needs to be handled very differently from piston engines, besides the simulation of it is quite.. relaxed. An old-school mechanical turboprop translates rather poorly in FSX, but certain issues are not avoided there. Same applies to the 'regular' piston variant: the engine simulation leaves lot to be desired, and systems and their interactions are not that in-depth in many occasions.

Fun they are, for sure, and they look good - some of my favorites in those respects, making great planes for flying around for fun and scenery. But as a true study level simulations...not really.

-Esa

One of the decision factors we will be considering when we do a twin is whether or not to choose a counter rotating system such as the Seminole or a standard twin system that gives us a critical engine for Accusim to handle.
The Seminole has all the single engine out characteristics but lacks the added factor a critical engine throws into the equation. This will be a serious factor to be decided. The Seminole is currently in wide use and is definitely in the running. Then again we have a wonderful Aerostar with it's terrific and unique performance characteristics that Scott will be flying regularly.
Decisions decisions.........................what to do? What to do???? )))))))))))))

Dudley Henriques

That is a good question to consider, personally I would go ahead and model what is true to the real aircraft, be it counter rotating engines. The budding MEL student has plenty to learn and deal with without worrying about critical engine. The Seminole's notoriously bad single engine service ceiling makes up for lack of critical engine LOL.

As for trainers, the DA42 has standard prop rotation (aerodiesel version at least) but is loaded with FADEC and autofeather features which make it a moot point. I don't know if the Lyc 360 powered DA42 has contraprops or not.

Critical engine would be more noticible in a high peformance twin like the Aerostar or high powered WWII twin, thus the incentive to R&D crit. engine characteristics would be more worth it then too. I think Vmc factors are also more noticible in twins that have a high power to weight ratio. I would imagine someone taking off a lightly loaded F7F for instance wants to reach Vmc as quickly as possible. I see a twin like an F7F, Mossie, P-38, A-26..etc and think, first priority on takeoff is reach Vmc speed lol. This obviously true for any twin, but two big R2800s on a relatively light airframe really drive that point home lol.

I remember my grandfather telling me a story about his first experiences in the C-47 after doing his advanced multi training in B-25s, that the C-47 had superior engine out performance/safety, particularly on the go around.

Cheers
TJ

[Pistonpilot]

Counter rotating props just means you have two critical engines; whichever one stops, it's a worst case scenario!

...apparently I trained with a bunch of pessimists.

-Ian C

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[DHenriques_]

Counter rotating props just means you have two critical engines; whichever one stops, it's a worst case scenario!

...apparently I trained with a bunch of pessimists.

-Ian C

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

This question gets interesting for the pilot who jumps out of a Seminole and into a P38. ))))

Dudley Henriques

[Dogsbody55]

My thinking on the Seminole is that this plane might be easier to develop from an Accusim point of view, then develop a standard twin. Small steps rather than bigger steps. This would also tie in with the training aspect as the steps were similarly rather small with the GA singles.

Regarding other topics raised in this thread, I also don't consider the Duke turbine to be worth the purchase. Firstly it's a turbine, and the handling characteristics are totally different to piston engines. FSX handles turbines poorly, anyway. Secondly, my preference is for piston engine planes. If I'm to buy a turbine addon plane, it would have to be from A2A. A turbine Beaver would be a must have in my tiny world.

Next, regarding an Accusim forced induction piston engine, I agree that this is a missing step and one I'd be interested to explore (and buy!!), but this would also mean that the fuselage would need pressurisation or the pilot provided with supplementary oxygen; something we also haven't explored yet. Getting the Comanche or 182 across the Alps or the Rockies can be a challenge at present because of the hypoxia limitation.


Cheers,
Mike