What aircraft would you like to see following the Texan?

[Ian Warren]

Up on my pedestal, one dose have access to a B-26 in the US or recon could .. the Marauder, the A-26 would be great but the B-26 has the looks, apart from Dave E's and one recent titillated over at the SOH .... it would be in the running , just think off two Thunderbolt engines to look after and the paints ... one would be swamped !

[NAA551WB]

F8F Bearcat

[crazac]

Anyways, whatever twin piston engine aircraft you gonna do, i'll buy it for sure....

I'll second that. And I actually like it that way.

There are so many amazing airplanes that need to live on in true experience. We need an Apple size A2A company!

Keep on keepin on.

[Jetguy06]

I've stayed away from posts like this in the past before, but I just have to put my input in just once...

That being said, This is in now way a list of demands or anything like that. It's more of a list of aircraft that I daydream about flying in FSX with the full Accusim treatment. I would absolutely love to see ANY (if not all) of the following planes Accusimmed, so that being said, I won't list any aircraft that there is no current flying example of, since that is an elementary requirement for A2A to work their magic. OK, here goes...

WARBIRDS



USAAF/RAF

C-47 Dakota
P-38 Lightning
B-25 Mitchell (Preferably a J, but it'd be cool to have a C or D to accurately reenact the Doolittle Tokyo bombing)
B-24 Liberator
B-29 Superfortress
A-26 Invader
P-39 Airacobra (There was one flying in 2012 on Youtube, but I'm not 100% certain it still is)
An earlier variant of the P-51 Mustang, B or C model (I just love the way they look)
Hawker Hurricane (Would go PERFECTLY with the Spit, especially if it's an early BoB variant)
And, of course, the Avro Lancaster

USN/Marines

F4F Wildcat (I LOVE the sound of that idling engine in Kermit Weeks' KermieCam video)
F6F Hellcat
Dauntless SBD
TBF/TBM Avenger
PBY Catalina (How cool would it be if A2A's first warbird twin was also their first amphibian/true seaplane [dependent on variant]!?)

Axis

Bf-109 (Preferably F model and later)
FW-190
Ju-52 (Wouldn't THAT be awesome!?!?)
A6M Zero



JETS



After the T-33, of course, I'd love to see an Accusimmed L-39. I own the Lotus L-39 and LOVE it, but it's just missing that Accusim soul. I'd also like to see...

F-86 Sabre
MiG-17 (I would say MiG-15, but I don't think there are any flying in the world, unfortunately)
If A2A ever broke into corporate jets, I'd love to see something like a Citation or a Gulfstream.



CIVILIAN



I'm with everyone else on the GA twin wagon, but personally I'd love to see something a little more high-powered than a Seminole. The Aerostar looks right up my alley.

That being said, I really don't care what A2A Accusims as far as GA goes, since GA just doesn't do much for me, but I will buy it.

However... I'm really curious to see A2A do something aerobatic, like a Citabria, Decathalon, Extra, Edge, Pitts, Zlin, Sukhoi, etc. I think that would be simply AWESOME!!!

OK, post done. That's my two cents. Happy landings!!

[jsrickel]

Now for something completely different...the AutoGyro Cavalon...side-by-side seating...enclosed cabin...great for gyroplane flying and training.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

[batt]

Here's my dreamsheet, not in any particular order and with lots of salt:

GA
Piper Navajo
Cessna 210
Cessna 206 or 207
Beechcraft King Air
Boeing 727-100 (configured for hauling fish, please)
Bell 47 (G4A or G3B2)
Hughes 500D
Eurocopter AS-350B2

Classic Propliners
Douglas DC-3
Lockheed Constellation

WWII
Avro Lancaster
Consolidated B-24J
Messerschmitt bf 109 (F or G)
Mitsubishi A6M5 "Zeke"
De Havilland Mosquito
North American B-25
Supermarine Spitfire M IX
Grumman F6F Hellcat (or a Wildcat would do)
Douglas Dauntless
Junkers JU-52

Korean War
Lockheed T-33
North American F-86 Sabre
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15
Grumman F9F Panther

Vietnam War
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21
Bell UH-1H Iroquois (Huey)

Falklands War
Hawker Sea Harrier
Westland Sea King
Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard

I'll take em in any order, any time frame before I die. Thanks A2A!

[Jacques]

I would like to see the P-47 cracked open again and brought further along the line with accu-sim.
I know, it probably isn't a popular aircraft... and I'm not sure which system could be worked on that would push forward the accu-sim knowledge base for all aircraft, but that would be my wish.

[Scott - A2A]

The T-6 experience permanently changed my view of aviation. As I look back, there are pre and post T-6 thoughts.

You mind sharing more, in context of A2A as a developer and we as customers? This is, in terms of company philosophy - which kind of "soft" development values you now rate higher?

The T-6 is a typical American WWII fighter design - it built like a tank. Every lever and switch has almost a tractor-like feel - it takes muscle to just move the flaps. Also, many don't realize, the T-6 is a full sized Warbird with a large radial engine, that would produce over 1,000 hp if supercharged to the likes of others. Starting a large radial is an entirely different experience. It sputters, kicks, shutters, then slowly settles in. As soon as you start to taxi, it's clear this plane has some odd physics on the ground. Takeoff is straight forward, but it's clear this plane is much happier in the air than on the ground. Unlike the T-33, it's rock stable in the air. But the T-6 manages to be both stable, yet sensitive, and maneuverable. It just begs to be flown.

The first thing I do when flying a new airplane is to immediately try those things that the airplane is known for. Many talk about how the T-6 will bite you without warning. Even high time T-6 flyers will tell you this. However, we discovered that the T-6 does in fact, give you a subtle warning before dropping a wing, and even when it does, the rudder is so effective you can counter it. The pilot that gets into trouble in a T-6 is one who is distracted, not paying attention, or just doesn't have the sensitivity to be flying a T-6. You can't be a "numb" pilot and fly the T-6 effectively. You have to bring your A game, especially when landing.

And landing is where the "six" separates itself from the crowd. Shooting an approach, flaring, and touching down is straight forward and easy, in fact, easier to land IMO than the Comanche. If you are used to landing GA planes, you will likely have little to no issue 3-pointing a T-6. However, everything changes if you want to try a wheel landing. A wheel landing is one where you keep your speed up and touch the main wheels down in a level attitude. Sounds easy? Well it is. However, things can start to unwind in a hurry when you start to slow the plane down, and this is where the inexperienced T-6 pilot will almost certainly struggle or even ground loop the plane. There is a very specific technique to bringing a T-6 to a stop after landing, and it must be followed. We will demonstrate and describe this in detail before we get the plane out to market.

The T-6 forced me out of my comfort zone and, in a sense, back to square one. The T-6 will humble the highest time pilots out there every time, even those with thousands of hours of tail dragger time. When I asked Vlado Lenoch "then why do a wheel landing?" His response was "because it's fun." What he really means is it is challenging and this type of landing keeps you on your toes. Another 6 flyer, Bryan Regan who flies for the Aeroshell team had a more practical reason and said "we wheel land the six for better visibility."

Our own Dudley Henriques, with hundreds of hours on and teaching in a T-6, gave me constant advice along the way starting from before starting to fly and we will have to deliver this "first time flying a six" experience into flight simulation. And the simulation is so close to the real plane, that when I returned to the real T-6 after being away for two months, it was as if no time had passed. All my muscle memory was there. In fact, I flew it even better.

This transparency between the real plane and the simulator is what I and many here have been living with. Now we are doing this with the T-6. We expect this simulation will be an indispensable tool for many many years after it's released.

Esa, regarding the Aztec's reliability, I never dug deeply into the complaints as the lack of easy loading / unloading removed it from our list fairly early.

Scott.

[Boon1986]

Douglas DC-3/C47 <3

[Chunk]

Thanks a lot Scott...now I'm going to be impatient for the T-6!

The way you described the transparency between the sim and the real thing, is the reason I keep on buying A2A products.

Thanks for taking the time to give us some more info on the Texan.

[aussietomcatter]

Sounds fantastic Scott. I've enjoyed my time flying the Harvard/T6, and can't wait to see how you guys have brought it to life in the sim. I wonder if the sweaty palms will start happening after turning base like in the real thing... I wonder how far away we are from finding out.

As for things I'd love to see from A2A, really I'd buy anything. I'd love to see a Piper Chieftain/Navajo/Mojave or similar advanced twin and a Cessna 210 (P210N preferably).

[spadjockey]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcNWRQvQmu8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1oVmQsWrbU[/youtube]

[AKar]

Scott,

Interesting words, thank you! A few years back I would have had a reasonable chance to fly in T-6 (actually a Harvard if I remember), but I didn't pursue that really. Now I kind of regret that!

-Esa

[Piper_EEWL]

Great insight that you're granting us Scott. Thank you for sharing this with us!

As I've said above. I hope it's not too long till we get to try it!

[CAPFlyer]

Great to hear your response on the T-6 Scott, however I have one little niggle -

Also, many don't realize, the T-6 is a full sized Warbird with a large radial engine, that would produce over 1,000 hp if supercharged to the likes of others.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The R1340 had a root induction supercharger just as all following large-bore radial engines did. For example, the R1830 reduced the bore and stroke per cylinder by 0.5", doubled the number of cylinders, doubled the weight, and ended up with just over double the horsepower. However, it's supercharger has a lower step-up (1:7.15 in the 1830 versus the 1:10 in the R1340), so the gains were not by boosting the engine more, it was simply more displacement and thus more area for combustion.