Will you ever develop modern-ish twin props ?

[AKar]

While at it, below are few details of the Aerostar that I find interesting and if not unique, rather rare among comparable airplanes.

• — All three tail surfaces are structurally the same and, at least in principle, interchangeable.
  
  
  — It comes with hydraulic nose gear steering, uniquely to me using a rocker split switch to turn the nose wheel. I wonder how long it takes to get used to that!
  
  
  — There are both unpressurized and pressurized variants of the same basic airplane. The model 600 owned and operated by A2A is unpressurized.
  
  
  — It is a mid-wing design, somewhat uniquely to an airplane with a cabin, due to its obvious downsides.
  
  
  — Aerostar's fuel system is somewhat complicated, and gives some mandatory reading. I understand some have been lost due to fuel mismanagement. If Bonanza's tip tank logic makes one frown, take this!
  • • 
  The airplane has a fuel management panel for each engine, each having a rotary switch with positions OFF, ON, and X-FEED. ON position feeds from the on-side wing tank and the fuselage tank simultaneously, whereas the X-FEED position feeds from the opposite side wing tank alone. Wing tanks are of integral type and 65 gallons each, and the fuselage tank is a bladder tank of 43.5 gallons of capacity. Wing tanks supply their respective wing sumps, and the fuselage tank supplies both wing sumps via its own sump when the selectors are in ON position. That way, all the fuel that goes into the engines passes through the wing sumps regardless of the tank it was stored in.
  
  
  — Aerostar apparently is equipped with pressure-driven gyros instead of vacuum-driven ones usually found in GA airplanes. This is somewhat rare, though not unique.

-Esa

[MarcE]

Visually the Aerostar wouldn't be my favourite for sure.. But neither would be a Cessna. There are much better looking aircraft out there... let's see... Howard 500? =) fast 'n sexy...

Honestly, a Twin Otter would be amazing, but, honestly again, I don't necessarily need it done by A2A. To me Accusim makes pistons alive. There are other capable developers out there who could do a PT6 turbine, Majestic for example. I'm sure there are others too, PMDG could do it as well pretty nicely.. The Aerosoft one was really nice, no doubt, as long as you loaded her up on the runway. The ground model was ridiculous. But Aerosoft told me back then that doing the engines so realistically it wasn't possible to create a good ground model, there had compromises to be done.. yeah, if you aim for 30$ and do a -100 and a -300 with swimmer models that don't swim... oh gosh, Aerosoft.. This airplane definitely deserves a good treatment, but from a developer (or in this case publisher, the dev was depending on AS) who aims for a more mature clientel. A2A would be perfect, but if they did a turbine airplane, who will create the next heart skipper? There is basically noone else out there who brings a radial to life. And there are MANY radial twins which have a lot of fans. Howard 500, DC3, Beech18, B-25... But all of them are unrealistic to think of.

Back to the look of the Aerostar. It's not my favourite to look at, but when I'm flying I'm in the cockpit. Same for the 172, I'm not chasing her, I'm sitting inside. And for GA twins A2A has a really big variety to choose from, if they do (did xD ) the Aerostar, I'm sure there is (would be =)) ) a good reason for it.

But if we get towards a really modern(ish) twin, we will really have to argue pro a G1000 or something.. not many of them are built today with steam gauges anymore.

[MarcE]

While at it, below are few details of the Aerostar that I find interesting and if not unique, rather rare among comparable airplanes.

• — All three tail surfaces are structurally the same and, at least in principle, interchangeable.
  
  
  — It comes with hydraulic nose gear steering, uniquely to me using a rocker split switch to turn the nose wheel. I wonder how long it takes to get used to that!
  
  
  — There are both unpressurized and pressurized variants of the same basic airplane. The model 600 owned and operated by A2A is unpressurized.
  
  
  — It is a mid-wing design, somewhat uniquely to an airplane with a cabin, due to its obvious downsides.
  
  
  — Aerostar's fuel system is somewhat complicated, and gives some mandatory reading. I understand some have been lost due to fuel mismanagement. If Bonanza's tip tank logic makes one frown, take this!
  • • 
  The airplane has a fuel management panel for each engine, each having a rotary switch with positions OFF, ON, and X-FEED. ON position feeds from the on-side wing tank and the fuselage tank simultaneously, whereas the X-FEED position feeds from the opposite side wing tank alone. Wing tanks are of integral type and 65 gallons each, and the fuselage tank is a bladder tank of 43.5 gallons of capacity. Wing tanks supply their respective wing sumps, and the fuselage tank supplies both wing sumps via its own sump when the selectors are in ON position. That way, all the fuel that goes into the engines passes through the wing sumps regardless of the tank it was stored in.
  
  
  — Aerostar apparently is equipped with pressure-driven gyros instead of vacuum-driven ones usually found in GA airplanes. This is somewhat rare, though not unique.

-Esa

Holy Mary, I hope there is a reason for it...

The model 600 owned and operated by A2A is unpressurized.

the next limitation to 12000ft.. sigh

[Gabe777]

We want a Twin Otter.

Who's this "we"?

We is the "Royal We".

Us in my VA, and many others, that use Twotters.... and of course everyone without exception, that uses Air Hauler.

The Twin Otter is the most anticipated aircraft on the planet... for "us"... for use in P3D.

I speak on behalf of many, many great folk... "Great Guys" in the words of the venerable Trumpmeister.


BTW, there is a movie called "Them". May have been a Stephen King novel. They flew Twotters as well.

Good enough ? Or shall we go on ?

[Gabe777]

Visually the Aerostar wouldn't be my favourite for sure.. But neither would be a Cessna. There are much better looking aircraft out there... let's see... Howard 500? =) fast 'n sexy...

Honestly, a Twin Otter would be amazing, but, honestly again, I don't necessarily need it done by A2A. To me Accusim makes pistons alive. There are other capable developers out there who could do a PT6 turbine, Majestic for example. I'm sure there are others too, PMDG could do it as well pretty nicely.. The Aerosoft one was really nice, no doubt, as long as you loaded her up on the runway. The ground model was ridiculous. But Aerosoft told me back then that doing the engines so realistically it wasn't possible to create a good ground model, there had compromises to be done.. yeah, if you aim for 30$ and do a -100 and a -300 with swimmer models that don't swim... oh gosh, Aerosoft.. This airplane definitely deserves a good treatment, but from a developer (or in this case publisher, the dev was depending on AS) who aims for a more mature clientel. A2A would be perfect, but if they did a turbine airplane, who will create the next heart skipper? There is basically noone else out there who brings a radial to life. And there are MANY radial twins which have a lot of fans. Howard 500, DC3, Beech18, B-25... But all of them are unrealistic to think of.

Back to the look of the Aerostar. It's not my favourite to look at, but when I'm flying I'm in the cockpit. Same for the 172, I'm not chasing her, I'm sitting inside. And for GA twins A2A has a really big variety to choose from, if they do (did xD ) the Aerostar, I'm sure there is (would be =)) ) a good reason for it.

But if we get towards a really modern(ish) twin, we will really have to argue pro a G1000 or something.. not many of them are built today with steam gauges anymore.

"We" agree with this.

After much consideration, we believe a turbine is best left to another developer.... it will probably be Milviz, after the ATR.

A2A should stick with shakey stuff.

End of transmission.

[Piper_EEWL]

the next limitation to 12000ft.. sigh

More like 14000ft the last time I checked with the Bonanza. And there’s always the possibility for an addon oxygen system. I personally wouldn’t by a pressurized airplane for private use either (unless money wouldn’t be a factor). They are extremely expensive to maintain.

I’m hoping for an entry level twin first. Like a Seminole or a Beech Baron or a Cessna 310 or something so we can get used to the twin engine thing and then move on in the world. Sort of like A2A did with the single engine lineup.

[AKar]

The ground model was ridiculous. But Aerosoft told me back then that doing the engines so realistically it wasn't possible to create a good ground model, there had compromises to be done..

To me, this translates to that they didn't care. Today, we've got simulations that bypass almost every aspect that the FSX/P3D platform limits, including the Sticky Ground that some developers get around by unrealistically tweaking the thrust values. If doing it the hard way is necessary for acceptable solution, then I've come to expect it nowadays. Did they model the steering tiller, btw?

the next limitation to 12000ft.. sigh

Personally, I would not be bothered at all if this was the case. I like going in between the peaks instead of plotting a magenta line in between A and B and waiting the airplane to do the journey on the background. But there would be a fun part in simulation of the pressurization system to some A2A GA at some point in time, at least if it simulates the suspicious design and questionable reliability of the real things...combined with consequences of mismanagement of the system that is pretty common in reality where operators don't care to pay attention to truly understand the function of the pressurization.

-Esa

[Simicro]

I’m hoping for an entry level twin first. Like a Seminole or a Beech Baron or a Cessna 310 or something so we can get used to the twin engine thing and then move on in the world. Sort of like A2A did with the single engine lineup.

I'm 200% with you!

[Thorsten42]

For sure beauty lies in the eye of the beholder but in my eyes the Aerostar is a really really really nice beauty. And I can't see anything in the lines that is not nice at all? For the older sim guys among us remember there was one in good payware quality (for that time) many years ago in fs9 times and it was such a great fast cruiser. This is an absolut no brainer first day purchase if it will be (hopefully) done...

And now back to praying Dudley's Mantra...

PS: The AS Twotter is not that bad at all why waste resources on that one... and in addition TP is a whole different story.
PPS: If you want a real nice TP get the Dash. Without any question you won't need anything else.

Cheers
Thorsten

[n421nj]

It’s nice to hear a twin is in the works (reading between the lines). Sadly it probably won’t be released before Xmas unless it’s already in beta and not announced which is a possibility.

[Simicro]

And I can't see anything in the lines that is not nice at all?

Just to give you my personal perspective (not intended to debate or to make you change your personal opinion): I find the kind of "nose up" of the Aerostar weird. And the wings... they look like inverted wings.

It’s nice to hear a twin is in the works (reading between the lines). Sadly it probably won’t be released before Xmas unless it’s already in beta and not announced which is a possibility.

The Bonanza has just been released so I would understand that if there is a twin in the making, it would not necessarily make it on time for Christmas.

[rod321]

I agree, Thorsten

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w71giLp6Q4Y

.....and back to praying Dudley's mantra

Rod (EGBB)

[MarcE]

To me, this translates to that they didn't care. Today, we've got simulations that bypass almost every aspect that the FSX/P3D platform limits, including the Sticky Ground that some developers get around by unrealistically tweaking the thrust values. If doing it the hard way is necessary for acceptable solution, then I've come to expect it nowadays. Did they model the steering tiller, btw?

To me, this translates to that they didn't care.

Definitely. I was bringing up the Twotter as an example in the PMDG forum on another topic complaining about the ground handling when the not so amused developer of the airplane jumped in. He explained to me that the reason was more or less the aimed prizing and that for that money we got a lot of aircraft. I somehow agree to that, but in my opinion quality needs to come before quantity.. One model properly made could be sold for the same money. The Twotter's avionics aren't that complex that we would end up at 80$ like the Q400. 30 or 40$ could easily cover the development of a proper engine AND ground model. But... that's aerosoft.. I'm done with them for other reasons anyway.

Did they model the steering tiller, btw?

Not sure anymore. I know that the tiller moves, but I can't recall if you could assign it to a seperate axis.


Regarding the pressurization:

I would really love to see A2A to turn the hypoxia off for the GA fleet. I know that this is a realism factor with Accusim but as long as there is no oxygen system available they could assume that we just have one on board. A friend of mine sometimes has the opportunity to fly a Mooney M20 and he always has one with him. He did a flight across the Alps and over 10000 you're required to use it anyway. There's not much to know about. Use it, don't use it. Those handheld systems are pretty straight forward today. But I really don't understand why A2A gives those planes to us being able to climb to 18000 but don't include some oxygen. I would love to cross the Andes or the Rockies with the Bo. Or the 182... The P51, Spit and so on do have Oxygen on board. And with a twin prop those altitudes become even more realistic.

[AKar]

But I really don't understand why A2A gives those planes to us being able to climb to 18000 but don't include some oxygen. I would love to cross the Andes or the Rockies with the Bo. Or the 182...

To me, the altitude window of naturally aspirated airplanes has always been something like 10000 ft and under. Yes, they can reach higher, but up from around 6000...8000 ft they already breath in all the air they can and get increasingly asthmatic climbing higher. Cruise performance unavoidably suffers from thereon, albeit for range records or something, miles per gallon figures get somewhat better climbing higher.

I've not done the Andes yet, but have crossed the Rockies several times with Comanche and Bonanza. I haven't climbed higher than 9500 ft on those trips, and mostly did 6500 ft to 8500 ft.

-Esa

[Nick - A2A]

I would really love to see A2A to turn the hypoxia off for the GA fleet.

Marc - do you happen to own a registered copy of FSUIPC?

Thanks,
Nick