Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplanes?

[Scott - A2A]

But as for the T-6a and T-38, you can firewall it without consequence.

I wouldn't call that an A2A plane then.

I was talking about the real airplane. You can keep them both at full throttle without fear of overheating or damaging anything.

Scott.

[Mickel]

Scott, when you have an hour (ha, a spare hour, yeah, I know...), can you write about how different it is strapping on a supersonic jet that will barely fly at the top speed of your Comanche? A number of us have GA time to relate the GA line to. But I'm guessing there is only a small handful with fast jet time.

The more I've read about this, the more interested I'm becoming.


Mike

[DrumsArt]

Scott, I have a question before voting.....does "no maintenance hangar" mean that I can just firewall the throttle with no consequences? Or does it mean that if it breaks, it is fixed next flight?

A BIG difference to me.

These trainers might come with some kind of emergency training where you can initiate failures specific or randomized. But as for the T-6a and T-38, you can firewall it without consequence. There may be specific actions if you did that would break something, and we would want that to be simulated. Weather we do some or all is specific to the aircraft.

The issue with keeping a failure or damage persistent is we would have to have a way to present this damage, fix it, etc.

We can maintain persistence to the systems, for example, every T-38a is unique. I mentioned to an air force colonel and his team the other day, "you do know we can create a fleet of unique aircraft in the simulator just like you have out there on the flight line, so each student and instructor must adapt to the sim in the same way to the aircraft. We can even create any specific airplane out there with all of it's quirks." And I had an immediate positive response.

And since Accu-Sim systems are inherently built with these variances in all kinds of internal physics, this is something we would like to include.

Scott.

Hi Scott,
In the case of the T38A for example, do you consider that a flame out is possible or not? It is not strictly speaking something broken, there is a procedure to restart the engines in flight (speed, altitude and so...).

Thank you and Regards,
Richard

[streakeagle]

I have zero interest in doing maintenance. I have 100% interest in the most accurate flight physics possible. If you can provide everything everyone wants, go for it. But if you have to choose between walk-thrus/hangars and flight physics, I am always in favor of flight physics.No matter the brand, no matter whether combat or civil, these games/programs/simulations are called FLIGHT simulators. Everything else is icing on the cake.

[Killratio]

Thanks Scott,

I don't care about persistence for the type of offering you're talking about, as long as if the real aircraft would break, the sim one will. I take it as read that the crew chief will either fix it, or I will be too dead to notice

Put me down as a "yes".

Best regards

Darryl

[ImpendingJoker]

I voted yes on this one and the other, and it's funny that a lot of people that voted 'no' on the other are now nearly an echo of what I typed on the other. Scott is very correct in saying that in the T-6A Texan II you can firewall that sucker without much consequence because turbine engines are a LOT more reliable, and the PT-6 turboshaft that the Texan II uses, has a FADEC(Full Authority Digital Engine Control) to manage just about everything from startup to shut down. To start you set the fuel and push a button and watch the gauges. It's that simple. The reason that no Mx hangar would really be needed, is because if you have a squawk, it's going to the maintenance activity and won't fly again until it's fixed, and when you go to the line for the next flight, you'll just sign for different ship for that hop. The reason there is no need for persistent broken items is because irl the next time you see it, it won't be broken.

[EvidencePlz]

Hello devs i just read fselite post regarding a2a military trainers which cleared up some confusions. Now i can say i for one will buy t6a and the other one t38 on day one knowing that their flight model will be study level and realistic to US military standard which ill be very proud of knowing and telling people about. A detailed manual with history is nice to read but not necessary in all cases. Flight Sim Labs a320/a319 doesn't have a detailed manual either. And i can put up with lack of a maintenance hanger. Fighter pilots don't bother with them anyways whether financially or physically. They got dedicated maintenance specialists working for them 24/7. For privately owned GA or COmmercial airliners, maintenance hangers and repair budget etc are important

[Scott - A2A]

Scott, when you have an hour (ha, a spare hour, yeah, I know...), can you write about how different it is strapping on a supersonic jet that will barely fly at the top speed of your Comanche? A number of us have GA time to relate the GA line to. But I'm guessing there is only a small handful with fast jet time.

The more I've read about this, the more interested I'm becoming.

Mike

Coming from the point of view as a Comanche 250 pilot, moving to the Aerostar is doubling the wing loading. That means the airplane requires a lot more speed and time before the wing is actually flying comfortably (and not in the mud). The T-38 doubles that wing loading again over the Aerostar.

When you fly a Comanche it takes no time until you can pull strong g's in a turn. The T-38 really doesn't want to fly under 300 kts indicated and isn't really in it's comfort zone until about 450 kts indicated. So in the T-38 you want to get your speed up very high and just keep it there. For example, if you are flying at 400kias and want to try some high g turns, you might get one pull before it bleeds so much speed it's done. At 500 kias you can pull and hold it indefinitely. The turbojets feed on speed as well. The faster you go the more thrust they produce.

It's an entirely different experience in many ways. Nothing is surprising as it flies like it looks except one thing - the time it takes to build speed back up. When you perform deep stalls in a Comanche, when you decide to recover, the airplane recovers in seconds and is back to flying. When you decide to recover in a 38, well, it just keeps dropping and dropping and dropping. When in the stall, it's a drag sled. It's as if the engines don't even exist at that point because in the high angle of attack the engines are just not producing much. So you can lose well over 5,000 feet recovering. So what you have in the 38 is what you invest. If you are not invested well into keeping the speed up, you are now just along for the ride.

So there is no getting behind the 38 and this is what the training is based around. If it get's ahead of you low altitudes, there is no recovery - you're done. It's fly fly fly fly at high speed at all times until it's landed and taxiing. So yes, this experience was new and therefore we had to build in more physics and features into Accu-Sim.

On the flip side, as long as you stay fast and ahead of the airplane, it is the most predictable and easy airplane you could ever imagine flying. It's purely perfect with no quirks. Both landings and takeoffs are very predictable.

Scott

[WB_FlashOver]

Fascinating Scott,
I have noticed this in the sim with the difference between the P-40 & P-51. With the P-51 you want to fly her off the runway and be sure to get your speed up before getting squirrely. She will wash out on you in a heart-beat. If you keep your speed up during maneuvers you will come out just fine but do not stall her or let your speed drop very much. The P-40 is ready to "fly" shortly after take-off with minimal speed and does not take long to recover from low speed maneuvers. It sounds interesting to have this effect doubled, or more.

I imagine landing the T38 is going to require keeping the power up with a healthy amount of thrust. Maybe fly it the ground?

Roger

[bladerunner900]

Coming from the point of view as a Comanche 250 pilot, moving to the Aerostar is doubling the wing loading. That means the airplane requires a lot more speed and time before the wing is actually flying comfortably (and not in the mud). The T-38 doubles that wing loading again over the Aerostar.

When you fly a Comanche it takes no time until you can pull strong g's in a turn. The T-38 really doesn't want to fly under 300 kts indicated and isn't really in it's comfort zone until about 450 kts indicated. So in the T-38 you want to get your speed up very high and just keep it there. For example, if you are flying at 400kias and want to try some high g turns, you might get one pull before it bleeds so much speed it's done. At 500 kias you can pull and hold it indefinitely. The turbojets feed on speed as well. The faster you go the more thrust they produce.

It's an entirely different experience in many ways. Nothing is surprising as it flies like it looks except one thing - the time it takes to build speed back up. When you perform deep stalls in a Comanche, when you decide to recover, the airplane recovers in seconds and is back to flying. When you decide to recover in a 38, well, it just keeps dropping and dropping and dropping. When in the stall, it's a drag sled. It's as if the engines don't even exist at that point because in the high angle of attack the engines are just not producing much. So you can lose well over 5,000 feet recovering. So what you have in the 38 is what you invest. If you are not invested well into keeping the speed up, you are now just along for the ride.

So there is no getting behind the 38 and this is what the training is based around. If it get's ahead of you low altitudes, there is no recovery - you're done. It's fly fly fly fly at high speed at all times until it's landed and taxiing. So yes, this experience was new and therefore we had to build in more physics and features into Accu-Sim.

On the flip side, as long as you stay fast and ahead of the airplane, it is the most predictable and easy airplane you could ever imagine flying. It's purely perfect with no quirks. Both landings and takeoffs are very predictable.

Scott

Sounds really, REALLY EXITING.

Please release it Scott. I would rather have the choice of experiencing this than none at all.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[Mickel]

Coming from the point of view as a Comanche 250 pilot, moving to the Aerostar is doubling the wing loading. That means the airplane requires a lot more speed and time before the wing is actually flying comfortably (and not in the mud). The T-38 doubles that wing loading again over the Aerostar.

.....

Scott

Thanks Scott. I'm looking forward to the challenge (and not alone, by the looks). Can't imagine you seriously thought A2A might lead you in to time up front of one of them...


Mike

[Piper_EEWL]

Sounds really, REALLY EXITING.

Please release it Scott. I would rather have the choice of experiencing this than none at all.

Let the chips fall where they may.

I agree. It does sound extremely exciting. Thank you Scott for sharing that insight.

And I’d love to give it a try in the sim at least

[jcblom]

go for it!

[Mustang01]

Will there be the usual animations such as canopy and crew ladder? What about gpu and air start?

[DC3]

With the new explanation I voted definitely YES!!