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

[Killratio]

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.

[patful]

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.

THIS ^^^ I assumed with no hangar that there is no gradual wear and tear on the aircraft, brand spanking new every time you get in it.

[TymK]

I voted yes, it’d be a shame not to have these aircraft available to the community. Echoing the comments made by some of the other posters, the lack of maintenance aspects is not that much of an issue in that specific case (military trainers). While I love the “ownership” experience when it comes to the GA birds, it doesn’t really make much sense with military AC. I mean, the crew chief would kick my a$$ all the way to China if I tried to fiddle with these in the hangar IRL

Tym

[Piper_EEWL]

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.

Very good question. I assume if the military demands high levels of realism they would demand consequences to mistreatment. But maybe Scott can chime in and explain a bit.

[AKar]

Can one realistically mistreat those airplanes?

-Esa

[BobsterT6]

Scott and the team....
A Huge yes YES YES to the new proposals for the Military Trainers......it will be an additional revenue stream for you and a way to clear the creative decks and put back some funds allowing you to re focus attention and move on to the new projects....

knowing your creations are so much appreciated and loved by us the community .... must bring you some joy and satisfaction .....to be apart of that community for us ....is such a pleasure too ...and wow do we appreciate you and all your vision in bringing to life such a treasured fleet of well loved birds

The Mona Lisa wasn’t finished either ....but I can assure you our smiles are far broader than hers will ever be .....dont ever stop doing what you do so well, we just love it all!
Bobster Out

[Bill140A]

All sounds good to me. I'm a yes vote.

[Medtner]

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.

THIS ^^^ I assumed with no hangar that there is no gradual wear and tear on the aircraft, brand spanking new every time you get in it.

I third this question! It’s a major difference. It might, just might, mean the difference between a “no” and a “yes, why not” for me...

[WildlandFireman12]

I still voted no.

I think it might be a safe release, if marketed properly.

However.

It robs us baseline original A2A customers of that thing that makes your products stand out. The flight characteristics can only be so much perfected - we won’t know the thousand-part differences. However the feeling of ownership, connection, and learning of the systems involved in AccuSim can only be felt if we have the hangar and the persistent aircraft.

I can live without the walk around, as in the other warbirds, but the hangar is such an immensely important tool for me to feel and trust the persistency and deep modeling of the aircraft. If I can’t take a peak under the hood and watch the spark plugs fire, the oils flow, the filters clog - I don’t feel it.

As a new product line, I’m sure it will sell. But this is the one opportunity we A2A customers get to have the Texan II lined up with the old Texan for us to compare and contrast. If it lacks that one essential feature of the hangar it will forever be a “light” simulator, even if it’s “better” under the hood. I get the feeling of an even higher quality Aircraft Factory. Simply not interested, and A2A’s focus on AccuSim says that neither are you, when it comes down to it.

If you need to take something out of the bucket, then get rid of the detailed outside modeling. I love a good looking airplane, but I fly it from the cockpit and the hangar. The outside is just candy.

Oughhh... the thought of an AccuSim without the ability to feel ownership and connection actually gives me a lump in my throat. It means that much for me... Please consider differently, even though the public wants everything you throw out there.

I strongly Agree with Medtner.

[WildlandFireman12]

I really do hope the Aerostar has the Maintenance Hangar and walk around at least

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes for me. I can live without the hangar, as long as my fried engines are all better next time I fly!
I would definitely buy the T6A, and probably the T38A.
I don't suppose you would happen to have a T33 up your sleeve, do you?

Bob

[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.

THIS ^^^ I assumed with no hangar that there is no gradual wear and tear on the aircraft, brand spanking new every time you get in it.

I third this question! It’s a major difference. It might, just might, mean the difference between a “no” and a “yes, why not” for me...

A few posts above, I also asked this question about the consequences...Interested in having an official answer.
Richard

[Solareagle]

Yes please offer the "Professional Line", with no toy box extras.

[Corsair015]

Yes yes yes!!!!! You guys are the best

[Mickel]

Yes (on both polls).

I don't need to maintain the thing. I don't own it. My crew chief does. I do own 'my' Cherokee. I'm going to assume that the military version has consequences. It can't train if it doesn't (IMO).

(on the other hand... military aircraft are not 'perfectly' maintained, as some might think. They have personalities too, and forever have issues with some sub-optimally designed part that just needs to be kept going. I used to work with a guy who maintained F-111s and Tornadoes in a previous life. You might not believe the stories...)

Like others, I'd rather have an AF level F-104 or T-33 (with accu-feel) than none at all. And a higher spec T-38 would be awesome. I got a kick out of flying the other guy's one. An A2A one would be a whole next step (or three).


Mike