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

[Hook]

Adding the black box would be just as much work as adding the maintenance hangar, and it's giving out similar info. I think they're only asking if we would buy as is.

Think of how the military uses simulators. They aren't going to just give it to the pilot and say, "Have fun!" They'll be doing some testing and evaluation of the pilots. This means the "black box" functionality will be there. The display might not be as pretty as you're used to. I'd buy it even without the black box, and I can always create one from the internal variables if nothing exists.

If A2A don't release a "true" AccuSim Texan II ...

That's just it. This IS a "true" AccuSim aircraft. The only thing missing is the maintenance hangar and fancy A2A manual. The A2A Cub, Stratocruiser and Constellation don't have maintenance hangars. It's not only true AccuSim, it's made to much more exacting standards then necessary for a consumer product. We'll be getting versions of the military manuals that can be released to the public.

-------

If anything else is missing, I don't care. Anyone who cares to buy similar aircraft made by someone other than A2A, go for it. I don't care about a "generic" F-104, I only care about the fact that A2A is making it. I wouldn't even care much about the Phantom, even made by A2A, except that it's a military grade trainer.

Anyone who doesn't want one of these, don't buy it. But don't tell A2A not to release it because that keeps ME from buying it. This kind of thing should even enhance A2A's reputation.

Hook

[bladerunner900]

Oh for...
Just Release it/them. Those who want to will and those who don't want to will not.

[Ron Attwood]

Oh for...
Just Release it/them. Those who want to will and those who don't want to will not.

Where's a 'Thumbs Up' smiley when you need one?

[Scott - A2A]

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.

[alan CXA651]

Hi Scott.
If that is the case , then i for one would not want them , i like to fly knowing if i miss treat the aircraft , i suffer consequences , this is what i like about A2A aircraft at present ,what others want is up to them , but if the aircraft are as you say , then i might as well by any aircraft from other stables , which i only fly a couple of times before i start to regret buying them , A2A aircraft keep you guessing with wear and tear or misstreatment , no two flights the same , these new military trainer aircraft to me sounds like a backward step.
regards alan.

[AKar]

Recall, that you effectively cannot "mistreat" most relatively modern military airplanes by firewalling them or such basic abuse, so that any immediate failures would occur. They are, in fact, kind of made to be treated in a way many would consider abusive. You'd need to be somewhat creative to break them, or as Scott puts it, "There may be specific actions if you did that would break something". The most obvious one would probably be overspeeding the landing gear.

-Esa

[Medtner]

Hi Scott.
If that is the case , then i for one would not want them , i like to fly knowing if i miss treat the aircraft , i suffer consequences , this is what i like about A2A aircraft at present ,what others want is up to them , but if the aircraft are as you say , then i might as well by any aircraft from other stables , which i only fly a couple of times before i start to regret buying them , A2A aircraft keep you guessing with wear and tear or misstreatment , no two flights the same , these new military trainer aircraft to me sounds like a backward step.
regards alan.

Yeah, I'm out. As in - I might buy them just to support A2A with money, but I would spend only a handful of minutes in them. I really don't like this direction. It's not what AccuSim is for me - not in the slightest.

[Scott - A2A]

This is my point of making a separate line because, flying military airplanes is completely different to flying our own GA planes, especially ones you own.

My Comanche, for example, has a 380 deg max cylinder head temp limit. This is lower than many, only because I'm the one responsible for the airplane and paying the bills. If someone argues with me and says "you can let them go higher" my response is "OK so will you pay for my next annual?" I also don't just throw the throttle forward and waste fuel because again, it's my credit card that goes into that fuel machine.

So I noticed that I fly the T-38 completely differently to the military pilots. They don't hesitate to just ram the throttle forward with full afterburner to get to speed, then back off. Whereas I am thinking of all the fuel being burned (specifically thinking the less fuel we burn the more testing we can do on that flight). Military power is enough in almost all situations except takeoff and emergencies. They will drop it on the runway with a "thump" without hesitation (I won't because I'm paying for the landing gear bushings). But it's a war machine. It's a different mentality. USAF pilots are trained to be aggressive. I have been trained to be careful and easy with my airplanes.

The T-6a and T-38a are not about ownership, they are about knowing the systems, how to respond to emergencies and flying with precision. For me, what I love about these airplanes are the engines. And watching all the systems like EGT, RPM, etc. all react exactly like the actual airplane. This is my personal passion. Some would think "oh it's just a jet engine and should be easy to make it produce the right thrust" and it turns out there are nuances to the jet engine that are at least equal the complexities of a combustion prop.

So if we do put out a new line of Official Military Trainers, for those who really want that persistence with a maintenance hangar then there will be more turboprops and jets down the road done and done better because of what we learned flying these military trainers. Personally, I'd like to do a small biz jet. Mainly because it would be a dream to own and operate an airplane that my family and friends can fly in. It's just a dream, but that's why we love flight sims.

Scott

[WB_FlashOver]

I voted yes but let me qualify that.

I fly Accu-Sim for the purpose of what Accu-Sim is. The plane I tie down will be the same plane I untie. If A2A can make a go of this market, who am I to vote against that? The selfish side of me asks, where does that leave my beloved B17 for P3D or the development of new aircraft for us like the Aerostar or a PBY-5A?

If this is a market that works with your business Scott, make the best of it. Just don't forget the little guys

Roger

[Scott - A2A]

I voted yes but let me qualify that.

I fly Accu-Sim for the purpose of what Accu-Sim is. The plane I tie down will be the same plane I untie.

This is the same with these trainers (persistent system conditions) but it won't have something broken that carries over.

[Dan M]

I say yes create a line, because the fidelity of the flight model and the "A2A treatment" are what provide value. And seeing as this is meant to be a line of aircraft, not a wholesale replacement for the way you've been releasing GA, I think it makes perfect sense. Capitalize on the hard work you've already done. If I understand where you're headed, we would still see future GA releases with the maintenance hangar or other features everyone likes.

The T-6a would be a day one purchase for me. I think as long as the manual has close to the same level of systems info as your others, it's fine. Personally I've always felt that pages and pages of history are things I can easily look up - for me it just gets in the way. The "how-to-fly-it" is what counts.

I do have one minor gripe in general about all of the aircraft manuals I've seen: you create PDFs with page columns (like a newspaper) instead of plain old left-to-right top-to-bottom paragraphs that are easier to scroll and search. That actually drives me nuts when I'm trying to read longer sections. If it's possible to move away from a column layout that would be nice (but it certainly won't stop me from buying your fantastic aircraft.)

[AKar]

[...] and it turns out there are nuances to the jet engine that are at least equal the complexities in the prop.

A quote for the month!

-Esa

[Hook]

Scott, everything you say makes me want these planes more and more.

I'm not interested in the T-6a, I might be interested in the T-33. Definitely interested in the F-104, and since the F-4 won't be "just" a generic A2A AccuSim aircraft (can I say it that way?? ) but an official military trainer, I want to fly it.

It won't be any worse than the Connie, where the Shift-7 maintenance hangar had a notation that the heating system was fixed but I never saw any evidence of a problem during flight. Engine number 3 has always had higher oil pressure than the others, I guess that's one of the "quirks". I don't know if it might turn into a problem so I check it occasionally, but it does give the aircraft personality.

I like the way you described the difference between how the military treats their equipment versus how we treat our own private equipment. This is definitely true, as I think anyone who has been in the military can tell you. If I owned one of these aircraft I'd certainly baby it more than it was intended to be babied in actual use, not even taking a jet supersonic, for example. If people are concerned about that, just make any failures have a greater probability of happening. Optionally, of course.

Hook

[Daube]

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

I wouldn't call that an A2A plane then.

[Medtner]

This is my point of making a separate line because, flying military airplanes is completely different to flying our own GA planes, especially ones you own.

My Comanche, for example, has a 380 deg max cylinder head temp limit. This is lower than many, only because I'm the one responsible for the airplane and paying the bills. If someone argues with me and says "you can let them go higher" my response is "OK so will you pay for my next annual?" I also don't just throw the throttle forward and waste fuel because again, it's my credit card that goes into that fuel machine.

So I noticed that I fly the T-38 completely differently to the military pilots. They don't hesitate to just ram the throttle forward with full afterburner to get to speed, then back off. Whereas I am thinking of all the fuel being burned (specifically thinking the less fuel we burn the more testing we can do on that flight). Military power is enough in almost all situations except takeoff and emergencies. They will drop it on the runway with a "thump" without hesitation (I won't because I'm paying for the landing gear bushings). But it's a war machine. It's a different mentality. USAF pilots are trained to be aggressive. I have been trained to be careful and easy with my airplanes.

The T-6a and T-38a are not about ownership, they are about knowing the systems, how to respond to emergencies and flying with precision. For me, what I love about these airplanes are the engines. And watching all the systems like EGT, RPM, etc. all react exactly like the actual airplane. This is my personal passion. Some would think "oh it's just a jet engine and should be easy to make it produce the right thrust" and it turns out there are nuances to the jet engine that are at least equal the complexities in the prop.

So if we do put out a new line of Official Military Trainers, for those who really want that persistence with a maintenance hangar then there will be more turboprops and jets down the road done and done better because of what we learned flying these military trainers. Personally, I'd like to do a small biz jet. Mainly because it would be a dream to own and operate an airplane that my family and friends can fly in. It's just a dream, but that's why we love flight sims.

Scott

What you say make sense, but don’t it also apply to the Spitfire, the Mustang, the P-40, the T-6? They have persistency, and all those bells and whistles.

What I read from your post is that you are really proud of the new stuff you’ve made, and you want to share it. I get that, and I suppose the trust you’ve earned over the years should count for me to be positive. Or at least, I’ll support you with my money, even if I suspect I will fall back to my beloved persistent AccuSim-planes.

I understand and appreciate the quivering excitement and eagerness to share your passion and the result from all the hard work - I have the same when I’ve learned a new substantial classical piano piece: I want the world to hear it.

The fact that you are going to let us in on the things you’ve learned about turboprops and jets via other products make me happy. And the Aerostar too?

Yours, faithfully,

Erik