Accu-sim T-6 Texan video

Amazing, a must have for me ! What a coincidence for me, going to fly the real thing in the next month or so, and from the front seat. Only radial engined bird I have flown to date was a T-28 back in 1992. Well done A2A ! Mike :applause:
 
For sure "must have" type addon just pity that it's training aircraft again, not genuine armed warbird (fighter or bomber) like it was in the beginnings of A2A Simulations (maybe with TacPack also). :wavey:
Regards.
 
YoYo said:
For sure "must have" type addon just pity that it's training aircraft again, not genuine armed warbird (fighter or bomber) like it was in the beginnings of A2A Simulations (maybe with TacPack also). :wavey:
Regards.
Click to expand...

The T-6 is every way a Warbird having seen combat in so many places....Korea, Angola, Mozambique, Kenya, Algeria, Sahara etc etc. Not just a training aircraft either, but one of the best and most used ever.

Martin
 
T6flyer said:
The T-6 is every way a Warbird having seen combat in so many places....Korea, Angola, Mozambique, Kenya, Algeria, Sahara etc etc. Not just a training aircraft either, but one of the best and most used ever.

Martin
Click to expand...

Yes, You have right for sure but it was incidental events and isn't the main role of NA T-6.

BUT...

.... in many movies Texan served as "Zeke" :biggrin-new: .
 
I can only imagine the multitude of repaints that the this plane will generate. I bet this'll be a record-seller for A2A...equally appealing to both the warbird and GA crowd. Can't wait!
 
Any SNJ relation

Wonder what differences there are between the AT-6 and the SNJ except for the obvious USAF/USN. As far as accuracy goes, would SNJ repaints of this AT-6 pass muster?
 
Holy. Freakin'. Cats. I remember posting to the A2A forum some years ago where a T-6 was discussed. This is EXACTLY what I was hoping for in a Texan - and more.

Bravo, A2A!

N.
 
I hear you.

The speed's going to be a slight adjustment for me - I've gotten used to the Spit and the Mustang - but I'll deal with the tradeoff for the sake of those graphics... and being able to push the canopy open and motor along on a nice warm day...

Until I kill myself trying to land and taxi the thing, that is...
 
All this talk about speed...back in the day, this was a hot rod for all of the WWII pilots in training, and the first serious taste of real horsepower. Many pilots would have just finished mastering the Stearman Kaydet, with only 220 hp engines. Jumping into the AT-6, with its 600 horses, was a major step up. Putting the aircraft in a dive, and taking it down low, buzzing corn fields, even if you're only indicating 200 mph or so, it still seems like you're going fighter-speed.

From the book Fighters of World War II, by Jeff Ethell and Robert Sand:

"The AT-6 was the first dose of real horsepower given to Army Air Force Cadets and they took to the beefy trainer with unbridled enthusiasm, much to the horror of local townspeople who were constantly buzzed and chased at all hours of the day and night. It was intoxicating to ride behind 600 horsepower with the canopy slid back and the landing gear tucked up. A pilot's first taste of "rat racing" in trail, leader trying to shake those following, came with the Texan."

"Once we got into advanced training with a hot 600 hp airplane, we flying cadets considered it the hot rod we never could afford during the Depression. We could cruise about the Texas plains after dark, harassing train crewmen to the point of serious injury. We would spot a slow freighter ambling down the track, fly ahead of it for several miles, turn and meet the locomotive at cab level, and wait until we were right on the engine before turning on one landing light. The engineer would know that he couldn't avoid a sure collision, and order the fireman to jump before the "other train" hit. The engineer promptly slammed on the brakes and ground the wheels flat as the AT-6 roared overhead and we hightailed it back to base with our night flying training completed. This was great sport for both Army and Navy pilots." - William Bell, an AT-6 flying cadet.
 
With the Mustang repaint I recently released of "Bald Eagle", there was some talk about its once owner, James Beasley Sr. The first airplane he owned was a Cessna 182, purchased around 1973. The next step up for him was the Aerostar 600, which he purchased in 1976. In 1979, he purchased the Mustang that would become "Bald Eagle", but before that, he also purchased an SNJ/AT-6, which he flew for about a year in order to get ready for flying the Mustang (though he was already experienced in taildraggers, flying Cubs and Citabrias). Even when the Mustang was completed, he kept the SNJ/AT-6 and continued to fly it regularly - and this is the same case for most all of the high performance warbird owners - despite owning Mustangs, Corsairs, P-40's, Spitfires, etc., there is usually always an AT-6/SNJ/Harvard that is also kept in their ownership and flown regularly.

For those who are going to be owning and flying high performance single-engine WWII fighters, I think in the US the insurance companies require that you get at least 200 hrs of flight time in an AT-6 first, otherwise they won't insure you. Also, you won't probably find anyone to check you out/sign you off in any of the single-engine WWII fighters unless you have that same amount of time in the AT-6 (and with a lot of that time piloting from the back seat).
 
Points taken, John. Actually I'm fine with the speed and the power. Ryan, on the other hand, is a man in a hurry... :cool:

Granted that they're all more than fast enough... but in the narrow range of P-51 vs. T-6 comparisons... who was it who said that "it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slowly"?

Some similar principle might apply here.
 
AT-6, the warbird. Espirtu Santo, New Hebrides, 1943.

18906808961_5e9fb97669_h.jpg


18716277070_f59de26096_h.jpg


18283285223_c03ccdd829_h.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top