• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

A2A 172 screenshot!

P

pilottj

Blues is Life
Hey guys, spotted on A2A's facebook page!

574726_10151460310345365_1099880203_n.jpg

Looking great A2A! Now guessing on the model lol. It is not an N...the landing lights are on the wing. Could be a P or Q (depending on engine), but looking at the door latch looks like a newer generation model such as an R or S. Older 172s had the old square latch
!BTUPkEgB2k~$(KGrHgoH-DYEjlLl5L7,BKHv+LSrH!~~_35.JPG

Newer models have the longer retangular latch
!BhWJtLwB2k~$(KGrHgoOKjwEjlLmV5FdBLIsfbuSEw~~_35.JPG

If we could get a screenshot of the under wing area, you can tell by the number of fuel sump points by the door. Old models just had the single fuel sump point per wing, new models have 5 sump points per wing if I recall.
Cheers
TJ
 
Thanks for the HU, TJ!

I'm still a bit surprised A2A are going down the GA road. Well, not surprised but a tad disappointed I suppose.

To get me to purchase a 172, their rendition will have to be seriously good. A Cutlass could tempt me. Several variants is a must I think...
I think they intend to do a floatplane variant.

Just my thoughts.


Owen
 
I will definitely get this as it is the only plane (so far at least, plus the 152) that I can justifiably relate with and and judge its accuracy.
 
Yeah, I'm thrilled A2A is doing GA. Bringing the kind of systems/prop physics/engine management realism they give in their other products to the GA world is a blessing. I still fly their Cub more than any other plane. But it's, shall we say, a tad, well, slow. I love that at times, but having a GA that will move along like the C172 or Cherokee, with A2A realism....shoot yeah!

I'd love for them to do a Chipmunk, though, or some other classic training aircraft.
 
I don't know for sure but I think the Cherokee 235 will be part of their Cherokee package. If so that will be a nice little hot rod. The 235 has a little more pop than the 172, so it should be a popular cruiser, certainly until they can do the Comanche.


Cheers
TJ
 
I was really hoping they would end up doing an Arrow or Arrow III. I'll probably hold off until the the Comanche is ready. I've always loved that plane. Mooney designed it for Piper, so you can see the family resemblance when you look at it. :)
 
Note to A2A: I have the old WOP P-51D for FS9 and still enjoy it thoroughly (and yes, I'm aware of the Accu-Sim version for FSX which I plan to get some day) and seeing that you've got a Cessna 172 in the works prompts me to be so bold to ask that you consider an Accu-Sim Cessna A152 Aerobat with a Texas Taildragger conversion - adding the Sparrowhawk engine mod and a Horton STOL kit would be a nice bonus, too. The Aerobat's no barn burner, but it's a fun little ship nonetheless.

N.
 
FentiFlier1 said:
I'm still a bit surprised A2A are going down the GA road. Well, not surprised but a tad disappointed I suppose.
Click to expand...
I have somewhat same feelings, that is mixed. First, FSX is full of rather good "modern" GA planes varying from 50's Cessnas and Beeches to modern sleek tourers like Lancair Legacy. There are just big bunch of great GA planes made by Flight1, RealAir, Carenado and MilViz and though without Accusim detail level, they are still more than satisfying. Instead, we still lack big bunch of vintage warbirds and early jets I'd like to get my hands on and A2A have perfected them (not to forget Flight Replicas, Warbirdsim and Classics Hangar here too!). I just can't help it that sometimes these GA planes just feel so booooriiiiing. After flying some basic single or twin engined GA plane in the sim it is surely a joy to jump to a A2A P-40B or P-51D as the performance difference and charasteristics are just from the different planet and you feel like you could do constant barrel rolls around some C172 using only 1/3 of the throttle :wiggle::jump:
 
My guess is they're being developed as an "in" for flight training purposes. It's a huge market. I could see them even teaming up with AOPA flight training magazine or something like that. With P3D being commercial level they could really get in with the flight schools that want some level of realism in their training simulation but can't afford a large level 5 FTD...or who want supplemental training for their students outside of the flight school. At least, that's how my mind works when thinking of these things... :) Whatever they produce will be high quality so there's no worries there. :kilroy:
 
They will certainly be very good and very expensive. Thing is, I can't help but think GA planes are all quite similar: well designed planes that are NOT meant to be a challenge to use for their owner. You know what to expect.

Flight sim is nice because you can get to "fly" planes that you couldn't otherwise. Planes with historical significance like the P-40, forgotten and unsignificant planes like Craig's upcoming Robinson, even prototypes like Milton's XP-47.
So in my FS setup, I have just a few GA types plus the default ones. That's my approach.

I would rather - and will - spend my cash on their f-104 and f-4. And I respect their decision to do GA as loads of folk seem to be delighted. And 000Rick000 must be right about the training market.

What a romantic fool I am. I hoped for a long time that A2A would produce "Flying Tigers"...
 
I have to disagree that there are plenty of quality GA aircraft in FSX, and that they are all similar, and that they aren't particularly challenging to fly. Certainly many FSX GA aircraft aren't particularly challenging. That's the problem. But then many military aircraft in FSX aren't either.

There are plenty of nice looking aircraft in FSX. But not that many, actually, that bring a high degree of flight realism, although the ones that do are quite enjoyable. There aren't any that I know of that model these basic GA trainers with a significant degree of realism. That's why I'm looking forward to these, since flying a realistic airplane of the sort I can actually fly will be quite enjoyable indeed.

I feel the same way as many, though, about the pleasure of flying realistic aircraft in FSX that I would never be able to fly in real life. A2A has quite a few nice offerings there, and I have them all. So, I would say that both realistic military aircraft and GA aircraft are not that common and worth getting and flying.
 
Griphos, I have them all too! And it is perfectly true that many military types aren't that challenging.

I suppose all I meant was that system depth isn't enough of a selling point for me. After all, once you've learnt how to use a complex sim, you've learnt. And you'll start the engines as easily as ctrl-e nearly every time...
 
I'm not wanting to argue. We each have our priorities. Mine are actually on realistic flight behavior. I like systems modeling as well, which I believe goes far beyond startup procedures. But it's the way the aircraft handles in the air, and the fidelity of that handling to real world dynamics that matters most to me and for which I look to companies like A2A, but not only them, to provide. That quality isnt at all common in addons. That's why, for me, this is such a welcome offering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top