Trying Out A2A

[Zentiger]

Appreciate some advice. I am new to P3D from FSX and also more of a sim "hacker" - although I have some real flight time in 172. I am trying to decide which of the A2A GA aircraft would be best for honing my skills; particularly with navigation and landing, etc... I was headed for the Cherokee or the 172- but then saw the new VTail Bonanza. Any recommendations? I really don't want to fight with the plane, like faster than slower, and like newer avionics. Thanks!

[CessnaSkypilotN7365W]

I've flown the 182 for years and like it.
Good range, decent speed, climbs good and floats on touchdown once you remember to not pull the throttle all the way out until the tires chirp.

[Alan_A]

Have a look at the Comanche as well - similar profile and mission to the Bonanza, but rock solid, feels like flying a transport. It's a 1959 model, but if you like modern avionics you can fit out out with the Garmin GTN 650/750 package from Flight1 - an additional purchase but well worth it.

The Bonanza is wonderful and includes some features that haven't yet (and may not) migrate to the rest of the fleet (imperfect/aging gauges, windshield rain, ability to visit the maintenance hangar without automatically triggering an inspection) but it's a busy airplane. I'm not finding it as murderous as some others have (I've got good controllers, which helps) but you'd best not turn your back on it.

My favorite A2A GA remains the Cherokee - there's just something about it, a "you are there" quality that's wonderful, but hard to explain. But if you're looking for faster, the Cherokee isn't your ride.

Hope this helps.

[rhenson529]

I have all the A2A GA planes, including the new Bonanza. Even though I spend half my time on the Bonanza, I still find my overall time is spent on the ole trusty 172R. Since I train on one in the real world, I find it a blast to practice and have “virtual” trips.

Ron


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marvin-E34]

I'd go for the Comanche ... or a Civilian Mustang (it counts as a GA ? )

[Zentiger]

Thanks for the comments! Very helpful.

[alan CXA651]

Hi.
You cannot go wrong with any of the accusim A2A aircraft , which ever one you go for , i will garentee you will soon be buying the rest , so be warned , i have 15 A2A aircraft 13 are accu simed , i started with the C172 .
Regards Alan.

[Zentiger]

Thanks!

[CodyValkyrie]

If you're looking for a bit of speed, but still want to learn navigation etc., I'd recommend the 182. The Bonanza might be a bit of a handful until you've spent more time with her, especially if you're trying to learn navigation, but she's a great plane regardless. Remember, however, she's fairly high performance, and was designed in many ways for experienced pilots. If you want what the Bonanza offers without the vices, go with the Comanche. If you want something slower, both the 172 and Comanche are simply fantastic, and then it just comes down to if you want a low or high wing (although I find the Cherokee to have more character, and it's a touch faster).

[Blitzer]

Here are my thoughts/comments, hope they assist in your choice.

For a kick-off it might be worth spending some time flying similar default high-wing and low-wing GA aircraft in P3D to get a sense which you prefer to fly - not on the merits of how well they are modelled, but purely from your own preference. Personally overall I prefer the low-wing configuration - absolutely my own preference though.

• 172 - Given you have real flight time this might be an obvious/preferable option, it would likely give you a good insight to how well A2A aircraft are modelled to replicate real aircraft. If I recall correctly, the 172 was A2A's first GA release - but is just as involving as more recent releases. Personal flying hours approx. 80

• Cherokee - Really you can think of this as the low-wing equivalent of the 172, more or less comparable performance. The A2A Cherokee compared to A2A feels (and is I think) a more dated aircraft, but this is quite subtle in real terms. I really like the character of the Cherokee and probably prefer flying it over the 172, but both have their own characteristics and charm. Personal flying hours approx. 60.

• 182 - Big brother/sister to the 172, the next step along with regards to size, power and complexity. For whatever reason I have never quite gotten into the 182, I am sure that is just me though. Probably other factors meant I simply have never spent enough time flying it and learning to appreciated it for it's own merits. Personal flying hour approx. 15-20 hours??

• Comanche - Again like the Cherokee/172, you could regard the Comanche as the low-wing option against the 182. Again, size, power and complexity increase over the Cherokee. Plus unlike the 182 you also have retractable gear into the mix. As you may know Scott Gentile of A2A has a Comanche in the real world, personally I feel this shines through in the overall character and attention to detail. Personal flying hours approx. 410.

• Bonanza - the newest of the bunch and perhaps a little more unique. It is closest to/rivals the Comanche in terms on low-wing configuration, retractable gear and performance. Where the Comanche feels/flies like a performance saloon car, the Bonanza is perhaps more comparable to a sportscar. Additionally, the accusim features that come with the Bonanza are the next evolution on, bringing new features and extending the feeling of emersion further still. Personal flying hours <10.

In all honesty you really could not go wrong choosing any of the above, I would be surprised if you were disappointed and/or was not tempted to add another to your fleet soon after. I dare say you have done so all ready, but do visit the product page for each of the above and watch all the videos on offer, I am sure these will give you a good insight to what you will get and hopefully help you decide.

HTH.

Paul

[rhenson529]

The T6 is also another great choice. It’s a great trainer that may result in transitions to other military planes. Every A2A plane has their unique characters that make them all great planes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Scott - A2A]

I am trying to decide which of the A2A GA aircraft would be best for honing my skills; particularly with navigation and landing, etc... I was headed for the Cherokee or the 172- but then saw the new VTail Bonanza. Any recommendations? I really don't want to fight with the plane, like faster than slower, and like newer avionics. Thanks!

Look at our fleet the same as the fleet in the real world. Just think about what you would like to fly. When you say that you don't want to fight the plane, I take that as you wanting something that is stable and simple to fly, then any GA will work aside from the V-tail.

So it really comes down to if you prefer a high wing or a low wing. Retractable or fixed gear.

Scott.

[Zentiger]

If you're looking for a bit of speed, but still want to learn navigation etc., I'd recommend the 182. The Bonanza might be a bit of a handful until you've spent more time with her, especially if you're trying to learn navigation, but she's a great plane regardless. Remember, however, she's fairly high performance, and was designed in many ways for experienced pilots. If you want what the Bonanza offers without the vices, go with the Comanche. If you want something slower, both the 172 and Comanche are simply fantastic, and then it just comes down to if you want a low or high wing (although I find the Cherokee to have more character, and it's a touch faster).

Thank you very much. This is helpful!

[Zentiger]

[quote="rhenson529"]I have all the A2A GA planes, including the new Bonanza. Even though I spend half my time on the Bonanza, I still find my overall time is spent on the ole trusty 172R. Since I train on one in the real world, I find it a blast to practice and have “virtual” trips.

Ron


Thank you! I have some time on a 172 myself...

[Zentiger]

[quote="Blitzer"]Here are my thoughts/comments, hope they assist in your choice.

For a kick-off it might be worth spending some time flying similar default high-wing and low-wing GA aircraft in P3D to get a sense which you prefer to fly - not on the merits of how well they are modelled, but purely from your own preference. Personally overall I prefer the low-wing configuration - absolutely my own preference though.

• 172 - Given you have real flight time this might be an obvious/preferable option, it would likely give you a good insight to how well A2A aircraft are modelled to replicate real aircraft. If I recall correctly, the 172 was A2A's first GA release - but is just as involving as more recent releases. Personal flying hours approx. 80

• Cherokee - Really you can think of this as the low-wing equivalent of the 172, more or less comparable performance. The A2A Cherokee compared to A2A feels (and is I think) a more dated aircraft, but this is quite subtle in real terms. I really like the character of the Cherokee and probably prefer flying it over the 172, but both have their own characteristics and charm. Personal flying hours approx. 60.

• 182 - Big brother/sister to the 172, the next step along with regards to size, power and complexity. For whatever reason I have never quite gotten into the 182, I am sure that is just me though. Probably other factors meant I simply have never spent enough time flying it and learning to appreciated it for it's own merits. Personal flying hour approx. 15-20 hours??

• Comanche - Again like the Cherokee/172, you could regard the Comanche as the low-wing option against the 182. Again, size, power and complexity increase over the Cherokee. Plus unlike the 182 you also have retractable gear into the mix. As you may know Scott Gentile of A2A has a Comanche in the real world, personally I feel this shines through in the overall character and attention to detail. Personal flying hours approx. 410.

• Bonanza - the newest of the bunch and perhaps a little more unique. It is closest to/rivals the Comanche in terms on low-wing configuration, retractable gear and performance. Where the Comanche feels/flies like a performance saloon car, the Bonanza is perhaps more comparable to a sportscar. Additionally, the accusim features that come with the Bonanza are the next evolution on, bringing new features and extending the feeling of emersion further still. Personal flying hours <10.

In all honesty you really could not go wrong choosing any of the above, I would be surprised if you were disappointed and/or was not tempted to add another to your fleet soon after. I dare say you have done so all ready, but do visit the product page for each of the above and watch all the videos on offer, I am sure these will give you a good insight to what you will get and hopefully help you decide.

HTH.

Paul[


Thanks Paul. Will look into this!