Just curious..I'm wondering why none of the excellent soviet aircraft developers (or any other developer) hasn't thought of creating a decent AN-70 for either FS2004 or more recently FSX?It is a superb plane! & would make a facinating aircraft to fly. Certainly contra-rotating prop aircraft HAVE been done already .. AN-22, TU-95 . etc .. so why not the AN-70?Or perhaps Samdim & Thomas Ruth etal, DO have something up their sleeves? - Or if not, & DO happen to read this post .. maybe make a comment?Look forward to your insights .. & perhaps, one of you knows something??CheersAl (Hyper)

Anyone have an answer?

I suspect the lack of an AN-70 is not dissimilar to the lack of a complex A400; that is to say, the fact is, nobody knows exactly how it will eventually turn out, so an FS model of it can really be nothing more than a broad guess. Which is a bit like the early FS models of the A380, 787, A350 and A400. With the exception of the A380, most of those are still largely 'paper aeroplanes'.Like the A400, the AN-70 is having a lot of developmental problems, and also like the A400, it is stretching its goodwill very thin with potential customers. In the case of the A400, lots of prospective buyers are starting look elsewhere, buying everything from C-141s to C-130s, largely because the A400 is now no longer expected to be able to carry what had been originally projected, since it is (according to some reports) 12 tons overweight. A similar thing happened with the AN-70, which is also over its originally projected weight and has turned out to be expensive too, with several countries pulling their support for the programme and looking to other types such as the Tupolev 330 and updated versions of the Ilyushin 76.The same is probably going to be at least partially true for the B787 and the A350, which will almost certainly end up heavier than the manufacturer's original promises as structural design issues have to be addressed, since like the A400 and the AN-70, they are using new construction methods and new system types. But unlike those commercial airliner types, the market is probably smaller for the military transports, and the risks therefore somewhat higher, especially when governments start pulling out of the programme, as Russia have done with the AN-70.When you get situations like that, it is often mirrored in the FS world, where no serious FS developer is going to risk putting time in on creating a simulated version of something that might very well end up on the scrap heap, or at best only in limited service. The AN-70 and the A400 have everything to prove, whereas the C-130 and the IL-76 are known to be a solid aeroplanes, so you can hardly blame those who hold the budget purse strings for being reticent about handing over cash, and in a similar fashion, it is obvious that an FS model of the more well known types would also be a safer bet for sales.You actually can find an FS AN-70 on the cheekily-named Russian 'AVSIM' website, but that's basically a freeware one aimed at use as an AI plane rather than to be flown in the sim, although I imagine you could fly it if you added a panel and all that sort of stuff, and since the AN-70 is not a finished design, you could pretty much add any panel you liked and it would not be incorrect.Al

The 787 is not a paper airplane. It is plastic ;-) (In ten years when you buy your airline ticket, you will get a question similar to what the grocery store checker asks: "plastic or metal?") Okay, 50% plastic, but that's still a lot of plastic, and there are problems with the Japanese wings made in the Tamaiya plant and the Italian fuselage, too. (I may have gotten the Japanese company wrong.)New problems will push the first flight to 2010, I bet. Maybe this is the greatest marketing scheme ever and Boeing will suddenly announce: "We've determined that composites are simply not safe to use in airliners. Which would you prefer to eat a steak with, a plastic fork, or a metal one? We thought so. We have therefore abandoned the 787, but meet our new safe, all-metal 797." Then Airbus is left saying, "Non, plastic forks and airplanes are better!"