I would like C172N

 

This is the exact model that Carenado modelled, so I'd like earlier or later.   Actually I'm happy with the model they are simulating. :smile:

That's a weird policy. GPS can be very handy during an emergency or for busy airspace (to vfr pilots). I can agree reliance on it for a VFR pilot could be a problem especially later on but still can be an important aid to navigation.

 

Well have to agree to disagree!

That's a weird policy. GPS can be very handy during an emergency or for busy airspace (to vfr pilots). I can agree reliance on it for a VFR pilot could be a problem especially later on but still can be an important aid to navigation.

 

Well have to agree to disagree!

In my school GPS is also forbidden for PPL. G1000 aircraft are set to PFD at both screens.

Glad I didn't go there. Might as well fly a 6 pack (what I learned with)...

IMO, G1000 is too complex for inexperienced pilots. Amount of data is overwhelming and distracting, not to mention 100 buttons and knobs. Beside that, new pilots tend to forget basics, relying on calculated track to compensate the wind (while cannot find it manually), forget to maintain a nav log because computer does that automatically, cannot calculate TOD because computer already calculated vertical profile, they feel false safety with ECL and forget memory items and most important, they forget to look outside (it's VFR after all).

 

I would not recommend anyone to begin to fly in G1000 equipped aircraft.

If you were going to teach someone to drive, better yet, how to parallel park, would you teach them in a car that has one of these new parking cameras?  They will become dependent on that camera, and will most likely have problems when parking a car without those parking assist devices. 

 

Same thing with flying, if you introduce modern technology to beginners, they will always be reliant on that technology and they will have a much harder time learning fundamental skills.   After those skills have become instinctual, then the modern technology could be added in.  They can use a GPS all they want, provided that if the GPS fails (alternators fail), they can still read a sectional and find their way home. 

 

Multi engine training is the same thing.  The DA-42 is a fantastic airplane, I would certainly buy one if I were able.  Night flying over the Rockies, with all the glass cockpit gizmos would be excellent.  But when it comes to multi engine training, the DA-42's glass and simplistic throttle quadrant don't cut it.  A MEL student needs to deal with six levers (2 throttle, 2 prop, 2 mix) and learn to properly identify and secure a dead engine. 

 

A good pilot will ultimately learn how to balance things, and use the GPS when appropriate.  It is just like relying on the autopilot too much.  The 777 crash at SFO showed the results of that. 

 

Cheers

TJ

I will agree with that. (G precentralis) I think the accident rate in TAA is too high mainly because of full reliance on big glass panels. However another part of the problem is pilots not familiar with the avionics. Like any training in life, if you're not familiar you'll muddle through it eating up valuable time (that you could use to do other important flight related tasks).

 

I'm not saying I have a great idea on how to decrease TAA accidents but I do think glass is the future and with proper learning it can be more beneficial than "6 pack" planes - IFR or VFR.

 

Take for example a basic scan on a 6 pack then look at the same on a G1000/Avidyne PFD. Quicker scan to me on the glass.

I never succeeded to push C172 in FSX above 105kts at 5000ft cruise, even with tailwind. I really don't know how you guys do it. Sent from my HUAWEI U8815 using Tapatalk 4

 hi,

If you are refereing to your indicated airspeed, 105 kts at 5000 ft, standard temperature gives 113 kt which is the  c 172 cruise speed  (true airspeed). The wind has no effect on your indicated airspeed, only on your ground speed given by the GPS.

A newbie question here: I've never bought an A2A plane before but when I look at their site it seems you have to seperately buy a plane and a specific version of Accu-sim for that plane...? Will this be the same with this C172? Or will you simply buy it all in one purchase/product...?

A newbie question here: I've never bought an A2A plane before but when I look at their site it seems you have to seperately buy a plane and a specific version of Accu-sim for that plane...? Will this be the same with this C172? Or will you simply buy it all in one purchase/product...?

 

Lewis or someone from A2A would have to answer that, but it's not a big deal if you have to buy it separately. Their web store has a button at the bottom of each aircraft page that says "bundle with accu-sim package" that saves 5 bucks, then you get a download link for the base package and a second link for the accu-sim upgrade. It's very simple really.

Lewis or someone from A2A would have to answer that, but it's not a big deal if you have to buy it separately. Their web store has a button at the bottom of each aircraft page that says "bundle with accu-sim package" that saves 5 bucks, then you get a download link for the base package and a second link for the accu-sim upgrade. It's very simple really.

 

Ok. I have to say though I was/am more concerned about the total price than the ease of installation. ^_^

 

My only fear is, as someone else posted elsewhere, that I will grow tired of having to check everything... realism is great but sometimes it gets in the way of simple enjoyment. I had the same with the Katana 4x: awesome how it felt as if you had a real plane but after the novelty of all those options wore off, it became a chore having to do all those things everytime before you could take off. Yes, I know, realism, but still...

 

Then again, in those days I was more into quick short flights. Lately I am flying with VOR only etc. and spend more time planning and because of that I also plan longer flights which lately results in flying a lot less but WHEN I fly, I take more time for it to make the experience more complete: this plane would fit well in that 'new' way of flying that I am developing. I now rather spend quite some time once a week on a flight then doing short hops once a day.

Given the 172's simple nature I imagine it won't be difficult to just take off and fly. With A2A you can always click "Complete Overhaul" and get your aircraft to factory new condition before a flight, and with the Cessna there shouldn't be anything required that would take too much time for a more casual flightsimmer. I'm assuming the pre-flight checks can be totally skipped if desired.

I love A2A aircraft. All of them have a real personality and are absolutely beautiful. Not massively into GA flying, more warbirds and tubes. However will definitely pick up the 172 just because of how great every A2A aircraft is.

 

 

I had the same with the Katana 4x: awesome how it felt as if you had a real plane but after the novelty of all those options wore off, it became a chore having to do all those things everytime before you could take off. Yes, I know, realism, but still...

 

That's something I dont I don't like with the Katana is how much time it takes to inspect, maintain and repair stuff. With accusim these things is much less time consuming, eg fixing a broken part can be done with a simple mouse click, but with the katana I have to wait "forever" before the timer runs out or something. They don't really need to simulate how much time it takes to replace an engine:p

That's something I dont I don't like with the Katana is how much time it takes to inspect, maintain and repair stuff. With accusim these things is much less time consuming, eg fixing a broken part can be done with a simple mouse click, but with the katana I have to wait "forever" before the timer runs out or something. They don't really need to simulate how much time it takes to replace an engine:p

 

Ah, ok, yes, that makes a difference. Come to think of it: I noticed that in the video, where the accu (or something) was replaced with a click and it was done. With the Katana 4X it indeed took ages to replace something simple.

 

Hm, I think this plane will be my 777. ^_^ I read it may even be released in a few days already, which would be great!