jabloomf1230, on 06 Nov 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

Or how about the diesel engine-powered 182 that runs on Jet A?

 

Would that make much of a difference, though?5

 

Much lower fuel consumption, FADEC, different performance for climb/cruise, nose is heavier on an already nose heavy aircraft, more sensitive to temperature and cooling, a bit more torque. Startup and shutdown require sitting for a little while to let the engine and turbo reach appropriate temps.

 

If the was Accusmell, you would have the strong smell of unburned Jet-A in the cabin for an extended period of time coming from the fuel sample cup.

 

 

 

Lastly, it sounds really cool at takeoff.

It would have been nice to see a Diamond DA40, or DA40XL with G1000.  There's exactly one...make that two available for FSX. 

 

Any TAA (Technical Advanced Aircraft) GA would be nice.

 

But what I gather is they build from what they can get there hands on.

For that, there is a persistent rumour that GTN integration will be offered for this release.. that in itself makes this

a nice airplane to own!

Not a rumor it is in their preview video that Reality Xp and GTN integration is all included.

And ofcourse NAV/COM functionality added to GPS

Yes, very true. :smile:

It's because they model a GNS400, not a 430.

 

GNS 400 :

 

 

 

.....One of the improvements of the 430 was the larger screen and smaller surround.

 

 

That explains it! I dislike that when I use the RXP 430 it looks like the 400. I hope the 182t is different.

That explains it! I dislike that when I use the RXP 430 it looks like the 400. I hope the 182t is different.

Yes that is true.   When you use the RXP430 with the 172/Cherokee, they do indeed fit the 430 screen into the 400's fitment.     But I suppose that's because the modelling is there for the 400.   To provide a full 430 casing, they'd have to provide a new model, with the unit's casing integrated.

 

 

I think it is a real shame A2A didn't go the extra mile to create different stacks for their following; aircraft. I realize I miss out on a great quality addon, but that modern Bendix stack in their Cherokee is not my cup of tea. They just don't match. Why not some old style radios and an option to throw in a GNS430?

 

C172 and Cherokke have completely different stacks, not a single gauge is identical. Some may be similar, because all in all, they are manufactured by the same company. C172R has the Silver Crown stack that was installed in the factory, the Cherokee has the old generation units with gas discharge displays, plus completely different autopilot and auxiliary avionics.

 

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=35579

vs

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=115&t=40159

 

Anything older than that, and we're talking about analog instruments, that would take a lot of space and make Cherokee a much worse IFR platform. Besides, that's the equipment that was installed in a real airplane which was the main source of interior reference.

 

 

Yes, I do agree with others that the style, gauges etc of the 182T featured here are very similar to the A2A 172.   It would have been nice for example, to have had a different autopilot unit, etc ... just to make things different.

 

 

Actually, the autopilot has been completely rewritten so you could say it's a different unit now B) It now simulates all three servos (aileron, elevator, elevator trim), so you would be able to see how it really flies the plane, no cheating like the default FSX autopilot does. It also behaves like a real rate based autopilot, as opposed to the attitude based autopilots found in most other airplanes in FSX except Cherokee. A rate based autopilot uses the signal from the turn indicator and VSI, not from the attitude indicator, which makes it behave differently in some situations. During turns it maintains constant turn rate, not constant bank, and if you apply rudder when flying leveled, it will bank the aircraft to maintain zero turn rate, instead of turning the plane to maintain wings leveled.

 

We've also added optional HSI with simulated both Slave and Free modes. Installing HSI also changes the way how the autopilot operates.

 

There are more 3rd party GPS options available. Those GTN units from Flight1 work very nice and really transform it into glass cockpit. 

 

Oh, and the clock has a fully adjustable backlight now. There are many improvements like that, it's not a copy&paste from the C172, otherwise it would be ready half a year ago  ^_^

 

Sound great!       Thanks for the explanations Mike.

I'm in.   B)

It's not as fast an airplane as I want, but the Carenado PC-12 has too many bugs and a bad paintkit nobody is doing paints for, so this will be my airplane to fly around Orbx regions in. Can't wait for release! Orbx KPSP and the 182t, an expensive month of addons coming up.

 

 

Yes that is true.   When you use the RXP430 with the 172/Cherokee, they do indeed fit the 430 screen into the 400's fitment.     But I suppose that's because the modelling is there for the 400.   To provide a full 430 casing, they'd have to provide a new model, with the unit's casing integrated.

 

Nope, both 400 and 430 have the same screen and dimensions in reality, it's just the tuning function that is missing in the 400:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/digital/in-the-air/discontinued/gps-400/prod111.html

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/discontinued/gns-430w/prod301.html

Nope, both 400 and 430 have the same screen and dimensions in reality, it's just the tuning function that is missing in the 400:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/digital/in-the-air/discontinued/gps-400/prod111.html

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/discontinued/gns-430w/prod301.html

I stand corrected, so they do. :smile:   It's a good job you're on this thread Mike!    Keep us right :smile:

Nope, both 400 and 430 have the same screen and dimensions in reality, it's just the tuning function that is missing in the 400:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/digital/in-the-air/discontinued/gps-400/prod111.html

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/discontinued/gns-430w/prod301.html

 

I have the RXP 430, 530, and unlimited licenses.

 

Can you provide screenshots of the various panel options?

Much lower fuel consumption, FADEC, different performance for climb/cruise, nose is heavier on an already nose heavy aircraft, more sensitive to temperature and cooling, a bit more torque. Startup and shutdown require sitting for a little while to let the engine and turbo reach appropriate temps.

 

 

Also, might help some of us feel less guilty about the amount of avgas our A2A warbirds drink...  B)

I am excited about this release, I am a mechanic by trade and my other expensive hobby besides aviation was that I built cars for drag racing so I have built my fair share of engines and A2A accu-sim planes are the only ones that I feel even comes close to capturing how a air cooled  aviation  gas engine operates  and I am really really excited about playing around with the different props and mixture / RPM settings, ROP Vs. LOP  operation ETC...   Plus I am going to use the HSI and the flight 1 GTN with this plane for IFR  practice.... 

 

I understand some people wanted something faster,  I too am looking forward to a Comanche or a Bo   but honestly your not going anywhere anyway so just plan a 200 mile flight instead of a 300 mile flight and enjoy the best GA you can get in FS.   

 

That's true, airspeed and complexity is relative in FSX.  If you spend an hour in a Cub or a Turbine Duke, its the same hour regardless of how 'far' you go.  In the Cub, you might spend that hour winding your way through some backwoods using a compass and a map, to land on some patch of riverbank.  In the T-Duke, you might spend that same hour at FL200, with autopilot hold all the way to another state.  Two different skill sets, two different experiences, same hour spent lol.  Interestingly the Skylane provides kind of a happy medium between those.

 

Cheers

TJ

Guys I genuinely do think it's a good step up from the trainers. With time, I'm sure they will model even faster GA's. Just ensure you all support them . But really looking forward to it... No other developer fully models what it is really like to own, operate and maintain your personal aircraft.