A2A Cessna 182 released!

[pilottj 198]

Assuming that one had the C172, Cherokee and the 182 in the hanger. Which do you go for? The 182 kind of makes the other 2 obsolete in the sense that it can do what the others do with more power and wont need excessive landing distance either.

 

I wonder if A2A chose the 182 because they could copy some of the 172 code/systems ? Thats just a guess as I really wouldn't know

 

 

They are three different animals, much like the set of three accusim fighters that A2A did.  The P-51 is the best performance wise and most practical with the Civ GA Mustang, yet, the Spitfire and P-40 offer unique experiences. The P-40 is still my personal favorite.  

 

Likewise, the Cherokee experience is different than that of the Cessna.  Personally, as a pilot, I prefer the vintage atmosphere and the 60's Piper way of doing things,  Between the Skylane and Skyhawk, again,, if you ever have flown a real 182, you know it is a much different experience than a 172.  If I were new to accusim and could pick one warbird and one GA, I would probably the Civil P-51, C-182, but the others are all unique experiences.  Be sure to fly the planes according to their design...ie the 182 is a bush plane, be sure to plunk it down on some backwoods airstrips...don't just autopilot it from A to B.

 

Cheers

TJ

[Zuendholz 50]

Very nice Plane! I love it. 

[carlito777 712]

It's not "$62 US" different from their 172 to make me pull the trigger. There are too many other products that might show up soon on which I'd rather spend my money (PMDG 777 for P3d, TacPack for P3d and FTX Global LC North America as some examples). For folks who don't already have the A2A 172, the Skylane is a more versatile aircraft and probably a better choice.

 

But have fun and I'll wait for a sale.

Fully agreed. Will also pass on this one...

[Mickel 42]

D/L'ed.  Looked at the dual licence for the day that I go P3D.  Then the price.  Then decided FSX only will do, thanks.  Definitely sounds the go.  Not sure how to get the HSI showing some of the A2A screen shots.  I'd like that just to make it look more different to the 172 (preferably without having to have the GPS as well).  My only niggle is that the view over the cowl is too good.  I had two trips in a 182 from the LHS about 15 years ago and the thing I remember most was how bad the forward view on the ground was - basically none.  There is this dirty great panel in front of you, then mostly sky.  Not tail-dragger bad, but not as good as the 172 (which isn't as good as a 152).  As you get speed up down the runway is improved as the tail came up a bit.  Don't remember it being fantastic on approach either.  It might be dodgy memory.  So I drop the view a couple of notches.

 

I don't think it quite has the charm of the Cherokee (or Cub, for that matter).  I definitely prefer it over the 172.

 

Mike

[zmak 331]

They are three different animals, much like the set of three accusim fighters that A2A did.  The P-51 is the best performance wise and most practical with the Civ GA Mustang, yet, the Spitfire and P-40 offer unique experiences. The P-40 is still my personal favorite.  

 

Likewise, the Cherokee experience is different than that of the Cessna.  Personally, as a pilot, I prefer the vintage atmosphere and the 60's Piper way of doing things,  Between the Skylane and Skyhawk, again,, if you ever have flown a real 182, you know it is a much different experience than a 172.  If I were new to accusim and could pick one warbird and one GA, I would probably the Civil P-51, C-182, but the others are all unique experiences.  Be sure to fly the planes according to their design...ie the 182 is a bush plane, be sure to plunk it down on some backwoods airstrips...don't just autopilot it from A to B.

 

Cheers

TJ

Yes Have extensive Real time including the range of A2A GA but mostly on the Tabago and Dutchess. While I agree they are different beasts ,I cant imaging why I would walk into  hire an aircraft and choose the 172 or the Cherokee over the 182, unless it was purely a money thing or flight training.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

This is a great aircraft ... sadly I seem to have forgotten how to take off and land.

 

LOL...I did a landing like that in a RW C152 practicing crosswind landings once.  In a a RW 182 you start slowly bleeding off power over the approach lights...before the threshold...all the way to idle about the time you flare.  Then stay low over the runway, holding the nose up and let the speed bleed off and it will settle onto the main gear.  You don't want to let the nose wheel touch down first.

 

Gregg

 

 

I had two trips in a 182 from the LHS about 15 years ago and the thing I remember most was how bad the forward view on the ground was - basically none.

 

I have a few hours in a 182 and, while it's not as good as a forward view as a 172, it's not bad.  I could see forward just fine.  You're right that the cowl is much larger though.  Truly, they (airplane devs) need to come up with a way for you to be able to set your eyepoint...perhaps something similar to what they do in the Q400 but smaller so everyone doesn't have to guess.  Short people may need a virtual cushion and move the seat forward, tall people may have to move the seat back.

[pilottj 198]

Yes Have extensive Real time including the range of A2A GA but mostly on the Tabago and Dutchess. While I agree they are different beasts ,I cant imaging why I would walk into  hire an aircraft and choose the 172 or the Cherokee over the 182, unless it was purely a money thing or flight training.

 

Oh yeah, when I was renting from the FBO, a 1960 Comanche with just the basics or a brand new(at that time) 172SP with full GPS and moving map suite rented for about the same price...lol I would took the Comanche in a heartbeat.  

 

For the sake of the A2A releases tho, I think there is still great value in the 172 and Cherokee.  There is a lot more to flying, especially in GA, than merely going A-B.  The 172 is a harder plane to fly well than the 182, it requires more precision, and more of a handful in gusty conditions, so for the sake of personal challenge and giving yourself a BFR by flying the Skyhawk through CPL maneuver at checkride tolerances.

 

Likewise for the nostalgic 60s atmosphere of the Cherokee, and the rewarding fun of flying it down to minimums on some approach.  I plan on flying the Cherokee alot still, just for the fun and challenge.  I like the lack of fancy autopilot, forcing the pilot to actually fly the airplane.

 

It's all good, we have a lot of different tools for different jobs in our virtual hangars,  Whatever works eh? lol

 

Cheers

TJ

[Dominique_K 10,138]

I  don't have the 172 so I can't compare but having flown the A2A Cherokee for several months  I can tell you the Skylane is a whole new ball game  and training on the Cherokee moderatly useful ! A lot to learn again :rolleyes:  

[airlinejets 709]

 

 

Truly, they (airplane devs) need to come up with a way for you to be able to set your eyepoint.

 

There is Gregg, it's called TrackIR... :wink:

[Rocky_53 1,579]

I'm sure it's nice, but for me personally, it's too similar to the 172 to justify more dosh.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

There is Gregg, it's called TrackIR... :wink:

 

TrackIR will let you set your eyepoint but you won't know if it's right.  Same problem with EZDoc or setting the eyepoint via config. 

[ryanbatc 12,835]

I'm sure it's nice, but for me personally, it's too similar to the 172 to justify more dosh.

Ditto. If there was a way to "trade in " the Skyhawk and pay half price for the skylane I'd probably do it. I like their Cherokee though... Wish they'd consider GTN integration in a patch though.

[Jimmy Angel 19]

Some mumblings on the A2A forums that some folks are taking a performance/FPS hit compared to the 172 or Piper, which would be a bit of a deal-breaker for me since I'm already at the ragged edge of things. 

 

Rob: How's it compare for you?

[nudata 10]

What is - "GTN integration"

[Mazo 40]

I have this beautiful aircraft and there is no FPS hit on my system - none. As far as comparing the C172 to the C182T, there is quite a difference. The C182T is heavier  and it handles that way. I have many hours in a C182RG, as a "working" passenger, and this A2A feels just like the real deal! I am very impressed with this latest addition to my hanger.

 

Lyn

 

(P3DV2.4)