Hi,

 

Which one do you prefer, the cherokee or the C 182 (and why)?

 

I am in two minds...

 

Thank you

Both!

Wear and tear, nice graphics, excelent sounds, great flight dinamics, lots of features and a sense of being there each flight.

 

I have all A2A Accusim aircrafts and love all of them, for the same reason.

 

Although technically, their 182 improves upon the accusim features, and offers some new features not included in their Cherokee or 172, overall I prefer the Cherokee, and fly it around double what I fly the 182.

 

I can't comment on 'accuracy' but I certainly find the Cherokee 'nicer' to hand fly and land. :smile:

 

With it being an old rendition (1965), I just think it has more character.  I was a little disappointed that A2A chose a 2003 C182 to model - with many of the same instruments that are in their C172.

 

The 182 is fantastic - a must have for any simmer I'd say - but I still prefer the Cherokee overall.

I prefer the cherokee. As mentioned above it has more character.

The Cherokee is the only A2A I have ever bought. And it is beyond fantastic on so many levels. A2A is such a great organization and the FS community is very luck to have them.

But after you learn all the maintenance stuff, Payload and fuel manager, you experience Accusim, and experience all A2A's thorough detail, for $50 I feel the 182 would be too close to what I already have in the Cherokee to justify the cost. That's just me. Everyone has a different outlook ( thank goodness). Sure the 182 is heavier, faster, different dynamics, more sophisticated auto pilot, constant speed prop, greater range, but not a totally new experience. For $50, although it is a departure, I need something that is a bit more of a departure from the Cherokee.

That's why my most anticipated release ever is the PMDG DC-6. A completely new experience.  What I plan on doing is saving my $50 and putting it toward the first twin GA that A2A puts out. I'm sure it will be as fantastic as all the others.  And in the mean time, the Cherokee provides a superior sim and educational experience for non RL pilots such as myself.

I prefer the Cherokee on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays the 182. I have a day off on Sundays. -_-

I like the Cherokee better, but if they ever made an Archer I'd be all over that.

 

Once I got the A2A Cherokee, the A2A C172 got put into the hangar and hasn't been out for months!

 

That I fly an Archer with a friend regularly has a bit to do with that, but the low wing makes visibility in turns that much better, with the side windows mounted higher, closer to the eye level of the main forward windscreen compared to a Cessna.

 

The sounds on the A2A are awesome, and the simulation of wear are second to none. Systems are great (I fly a repaint based on the Archer we fly, which has no GPS systems, so it's all VOR/DME & NDB or VFR work.

 

I haven't acquired the 182 yet, fearing that I will find the side windows annoying... and my "go to" single is always going to be the Cherokee (unless an A2A Archer ever happens).

 

That said, the 182 is still high on the list of future purchases.

The Cherokee is the only A2A I have ever bought. And it is beyond fantastic on so many levels. A2A is such a great organization and the FS community is very luck to have them.

But after you learn all the maintenance stuff, Payload and fuel manager, you experience Accusim, for $50 I feel the 182 would be too close to what I already have in the Cherokee to justify the cost. That's just me. Everyone has a different outlook ( thank goodness). Sure the 182 is heavier, faster, different dynamics, more sophisticated auto pilot, greater range, but not a totally new experience. For $50, although it is a departure, I need something that is a bit more of a departure from the Cherokee.

That's why my biggest FS anticipated release is the PMDG DC-6. A completely new experience.  What I plan on doing is saving my $50 and putting it toward the first twin GA that A2A puts out. I'm sure it will be as fantastic as all the others.  And in the mean time, the Cherokee provides a superior sim and educational experience for non RL pilots such as myself.

Look out for the Realair Turbine Duke V2. The Duke V2 for FSX is the best light twin that money can buy.

 

The A2A 182 is an excellent high performance single with a constant speed prop. It's a nice step up from the Cherokee. I still lean toward realair. Their planes feel (the way the plane reacts to control inputs) like the real thing.

Look out for the Realair Turbine Duke V2. The Duke V2 for FSX is the best light twin that money can buy.

 

 

 

The A2A 182 is an excellent high performance single with a constant speed prop. It's a nice step up from the Cherokee. I still lean toward realair. Their planes feel (the way the plane reacts to control inputs) like the real thing.

 

Thanks DJJose,

Your thought's are well taken and appreciated. I am so impressed with the Cherokee, thought I would hold out for A2A's twin release whenever that is. The wear and tear stuff that A2A models really makes their planes interesting as well as the Accusim. On the other hand I've heard nothing but positive remarks on RealAir products. I do have the Milvis Baron which is very well done, but once you fly A2A, I can see just how much is missing from the Milvis model. Whoops, I'm straying from the topic. sorry.

Thanks DJJose,

Your thought's are well taken and appreciated. I am so impressed with the Cherokee, thought I would hold out for A2A's twin release whenever that is. The wear and tear stuff that A2A models really makes their planes interesting as well as the Accusim. On the other hand I've heard nothing but positive remarks on RealAir products. I do have the Milvis Baron which is very well done, but once you fly A2A, I can see just how much is missing from the Milvis model. Whoops, I'm straying from the topic. sorry.

The wear and tear are great features. What moves me is the realism of flight.

 

The Milviz Baron is good, but their 310 is OUTSTANDING!

 

Jose

A2A Cherokee or Skylane? Definitely a tricky question…

 

The Cherokee really reinvigorated my interest in FSX. As some other posters have noted, it’s got a lot of character and the 1960’s interior has a beautiful three-dimensional feel (In fact, it really feels like you can reach out and touch it, which is probably why my monitor's so sticky). Visibility in the circuit is excellent and it seems to model the characteristics of the constant-chord ‘Hershey Bar’ wing very well. Moreover, the Cherokee really does seem to feel more than the sum of its parts. So much so, that I made this rather gushy post about it!

 

However, the C182 is also a real contender. With a constant-speed propeller simulation which seems very realistic, the Skylane also benefits from some nice refinements in terms of avionics and gauges. The CAP 140 autopilot is very capable and this time A2A have modelled the servos moving the yoke during operation which is rather cool. The C182 also features an excellent rendition of the Bendix King KI525A HSI (with a beautifully smooth CDI animation) and enhancements like this make it an excellent IFR cruiser. The ‘custom’ interior trim doesn’t feel quite as authentic as that in the Cherokee (or C172) but in spite of this minor grumble, I’m enjoying it a lot. In fact, I’m determined to become a better (and more handsome) instrument pilot because of it!

 

I realise I haven't actually answered. Hope this helps a bit, though I really have to go with Mauricio’s initial response: get both...  :smile:

 

Cheers,

Nick

 

I have a day off on Sundays.

 

I betcha' don't Mr Attwood!  :wink:

Lots of people in this thread are for Cherokee. No doubt, this plane has a character.

For me - it is like a sweet time machine. Interior looks very 60-ish, you could feel like you were inside one of those old, vintage cars from the 60s. All the gauges, yokes, even autopilot is like from the other time. And if you play David Bowie's Low album in the background it is, indeed, real time traveling  :rolleyes: .

 

However, C182 despite its similarity to C172 has its own advantages. For me - it is flight dynamics and bush capabilities.

A2A took the realism to the next level. I had some doubts about their C172, however, many times when I land C182 I have smile on my face. I LOVE the moment when you flare, then stall warning goes on, main wheels touch the ground and still the nose wheel is in the air! Just like in the real aircraft!

 

I have been using C182 for bush landings in ORBX Kokoda scenery and every single time it is a pure pleasure.

 

So, take them both! 

If you can only have one, the Cherokee. But both have their place. I prefer the character of the Cherokee.

 

Mike

 

 

I betcha' don't Mr Attwood! :wink:

 

Sussed!

Can you really compare an apple with orange?

 

I have the C172 but not the Cherokee. I find flying the A2A C172 frustrating compared to the real thing which is a pretty docile and graceful plane really. An interface problem maybe.

 

The A2A C182? Ah, now I love this plane.  Heavier and gutsier, and you get there quicker. I like the way the CSU prop is modeled. Sounds are great. You feel the beef in the turbo engine. And it climbs. Similarities with the C172 'panel' I found were short-lived once you got into actually enjoying the 182's advantages.  

 

And don't discount the tasty GTN integration. What? You haven't got GTN?  So, I won't bother with the Cherokee despite the accolades. But if I should change my mind I'll call round Ron's and ask to try it out on his rig first. At his Sunday Fly-in that is. Have you tasted his home brew?  

 

Best,