Yes the A2A P40 is newer then the A2A P47.....

 

The release date per see is not important. But what could be important is that for the P47 the input configurator only has one axis. I have  problem using the saitek trim wheel with the P51. I could sole that problem by using the planes input configurator. I suspect this could be a problem in the P47 and not being able to solve.

 

 

P-40 = Sherman tank and the P-47 = Tiger tank. :ph34r:

 

And what kind of tank would a P51 or Spitfire be then ?

 

 

The P47 is a much heavier and more powerful plane than the P40.

 

Which would make it more different to the P40 and the other planes I already have which could be an argument for selecting it over the P40

That would be my feeling also..

And what kind of tank would a P51 or Spitfire be then ?

 

 

 

Which would make it more different to the P40 and the other planes I already have which could be an argument for selecting it over the P40

 

Combat comparisons don't mean much in a non combat simulation.  I think car comparisons are something most people can relate to, at least from an operational and over all atmosphere comparison.  The P-40 is quite different than the P-51 in that operating an old stick shift jeep compared to operating an automatic Ford Mustang.  The P-40's hydraulic system alone is worth studying and takes some getting used to.    

 

The sheer size difference between the P-47 and everything else make it like driving a vintage Peterbuilt, from the pilot's perspective, compared to a Jeep, Mustang and Jaguar. 

 

In the end you have to ask what do you want to do.  The P-47 is an excellent airplane, albeit an earlier form of accusim.  The P-40 has the ruggedness and manual operation experience similar to the 47.  Due to the smaller size,I find the P-40 more functional.  Imagine being in a crowded parking lot looking for a parking space....which would you rather be in, the Jeep or the Peterbuilt lol.

 

Cheers

TJ

I bought the P-40 on sale for one very good reason...I didn't have it. :rolleyes:

As my old Mum would have said "More money than sense"

 

 

he P-40 is quite different than the P-51 in that operating an old stick shift jeep compared to operating an automatic Ford Mustang.

 

Would you agree that difference between the P-40 and the P-51 is greater than the difference between the C172 and the C182 ?

 

 

The P-40's hydraulic system alone is worth studying and takes some getting used to.

 

Is it not very similar to the P-47 hydraulic system  ?

 

 

The P-47 is an excellent airplane, albeit an earlier form of accusim.

 

This is the most important disadvantage for the P-47 I think. From what I understand I will miss simulation of fuel in the lines.

Just bought my first A2A plane, the civilian Mustang before the sale ended tonight. I'll be interested to see if I enjoy it enough to actually spend some time in it. My track record since 2003 in sims always leans towards flying airliners. I've spent probably hundreds of dollars through the years on military a/c, helos, small g/a and usually end up either not flying any of them more than a few hours and never again or uninstall them and return to my tubes. For this reason I skipped buying the Accu-Sim for the P-51 in case I end up shelving it, I didn't want to spend the extra money.

 

It will be interesting to give it a spin tonight if I have time.

Jfri, what is the problem you are having with the Saitek trim wheel? You ought to be able to assign it to the trim axis either in FSUIPC or FSX without having to resort to using any other type of input configuration utility. One thing I've noticed about it is that you have to roll the wheel several times after hitting FSUIPC 'rescan' in order to get it to show up.

 

 

This is the most important disadvantage for the P-47 I think. From what I understand I will miss simulation of fuel in the lines.

 

:huh: Wow! That's serious simming.

Would you agree that difference between the P-40 and the P-51 is greater than the difference between the C172 and the C182 ?

 

 

 

Is it not very similar to the P-47 hydraulic system  ?

 

 

 

This is the most important disadvantage for the P-47 I think. From what I understand I will miss simulation of fuel in the lines.

 

1.  I would compare it more between the 1960s Cherokee and the 2000s 182.  Different manufacturers with different approach to systems, different technology levels, different performance figures...etc

 

2. The P-40 and P-47 share a similar design with hydraulics, with the 3 way levers, however the operation is different.  With the P-40, you select the direction for either the gear and/or flaps, then press the control stick button which runs the hydraulic pump and thus moving the gear and flaps.

 

3.  Yes the P-40 has a more in depth start procedure, simulates the backup and emergency manual hydraulics, more indepth failures module..etc

 

Cheers

TJ

I bought the P-40 on sale for one very good reason...I didn't have it. :rolleyes:

As my old Mum would have said "More money than sense"

 

 

LOL I think you might enjoy the P-40.  At first I wasn't too excited about it, but A2A has away of getting you excited about planes you think you wouldn't...ie Cherokee.  The P-40 is kind of like the Hurricane.  Not as glamorous or fast as others, but they were rugged workhorses that did well in the hands of skilled pilots.  I think it is fun to go between the A2A 'three', each with different systems, different operations, different quirks...etc.

 

Cheers

TJ

You know, every time TJ posts about the P-40, I say to myself, that should really be my aircraft.  I mean, in real life I'm not an elegant Spitfire-driving type, and I'm not a rich-and-fast Mustang type.  Wild Bill Kelso is my spirit animal... along with maybe just a touch of Walter Matthau in The Bad News Bears.  At least, that's who I want to be.

 

So I should be hacking around in the Tomahawk, not flying those corporate-style warbirds.  But the last time I took it around the pattern, I got so flustered and preoccupied trying to lower the gear (set the handle, press and hold the hydraulic pump, release the pump, grab the manual pump handle and pump it 'til there's resistance in the line...) that I wound up landing on the wrong runway.

 

I'm sometimes tempted to give it a field mod and use the automatic hydraulic shortcut in the Shift-3 menu.  But then I remember that Scott and Mitchell and Dudley are watching and they'll know, they'll just know.

 

So, guess I'd better go practice.  'Cause I know how it's going to end up once TJ breaks through my resistance and wears me down completely.

 

@TJ - you're going to win this fight.  Just be patient!   B)

You know, every time TJ posts about the P-40, I say to myself, that should really be my aircraft.  I mean, in real life I'm not an elegant Spitfire-driving type, and I'm not a rich-and-fast Mustang type.  Wild Bill Kelso is my spirit animal... along with maybe just a touch of Walter Matthau in The Bad News Bears.  At least, that's who I want to be.

 

So I should be hacking around in the Tomahawk, not flying those corporate-style warbirds.  But the last time I took it around the pattern, I got so flustered and preoccupied trying to lower the gear (set the handle, press and hold the hydraulic pump, release the pump, grab the manual pump handle and pump it 'til there's resistance in the line...) that I wound up landing on the wrong runway.

 

I'm sometimes tempted to give it a field mod and use the automatic hydraulic shortcut in the Shift-3 menu.  But then I remember that Scott and Mitchell and Dudley are watching and they'll know, they'll just know.

 

So, guess I'd better go practice.  'Cause I know how it's going to end up once TJ breaks through my resistance and wears me down completely.

 

@TJ - you're going to win this fight.  Just be patient!   B)

 

LOL What can I say, its a warbird you can actually do something with and land at all those little Orbx airports in PNW, NRM, NCA...etc.    The hydraulic system was complex for me at first, but it can be made easy by using the config tool to assign a button on my controller to the hydraulic pump, then use landing gear and flap switches on the throttle quadrant or whatever switches you use to change the direction of the landing/flap handles.  With the pump assigned to your joystick or yoke, your hand can stay on it and fly the plane while your eyes can stay outside B)    An easy to way to verify the gear is down is to bring throttle to idle....there will be a loud BUZZ if the gear is not fully down, then do a quick check with the manual pump handle.

 

Cheers

TJ

Having most of the top notch add ons as a comparison I can say that the C182 with the GTN750 in retro paint and the "used" airframe selected in Accusim  whilst being flown in ORBX land is the most immersive experience Ive had in flight simming :smile:

I just bought my first A2A aircraft yesterday in the sale too, went for the Cherokee as I myself have several hours in the real aircraft. All I can say is wow! Takes GA flying in FSX to a whole new level, so immersive with the need for servicing and checking fluid levels, following the correct warm up procedure, the fantastic sounds, even how the gauges shake and vibrate, amazing!

Sale all ended. Thanks for the support guys and girls. Accu-sim customers remember to check out for and run the latest updater as we like to keep things as updated as possible with updates and free upgrades. The latest updater is here;

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41279

 

thanks and happy flying,

Lewis