The Aerostar won't be first...

[jpe828 624]

Reading the A2A forum, in the post where Scott (A2A founder) let everyone know they had an accident in the Aerostar. Someone asked him if this will delay the release of the Aerostar for MSFS 2020... and he said "Yes but only in that we are putting a different airplane on the front burner to be released next.". Tantalizing... I want anything A2A... So Avsim, what do we think or hope will be first? Makes me think a previous model.

[lupedelupe 315]

Holding thumbs for the P51. 

[orchestra_nl 930]

Any A2A aircraft will certainly be a great addition to our virtual hangar, but since I am not a great fan of military aicraft I am hoping for a classic, like a DHC-2, a DC-3 of a Lockheed Electra 10.

[bendead 1,085]

7 minutes ago, orchestra_nl said:

Any A2A aircraft will certainly be a great addition to our virtual hangar, but since I am not a great fan of military aicraft I am hoping for a classic, like a DHC-2, a DC-3 of a Lockheed Electra 10.

The same here, even if I will buy almost anything from A2A, a constellation or a B377, would be awesome and had some more heavy metal to a game already full of smaller plane

Also just wondering one thing about the landing, why not choose a grass runway to land without gear, is there any reason?

Edited January 13, 2021 by bendead

[matsout 28]

Are you serious? They had an accident in the aerostar and the first thing people worry about is whether a simulated version for a game will be delayed... unreal.

[orchestra_nl 930]

21 minutes ago, matsout said:

Are you serious? They had an accident in the aerostar and the first thing people worry about is whether a simulated version for a game will be delayed... unreal.

Actually the first thing people were asking in the A2A forums is whether the occupants were all right. The next thing was to congratulate them with a fine belly-up landing, followed by asking why landing on grass wasn't preferrable to landing on asphalt. Only after that people started to wonder whether this would have an effect on the development of their first aircraft for MSFS.
(https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=71896)

So we simmers in general are not that bad, it's probably just thís forum😉

[jpe828 624]

There was a great deal of concern shown first and foremost... I am so curious now what they will release! I am assuming it is on the older warbird/bomber side, as the Sim lacks that atm. Personally I am a GA guy but anything will be an instant buy from me. 

[sd_flyer 6,042]

Sorry to say but buying all airplane is a risk of this things happening. I've been there unfortunately. 

I'll be happy with literally any A2A airplane in MSFS even with 172!

[Chock 17,769]

9 hours ago, bendead said:

Also just wondering one thing about the landing, why not choose a grass runway to land without gear, is there any reason?

Yup. First consideration with a belly landing, or any emergency landing really, is that you land where you have the best chance of doing so safely and with available emergency facilities, and if that's a place with a concrete runway, then so be it.

Contrary to popular belief, concrete runways don't actually do as much damage to an aeroplane belly as you might imagine, since there isn't a huge amount of friction developing when a piece of smooth metal slides along a bit of concrete. Of course there is some, and there will invariably be some sparks to bear witness to that, but the fact that the aeroplane making a belly landing tends to slide quite a long way on a concrete runway shows that there isn't a good deal of friction in spite of the firework show. We saw last year that an A320 touched down with no landing gear and then actually made it back into the air - sadly it then crashed as they tried to go around with the engines spooling down from the damage they took, but it does prove that there isn't as much friction when you scrape along a runway as you might suppose.

Conversely, if you watch footage of aeroplanes belly landing on grass strips in WW2 etc, they don't normally travel too far and quite often they dig in and overturn. This is for two reasons: First, grass might be quite soft, but this means an aeroplane part can dig into the soft dirt beneath it and then cause a cartwheel or an overturn, and second, anyone who has flown off grass strips will tell you that they are quite often pretty bumpy, and that will cause a lot of impact damage as well. I can tell you from personal experience of taking off and landing at two WW2 grass airfields - Duxford and Husbands Bosworth - that they are anything but flat, and about halfway down the strip at Hus Bos there's a rut that feels like you've driven over a tank trap if you go over it at any appreciable speed!

Nobody likes to see an aeroplane damaged, but at the end of the day it is just metal, and it is insured as well, so you should never think about trying to save the aeroplane, but rather about saving yourself and not creating any other casualties on the ground.

Of course there is always an exception to prove the rule. I once saw a guy land his glider wheels up (accidentally) on a grass strip, and when we went over to it, six of us picked it up and the guy leaned into the cockpit and dropped the gear. There was no damage at all - except to the guy's pride - just a lot of grass stains on the smooth GRP underside, but we should bear in mind that it was a glider so that's not a particularly heavy aeroplane and it is a very slick shape, and the grass was absolutely soaking soaking wet from a thunderstorm. I doubt a heavier prop plane would have fared so well.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Chock

[hs118 707]

14 minutes ago, Chock said:

Contrary to popular belief, concrete runways don't actually do as much damage to an aeroplane belly as you might imagine, since there isn't a huge amount of friction developing when a piece of smooth metal slides along a bit of concrete.

This is my direct experience as well. At a previous job, our C337 landed wheels up with the boss in the back seat (I wasn't on crew that day). The pilot just forgot to lower the gear. The plane, of course, had to go thru the equivalent of an annual inspection before being repaired. But the over all damage was not as bad as you might imagine. She was flying again in 7 months.

[bendead 1,085]

27 minutes ago, Chock said:

 

 

Thanks for the info 😉

[sidfadc 1,344]

Comanche please.......followed by GTN 750 integration 🙂

[sd_flyer 6,042]

Scott is lucky. Based on photo both engine feathered nicely and seems none of them had prop strike during belly landing. As most of us know "prop strike = new engine" and this is most expansive part!

[jpe828 624]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

Scott is lucky. Based on photo both engine feathered nicely and seems none of them had prop strike during belly landing. As most of us know "prop strike = new engine" and this is most expansive part!

Based on his own comments in his forum, they airplane is a write off... going to scrap. Not worth the repairs!

[leprechaunlive 1,852]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

Scott is lucky. Based on photo both engine feathered nicely and seems none of them had prop strike during belly landing. As most of us know "prop strike = new engine" and this is most expansive part!

possibily a stupid question, but would you need to replace the engines even if the prop struck when the engines was off?