15 minutes ago, Ron Attwood said:

No you wouldn't.

No I wouldn’t.

but it would sure be neat. I have had a love affair with Baron’s  ever since I saw a documentary on them at the age of 13

A Baron, Really? Yes a twin, but why a Baron when we already have a very high quality Black Square Baron. But a Piper Navajo, yes. 

Not another Baron please. We already have a very good version available for that one.
I am longing for a proper de Havilland DH.104 Dove, or an Aero Commander. These would be quite different from the aircraft that are already available in MSFS.

49 minutes ago, AviatorMan said:

A Baron, Really? Yes a twin, but why a Baron when we already have a very high quality Black Square Baron. But a Piper Navajo, yes. 

Actually, I have been looking at the Black Square Baron.Do you think it compares nicely with what we got from A2A.

There is also talk of a Piper M500 coming out. Should I wait for that. Who knows when that will come out though

 

Ron

17 hours ago, Naki18 said:

An A2A Grumman Tiger would be nice...

Sure as heck would be, but I don't know if *anyone* has ever done the Grumman Tiger for a sim...

17 hours ago, Naki18 said:

An A2A Grumman Tiger would be nice...

Sure as heck would be, but I don't know if *anyone* has ever done the Grumman Tiger for a sim...

2 hours ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

Actually, I have been looking at the Black Square Baron.Do you think it compares nicely with what we got from A2A.

There is also talk of a Piper M500 coming out. Should I wait for that. Who knows when that will come out though

 

Ron

The Black Square G36 Bonanza and the B58 Baron have very detailed system level functionality, beautiful analogue instrumentation, detailed documentation, and are a joy to fly. The A2A has more detailed engine specific modelling (e.g., cylinder level), and specific failure types, but others here will be more knowledgeable on this than me. As far as FD I understand the Black Square uses the default aircraft FD, but I have been flying the two aircraft now for several months, and have been noting things like approach speed/flare out simulation and comparing with real world data from Beechcraft on the two aircraft, and it seems pretty  accurate to me. A2A and Black Square are both top of the league developers, and since it is so  time consuming to make aircraft of this fidelity and accuracy, I personally would not like to see duplication of effort. Black Squares Baron is beyond what 90% of simmers would even notice the difference.. A2A should not duplicate one of Black Square's products in my opinion.

Edited September 2, 20232 yr by AviatorMan

1 hour ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

Actually, I have been looking at the Black Square Baron.Do you think it compares nicely with what we got from A2A.

There is also talk of a Piper M500 coming out. Should I wait for that. Who knows when that will come out though

 

Ron

Not talk, it's real. FSReborn of the Sting S4 fame is releasing the M500 in the near future. Here's a preview from a couple of months ago by twotonemurphy:

 

Best A2A for really learning how to fly  was the Texan T6. If you could land that aircraft consistently in a crosswind, you were a real pilot. 

Edited September 2, 20232 yr by Bobsk8

Something to do Circuits and Bumps in, e.g. C172 (or C182 to have a mixed use profile).

Or...

Something really challenging -- the F4U-1 Corsair (Corsair Mk I).
Poor visibility for landing due to the long nose and pilot seat position, combined with the threat of the starboard wing stalling without warning when performing slow carrier landings. And... not forgetting the tendency to exacerbate the roll to the left during an attempted go-around, would promptly lead to flipping the aircraft onto its back just feet above the waves.

If you could land one on a carrier, you were better than the US Navy pilots at the time and were a real pilot. 😉
 

Spoiler

But it was the British Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm who came up with the concept that brought Corsairs to sea duty for good. The pilots developed a long, curving landing approach to keep the carrier’s deck in sight until the last moments before touchdown.

The Corsair did not operate from U.S. Navy carriers until 1944. [...]

How the Navy Tamed the “Killer Corsair”
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/spoiler-alert-1-180977803/

 

I've always found it odd that the Corsair is credited with driving the adoption of the curving approach technique.  It's certainly not the only taildragger out there with poor forward vis.  I teach curving approaches in Stearmans today - as the USN and AAF did in the early years of WWII.  Folks flying everything from Cubs to Pitts' prefer them today as well.  I guess straight ins to the boat were seen as advantageous for stability purposes, but it is surprising it took that long for someone to decide to apply the same technique at the boat that was used to land ashore.  

33 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

I've always found it odd that the Corsair is credited with driving the adoption of the curving approach technique.  It's certainly not the only taildragger out there with poor forward vis.  I teach curving approaches in Stearmans today - as the USN and AAF did in the early years of WWII.  Folks flying everything from Cubs to Pitts' prefer them today as well.  I guess straight ins to the boat were seen as advantageous for stability purposes, but it is surprising it took that long for someone to decide to apply the same technique at the boat that was used to land ashore.  

It was the Brits who seemed to have figured it out with their Seafires, which have the same visibility issues. 
 

add in the corsairs asymmetrical stall, and it seems to come together…

in any case, yeah, similar problems, similar solutions. 

Honestly, in keeping with their amazing ability to model a beaten up airplane, I'd love to see something utilitarian like a Piper Navajo or an later model piston Aero Commander. Something I can really beat to hell hauling cargo or passengers.

The likely candidates are aircraft they already have done for other sims.  The most likely of all is an MSFS Aerostar 600 piston twin because they already had started work on an MSFS version.

Personally, I would really like to see a single engine turbo normalised Cessna with retractible gear.

2nd on my list would be a Beechcraft Bonanza (not the V tail).

3rd on my list would be a piston twin. I have the Flysimware 414 and have really enjoyed it but I would buy and A2A version in a flash.

4th would be a tail dragger of some kind such as a Cessna 185 Skywagon. I never really did get the hang of these things and an A2A dragger in this sim would really make me focus on mastering one.

I'd like all of these to be steam guage with the ability to whack my GTN 750 in.

What I wouldn't buy is anything military. I'm just not interested in them.

I'd also like:

A beautiful and kind red headed lady.

10 million pounds in my bank account.

An Aston Martin.

The moon on a stick and covered in sugar.

You got to have a dream,
If you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

However, whatever I think is irrelevant. They will have already decided what they a making and make it they will.