Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see a lot of you here raving about A2A's Piper Comanche.  I have always been interested in this airplane ever since Max Conrad "The Flying Grandfather" made his record flight in it over 50 years ago.


 



Flights from Casablanca[edit]

From June 2–4, 1959 Conrad flew Comanche 250 N110LF non-stop from Casablanca, Morocco to Los Angeles, a distance of 7,668 mi (12,340 km).[5] This distance record (for aircraft in the 1750-3000 kilogram weight class) stood until 1987. With interior seats replaced by fuel tanks, the aircraft was loaded 2,000 lb (910 kg) over its production gross weight limit when Conrad took off from Casablanca.


A few months later, on November 24, 1959, Conrad set the record (that still stands) for the 1000–1750 kg weight class, flying from Casablanca to El Paso, Texas in the same aircraft fitted with a smaller engine, with a flight time of 56 hours.[5] At the time he also held the 500–1000 kg record, set on his transcontinental Pacer flight in 1952.


 


Right now the only payware aircraft I fly is the Lionheart Kodiak.  But the Comanche intrigues me.


 


Tell me about it.  Does the panel have modern or period instruments?  Is there a 2D cockpit?  What is ACCU-SIM?  What does it do and how does it work?


 


Noel


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the link is this one:

https://a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=11&products_id=76&zenid=a2d1e47d50479b7d5929f4dc3e06328f

But if you really want to know all about the plane and accusim, you should download the manual!

https://app.box.com/shared/static/oe1mfcp41784fbjrpxum4bk3at1zqaq2.zip

It's a great manual, they don't come any better imho. (If that direct link doesn't work, you can find the PDFs here: http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=124&t=47490 )

A2A will give you the best and most realistic GA experience ever imho. There is no 2D panel and it comes with sort of period radio's but you can also select a GPS. The AP is really something else and requires a lot of input and attention, which I personally like a lot. You really have to take care of this plane, doing a walk around everytime, and things simply go wrong if you don't watch out. There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes. Even if you do not use the plane and start it up after a week or so, things might have changed due to the plane not being used (oil for instance gets older). The flight model is excellent, everything moves and shakes like in real life (a small change in leaning might make the difference between a slightly shaking cockpit and a steady one) and the sounds are awesome.

In short: A2A planes and specially the Comanche are the best out there. I own the Lionheart Kodiak and it once was my favorite GA. These two planes are obviously quite different in a lot of regards but when it comes to simulation, looks, sounds, realism, etc. there really is no comparison... The Comanche is so much better imho, it's not even fair to compare them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love my A2A Comanche, Cherokee, and C182.  The Cherokee is just plain a blast for VFR low-touring FTX Regions as is the 182.  The Comanche is the muscle car of the group.   All three are must haves.


 


C.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. There's a bit more there than I am comfortable with but I'll give it go. I just purchased it as well as Accu-Feel 2 for my Kodiaks.

Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. There's a bit more there than I am comfortable with but I'll give it go. I just purchased it as well as Accu-Feel 2 for my Kodiaks.

Noel

You've just entered the world of proper flight dynamics and systems. There is no going back, you're doomed! :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol yep, be prepared to think and operate like a real pilot now.  Now those engine temp and pressure gauges mean something and should be monitored like you would in real life.  


 


If you think about all the things a pilot must do for a real flight...ie WX/flight planning, check aircraft's MX sheet and paperwork, load aircraft, weight & balance check, fluids check, preflight, start, pretaxi checks, taxi, pretakeoff check, takeoff, climb, cruise, descend, approach, land, taxi, shutdown, debrief.  Then factor in all the stuff that goes on during those activities...checklists, radio work, monitoring systems, navigating, watching out for other traffic, planning and dealing with changing conditions, making judgment calls, and of course flying the thing.     


 


Accusim lets you experience as much of those activities and related stresses as much can possibly be simulated in FS.  


 


I am a licensed pilot but not current.  Accusim planes help me keep my ADM (Aeronautical Decision Making) sharp by challenging me to use my instincts and make good pilot decisions while I am not currently flying in the real world..


 


Cheers


TJ


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes forget/can't be arsed to do a walkround. Not a big deal in ordinary FS terms. With A2A it can bite you on the bum! On one such occasion I suffered a broken aileron linkage (not that I knew that at the time) and of course the thing wouldn't steer. Frantic checking of controller configurations, all OK. Amazingly I managed to land it OK. On going to the hangar I let out an almighty DOH!  I envy you you're learning curve and the big grin.


  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm once again that A2A aircraft are top notch GA aircraft. The only thing: Once you have the Comanche you might lose a bit interest in your Quest Kodiak :-p You might also want to buy their other GA aircraft, too once you have the Comanche. I can recommend it without any limitations if you like the airplane itself. The only thing I don't like too much is the old fashioned style of instruments (radios or GPS on the left side). But that's only a personal preference and that's what it looks in real life, too.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'm going to like that. I don't want to be bothered with having to delay a flight when I have limited time because of a maintenance or repair problem. Is there a workaround to bypass that? I'm not a 'total immersion' guy.

In all the years I flew and all the walkarounds I performed I never had a maintenance or repair problem.

I want the the Comanche because it's a nice airplane and has prop and manifold pressure controls. But my Kodiak will still be my goto aircraft because of the exceptional high wing visibility for scenery sightseeing and ease of flying. And it is just as fast as the Comanche.

Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Noel, you can turn off the damage simulation so that you won't have to worry with that if you'd rather not. I have A2A's Cessna 172, Cessna 182, Piper Cub, Piper Cherokee, Piper Comanche, and Supermarine Spitfire. A2A's Accu-Sim line is simply outstanding. I think you're going to love the Comanche! ;)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'm going to like that. I don't want to be bothered with having to delay a flight when I have limited time because of a maintenance or repair problem. Is there a workaround to bypass that? I'm not a 'total immersion' guy.

In all the years I flew and all the walkarounds I performed I never had a maintenance or repair problem.

I want the the Comanche because it's a nice airplane and has prop and manifold pressure controls. But my Kodiak will still be my goto aircraft because of the exceptional high wing visibility for scenery sightseeing and ease of flying. And it is just as fast as the Comanche.

Noel

Making repairs only requires a mouse click.  Takes all of less than 30 sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stewart is right, repairs are only a mouse click.  Its not any extra time you have to spend fixing things, its the fact that you have to be aware of how you fly.  If you abuse the airplane, exceed design limits, use incorrect procedures, the rate at witch things fail on the aircraft increases.  If you fly the plane well, and don't abuse it, the rate of failures is very low. 


 


For example, when you start your Kodiak's engine, do you wait to apply fuel until 12-15% Ng and monitor ITT on startup, thus making sure you don't have a hot start?  If the Kodiak were accusimmed, you would have to be aware of these things, and there would be consequences if you failed to start it properly.  What seperates Accusim from some nice failure modelling from RealAir and Aerosoft, is that aircraft damage is not always immediate...like real life.  You could probably get away with hot starting a PT6 for an extra second or two beyond it's limits....but would you chance it?   Considering what it costs to overhaul a real PT6, no doubt you would be monitoring ITT temps like a hawk lol. 


 


Its kind of like roulette lol.   If you exceed flap extension speed when lowering the flaps....they won't fail right away, but you made them wear out a lot faster and thus more likely they will fail sometime in the future.  It's also like a snowball effect.  During the preflight ,you might notice the flaps showing damage or feel really loose.  If you ignore it, then you might get surprised with a flap failure.  lol Or if you forget to take off the pitot heat cover and wonder why your airspeed indicator doesn't work....lol


 


Not trying to scare you or anything, remember, these are solid airplanes in real life, they won't blow up if you breathe wrong.  Those planes will put up with quite amount of abuse, and they often give you ample chance to correct mistakes.  I took off in the P-40 from Alice Springs on a hot summer day, forgot to open the cowl flaps....I got a red warning light from high coolant temp....I immediately opened cowl flaps, lowered nose, reduced power.....upon checking the MX page, the engine was fine.  


 


These accusim planes are meant to teach you how to be a good pilot.  That's what makes them great, they teach you to think like a real pilot.  If you master an accusim plane, you will feel a great sense of reward, because you will have managed to deal with a good majority of what a real pilot has to deal with.


 


Cheers


TJ


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got mine downloading.

Already have the Spitfire with accusim.

Once you've moved on to these kind of add on aircraft it is hard to go back to the stock hanger. Best thing I ever did with FSX was to look at A2A and Carenado. Really expanded my sim experience and enjoyment and having seen the frooglesim video on youtube I had to get it.

Love anything that gets me closer to flying the real thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These accusim planes are meant to teach you how to be a good pilot.  That's what makes them great, they teach you to think like a real pilot

 

When A2A first released the C172 the cries of anguish that came from people. "It floats, it floats. I can't land it". Well yes, it did float if you tried to plonk it down on the runway at 90kts! They were so used to being able to do that on the default or 'other' C172s that reality came as a shock.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got mine downloading.

Already have the Spitfire with accusim.

Once you've moved on to these kind of add on aircraft it is hard to go back to the stock hanger. Best thing I ever did with FSX was to look at A2A and Carenado. Really expanded my sim experience and enjoyment and having seen the frooglesim video on youtube I had to get it.

Love anything that gets me closer to flying the real thing.

 

Have a look at RealAIr birds too, Rob. They don't have an Accusim like environment but flight models and aircraft are outstanding. Their catalog is very limited but each aircraft is a jewel. A2A and RealAir, you can't go wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at RealAIr birds too, Rob. They don't have an Accusim like environment but flight models and aircraft are outstanding. Their catalog is very limited but each aircraft is a jewel. A2A and RealAir, you can't go wrong.

Hey Dominique, thanks for the tip. Love the look of that Duke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for training guys. I wer a reel pailat wunz. I'm just looking for a fun aircraft to fly in a game.

Right now I have three. The Kodiak on wheels and the Kodiak on floats and the Epic if I want to fly fast and high over boring terrain not yet enhanced by Orbx.

I want the Comanche because of it's historic place in general aviation history and because from time to time I like to fly a piston aircraft with prop, mixture, and manifold pressure controls. Up to now that has been the default Mooney.

Noel

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dominique, thanks for the tip. Love the look of that Duke!

Recently acquired the Duke - very good looking & smooth to fly.

Still learning it.

Not a snooze off aircraft. Sophisticated.

Quickly learned the turbo engines put out a lot of power but get hot quickly  if you run them full throttle past climb out.

It will cruise nicely with the throttle, prop speed & mixture controls all pulled back/down.

Read the manual & watch the gauges. Manage the engines.

If your looking for a twin turbo GA, this should be way up on your list of possibilities

TTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently acquired the Duke - very good looking & smooth to fly.

Still learning it.

Not a snooze off aircraft. Sophisticated.

Quickly learned the turbo engines put out a lot of power but get hot quickly  if you run them full throttle past climb out.

It will cruise nicely with the throttle, prop speed & mixture controls all pulled back/down.

Read the manual & watch the gauges. Manage the engines.

If your looking for a twin turbo GA, this should be way up on your list of possibilities

TTM

Yes, it is good and even better with the Garmin 750 :lol: .  I miss the performance tables but the manual is quite good. I've always been a great fan of RealAir and I may buy the piston Duke too when released for P3D. Each session is already a dilemna these days though, will I fly the Comanche or the T-Duke ::) ?

 

What I like about these aircraft is not so much that they train me to be the pilot I'll never be anyway , but that you've to do things right. Or else... This is for me the true spirit of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for training guys. I wer a reel pailat wunz. I'm just looking for a fun aircraft to fly in a game.

Right now I have three. The Kodiak on wheels and the Kodiak on floats and the Epic if I want to fly fast and high over boring terrain not yet enhanced by Orbx.

I want the Comanche because of it's historic place in general aviation history and because from time to time I like to fly a piston aircraft with prop, mixture, and manifold pressure controls. Up to now that has been the default Mooney.

Noel

 

Hi Noel:

 

I think you will like the Comanche, based on your descriptions.  The A2A flight models for me are the best there is - feels like a real airplane, at least to this non-pilot.  And the engine actually responds to the prop, mixture and throttle as the real one would.  You can certainly turn off the more involved features as others said - for example, there is an auto-start command if you don't want to mess around with the start-up procedure, etc.

 

The A2A Comanche and the Cherokee are my two most-flown GA aircraft now.  They are absolutely fun to fly - the extra features and realism make it so, but since the systems are not overly voluminous it is not overwhelming.

 

Highly recommended!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've just installed it and even after just starting engine I am in love. Even the sound effects before you start are very atmospheric. Sounds like wind buffeting control surfaces ever so slightly. Either that or my soundcard is complaining :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, when you start your Kodiak's engine, do you wait to apply fuel until 12-15% Ng and monitor ITT on startup, thus making sure you don't have a hot start?  If the Kodiak were accusimmed, you would have to be aware of these things, and there would be consequences if you failed to start it properly.  

 

I have a startup sequence for my Kodiak and Epic that work pretty well TJ.

 

1 - Set parking brake on

2 - Set the fuel conditioner off.

3 - Click the starter button and wait until the NG reaches 7% and then just barely crack the fuel conditioner until you see the black puff of smoke.

4 - The TRQ will rise to about 34-37%.   

5 - When the TRQ starts dropping down move the fuel conditioner to 40-50% for taxiing.

6 - Set the fuel conditioner to full when ready to take off.

 

The procedure may work for other FSX turbine aircraft too, but I've never tried it on any other aircraft.

 

Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a startup sequence for my Kodiak and Epic that work pretty well TJ.

 

1 - Set parking brake on

2 - Set the fuel conditioner off.

3 - Click the starter button and wait until the NG reaches 7% and then just barely crack the fuel conditioner until you see the black puff of smoke.

4 - The TRQ will rise to about 34-37%.   

5 - When the TRQ starts dropping down move the fuel conditioner to 40-50% for taxiing.

6 - Set the fuel conditioner to full when ready to take off.

 

The procedure may work for other FSX turbine aircraft too, but I've never tried it on any other aircraft.

 

Noel

 

This is the big difference between non accusim and accusim.  If you engaged the fuel at 7% in a real PT6, you would likely have a hot start and a very short engine life, requiring an expensive overhaul.  But default planes and simple turbine modelling will let you hot start a turbine all day, then go fly it like nothing happened.  If the Kodiak were accusimmed, you would be very wise to follow it's checklist and adhere to POH recommendations and limitations.  If you engage fuel with low NG you have a hot start, if you engage fuel at NG too high, you wear down the battery fast.   Different PT6s have slightly different numbers but in general 15% is usually the magic number.  I found a Kodiak AIM here, which has checklists.  

 

http://questaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/KODIAK_AIM.pdf

 

Scroll down to the performance section and you will see a detailed startup checklist.  

 

With accusim planes, correct procedures matter, just like a real plane.  In a real plane you wont necessarily die if you miss an item on a checklist, but you certainly increase your chances for an accident lol.   Since you were a real pilot before, you know how important following checklists are.  Accusim planes are like real planes, and the decisions you make will make a difference 

 

I guess a good way to think about it, if you have ever played a typical 'shoot em up' PC game, they typically have a 'God Mode' option or cheat, meaning you can't die.  You can stand in front of the badguys and not get shot.  This can be fun sometimes.  However if you play the game in normal 'consequences' mode,  you have to avoid getting hit by the badguys lol.

 

FSX is always on 'God Mode' by default.  It takes something like Accusim to essentially turn 'god mode' off, where the decisions you make have consequences good or bad.   There is no wrong way to fly in FS, sometimes its quite fun to fly around with no consequences.  But if you want to experience consequence based flying, Accusim is the way to go.

 

I like to think that Accusim makes MS's 'Real As It Gets' tagline stand up and mean something.

 

Cheers

TJ

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TJ,


 


Everything you have said would make sense *if* Lionheart Creations had bothered to model their Kodiak along the same lines of A2A's Accusim standards.  But they didn't, so it doesn't matter, 7% NG or 15% NG, it's all the same.  There are no consequences to a hot start and none to wearing down your battery on startup.  We who fly A2A's birds know that not every developer of sim aircraft has the same approach as A2A in designing their aircraft, so we take that into consideration when buying their product.  I like and fly both the A2A C182 and the Quest Kodiak, both for totally different reasons.


 


Stew


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I said that was the difference, non accusim generally means there are no consequences.  If the Kodiak were accusimmed, those numbers would matter, but they don't.  There is nothing wrong with that at all, in fact I enjoy Lionheart alot too.  Lionheart's Bill is a great guy and he makes fun and imaginative planes.  


 


FS is meant to be enjoyed, its a fantasy world not really any different than the Sims or an MMO or whatever, you make it and enjoy it however you like.


 


The OP wanted to know what accusim was and I was trying to illustrate the difference between something accusimmed and not.


 


Cheers


TJ


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I wasn't getting on your case TJ, in fact more or less agreeing with you.  BTW, you are aware that A2A will be coming out with their version of a turbine powered aircraft (I forget what it is)?  And another developer is working on what looks to be the most authentic representation of the Pilatus Porter ever done--another turbine simulation.


 


Stew


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A2A will be coming out with their version of a turbine powered aircraft (I forget what it is)?  

 

I missed that. They spoke a while ago of maybe making a T33 training turbojet but I've not heard of a turboprop at A2A. Now, if they want to go turboprop, they are very welcome !  Really, a dream come true !  I love the T-Duke but I'd' love her better if she was accusimed ;) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the T-33 was meant to be a stepping stone project for their planned F-104 and eventual F-4 projects.  They realized how difficult accusimming a supersonic jet fighter was going to be and wisely decided to do a T-33 first.  I am unaware of any turboprop projects in the works, then again they no doubt have a few projects going that no one knows outside of A2A knows about.  


 


The T-33 will give them valuable data and experience and hopefully lead to other turbine projects.  Think of accusim like a pilot, itself learning and gaining experience as it goes, starting from the simple, then moving on to more complex.  


 


The Aerosoft Porter looks awesome.  They do very good turbine modelling, I quite enjoy the Aerosoft OV-10 and Twin Otter.  Their F-14 is a blast too, but it keeps you on your toes for sure...it will scare you with compressor stalls lol.   Aerosoft  and RealAir always have a nice balance between checklist/systems type flying and fun goof off flying.


 


Not that you can't goof off in an accusimmed plane lol, you sure can....for fun, sometimes I fly the P-40 like a bush plane and land at short grass strips....the 'consequence' is that I deal with a lot of worn out brakes and occasional bent prop LOL


 


The problem with Accusim is that the more complex it gets, the more realworld research data it requires, which in most cases requires a real world flying example for A2A to test fly.  GA planes like Cessnas and Pipers are relatively common and have easier access.  But more complex aircraft like turbines, warbirds and such are harder to access, and if you can access them, cost a lot more to hire for research.  


 


If you owned a vintage warbird, you would probably be a little cautious letting someone fly it for research purposes because that involves flying the plane near its design limits lol.


 


Cheers


TJ


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but the A2A turboprop project had something to do with a turboprop trainer for Air Force pilots, or some such?  A T-6 maybe?  Which one would that be?  Sorry my memory is so sketchy.  I think several of us here are looking forward to that Aerosoft Porter.


 


Edit to add:  Yeah, it's the T-6 Texan trainer.  8)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the T-33 was meant to be a stepping stone project for their planned F-104 and eventual F-4 projects.  They realized how difficult accusimming a supersonic jet fighter was going to be and wisely decided to do a T-33 first.  I am unaware of any turboprop projects in the works, then again they no doubt have a few projects going that no one knows outside of A2A knows about.  

 

The T-33 will give them valuable data and experience and hopefully lead to other turbine projects.  Think of accusim like a pilot, itself learning and gaining experience as it goes, starting from the simple, then moving on to more complex.  

 

The Aerosoft Porter looks awesome.  They do very good turbine modelling, I quite enjoy the Aerosoft OV-10 and Twin Otter.  Their F-14 is a blast too, but it keeps you on your toes for sure...it will scare you with compressor stalls lol.   Aerosoft  and RealAir always have a nice balance between checklist/systems type flying and fun goof off flying.

 

Not that you can't goof off in an accusimmed plane lol, you sure can....for fun, sometimes I fly the P-40 like a bush plane and land at short grass strips....the 'consequence' is that I deal with a lot of worn out brakes and occasional bent prop LOL

 

The problem with Accusim is that the more complex it gets, the more realworld research data it requires, which in most cases requires a real world flying example for A2A to test fly.  GA planes like Cessnas and Pipers are relatively common and have easier access.  But more complex aircraft like turbines, warbirds and such are harder to access, and if you can access them, cost a lot more to hire for research.  

 

If you owned a vintage warbird, you would probably be a little cautious letting someone fly it for research purposes because that involves flying the plane near its design limits lol.

 

Cheers

TJ

Deep down, if I had only one aircraft to take with me in the proverbial desert island, I wonder if that wouldn't be the P40. This challenging aircraft is a ton of fun to fly and, indeed specially from/to the short unpaved strips of PNG or the Solomons !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took my first flight in the Comanche this morning.  Nice airplane.  It won't replace the Kodiak, but will be well used.


 


Later I might look into the Cherokee.  I've flown every Cherokee model expect the Cherokee Six so I should feel right at home.


 


Noel


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but the A2A turboprop project had something to do with a turboprop trainer for Air Force pilots, or some such?  A T-6 maybe?  Which one would that be?  Sorry my memory is so sketchy.  I think several of us here are looking forward to that Aerosoft Porter.

 

Edit to add:  Yeah, it's the T-6 Texan trainer.  8)

I had in mind it was the North American Texan not the Beech Texan 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the T-6 they are doing is the vintage radial engine North American variety, which should be an absolute blast when it is released.  lol talk about a great training airplane, it was reportedly more difficult to land than a P-51, which was intentional.  If you can master a T-6, you should be able to handle practically any tailwheel airplane :)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 it was reportedly more difficult to land than a P-51, which was intentional.  If you can master a T-6, you should be able to handle practically any tailwheel airplane :)

 

Sweet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tendency in FSX is to come in high and hot then throw out the gear and flaps to slow down.  If you do that in the Comanche you will blow the flaps off.  I blew off the right flap and spun in.  You can turn the damage off and fly it like the usual FSX plane, but its more fun to do your best to fly it right and suffer the consequences if you screw up.  You don't have to do the walk around but if you leave damage on and don't do the walk around you will eventually be sorry.


 


The instruments will vibrate until you get the rpm, mp, and mixture correct.  When you do the run up it will surge and buck, and creep forward on the parking brakes like it can't wait to get in the air.   If you leave it in full rich on the ground the plugs will foul.  You have to lean it as you climb.  You could check automixture but whats the point? 


 


Some people would consider the above negatives.  But its just that you have to handle it like a real airplane, and it flys like a dream.  Its fast with long range for a GA aircraft and climbs like a bat out of hell.  Its probably as close as you can get in FSX to a simulation of a real airplane.  The sim is modeled on an actual 1959 Comanche owned by the A2A honcho. Its a beautiful airplane, a real classic.  In short, there is no equivalent in the FSX world.  When you match it with ORBX scenery, its really a great experience and the most fun you can have in FSX .


  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had in mind it was the North American Texan not the Beech Texan 2.

Then I'm confused.  ???  I thought it was the Beech Texan.  Will take a trip over to A2A's site after lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...