The A2A Comanche: Built with Accu-Sim Released 7/18

[zetar]

Too expansive for this aircraft... without GPS & A.P. !

[Bomber_12th]

Too expansive for this aircraft... without GPS & A.P. !

I don't mean to sound snarky, but what product description did you read? The A2A MSFS Comanche has several GPS options (customizable integration of MSFS default/Working Title GNS 430W and 530W GPS units, as well as the PMS GTN 750 and TDS GTN 750Xi GPS units if you have those installed), and it has an advanced simulation of the S-TEC System 30 two-axis autopilot. Also, when you consider the cost, consider the fact that this has been in development for 3 years, with many thousands of hours required to make a flight sim aircraft to this level. If you take the time to look through all of the unique features this product has, it's easy to see why it took that long and why it is reasonably a bit more spendy than most addons.

[DennyA]

Well worth every penny.

I'm typically price-sensitive. I want the JF 146 and F28, but I just can't justify that kind of money for planes I'll only fly occasionally

But the A2A Comanche 250 justifies the higher cost:
* Complete custom flight model that feels a level above anything in MSFS/X-Plane
* Custom sound engine that actually generates realistic audio rather than looping samples
* Many unique custom instruments that aren't found on other MSFS planes and are custom-coded for the 250
* Built by a passionate creator who's been doing this for 25 years and actually owns and flies the actual aircraft, so you it's authentic to his experience

I've skipped a lot of interesting GA aircraft such as the Maule because I couldn't justify prices that were lower than the Comanche. But if you want to fly a classic GA plane, it delivers all the value for the money.

[Bomber_12th]

Some things in addition to the above:

- For every part of the engine, inside and out, there is a detailed custom-coded system at work - each an individual simulation in itself of the real part. Each part of the engine/system will age with time and be affected by how much care or lack of care you give it. The same applies for the entire fuel system and oil system. And all of these systems are directly affected by your environment/atmospheric conditions as well. All of this advanced systems wear & tear/management can also easily be turned off.

- From the tablet, you can select "persistent cockpit", meaning that the exact way in which you last left the aircraft will remain that way the very next time you load it up - you leave a vent open and it will still be open, you leave the elevator trim as it was after landing and it will still be that way if you didn't adjust it, and so on...

- When you access the in-cockpit tablet, you can select whether the aircraft is factory new, used, or if you just bought it at an auction (used, but gone through). In each case, you're going to have a different experience when it comes to the visuals, systems and flight characteristics (I started with used, and found that I had to do some work on it in the shop for a while before it's engine was in good nick).

- If you have to do maintenance on the landing gear system, you can put the aircraft up on jacks and test the gear. If you want to push the aircraft in/out of a hangar, or around the tarmac, you can use the tow-bar feature.

- From the tablet, there are nearly a dozen different exterior airframe parts you can add/remove, which not only changes the visual model but also affects the flight model.

- There is subtle/realistic wing flex, which changes with how much load you put on the wings (g-force, wing tip tanks/fuel, etc.), and sometimes sounds you'll hear as a result too.

- In the cockpit, you can click to plug-in the headset, so that there is an accurate muting of all sounds but the ATC, as if you were wearing the headset. On the headset chord itself, you can click to activate the noise-cancellation, and everything but your ATC communications will be muted even further.

- Airframe vibration, which is created through an advanced simulation all of its own, will cause items like the instrument panel, sun shades and door handle to vibrate (it even seems some of those items will shake more/become more lose when there is more age on the aircraft). This vibration will result from such things as a rough-running engine, turbulence, a rough landing, etc.

- With all of this being involved with this addon, each person will end up having their own unique aircraft and own unique experience operating it.

(...and as I mentioned in my previous post, yes, there is GPS and autopilot.)

[Fnerg]

...and, the price is cheaper than the real thing.

[jmig]

Some things in addition to the above:

- For every part of the engine, inside and out, there is a detailed custom-coded system at work - each an individual simulation in itself of the real part. Each part of the engine/system will age with time and be affected by how much care or lack of care you give it. The same applies for the entire fuel system and oil system. And all of these systems are directly affected by your environment/atmospheric conditions as well. All of this advanced systems wear & tear/management can also easily be turned off.

- From the tablet, you can select "persistent cockpit", meaning that the exact way in which you last left the aircraft will remain that way the very next time you load it up - you leave a vent open and it will still be open, you leave the elevator trim as it was after landing and it will still be that way if you didn't adjust it, and so on...

- When you access the in-cockpit tablet, you can select whether the aircraft is factory new, used, or if you just bought it at an auction (used, but gone through). In each case, you're going to have a different experience when it comes to the visuals, systems and flight characteristics (I started with used, and found that I had to do some work on it in the shop for a while before it's engine was in good nick).

- If you have to do maintenance on the landing gear system, you can put the aircraft up on jacks and test the gear. If you want to push the aircraft in/out of a hangar, or around the tarmac, you can use the tow-bar feature.

- From the tablet, there are nearly a dozen different exterior airframe parts you can add/remove, which not only changes the visual model but also affects the flight model.

- There is subtle/realistic wing flex, which changes with how much load you put on the wings (g-force, wing tip tanks/fuel, etc.), and sometimes sounds you'll hear as a result too.

- In the cockpit, you can click to plug-in the headset, so that there is an accurate muting of all sounds but the ATC, as if you were wearing the headset. On the headset chord itself, you can click to activate the noise-cancellation, and everything but your ATC communications will be muted even further.

- Airframe vibration, which is created through an advanced simulation all of its own, will cause items like the instrument panel, sun shades and door handle to vibrate (it even seems some of those items will shake more/become more lose when there is more age on the aircraft). This vibration will result from such things as a rough-running engine, turbulence, a rough landing, etc.

- With all of this being involved with this addon, each person will end up having their own unique aircraft and own unique experience operating it.

(...and as I mentioned in my previous post, yes, there is GPS and autopilot.)

John, you obviously enjoy and believe the A2A Comanche is worth the $55.00. Your bullet points show a highly detailed and fully functional airplane. However, I don’t plan on buying it. I agree with Zetar that it is too expensive.

Let me preference what I am going to say by stating that I owned the P3D version of the Comanche. Many years ago, when I was looking into purchasing an airplane for my business, I considered buying a Comanche 250. So, when the P3D version came out I bought it and flew it around several times. I then hangered it.

It wasn’t because it didn’t fly well or was too complicated. No, I didn’t and still don’t care for all the complexity of the wear and tear and/or failures. When I get into my cockpit to fly a MSFS or DCS airplane, I know I am pretending. I am flying not for profit or need but for enjoyment. I want to get in, put my VR headset on, start up, maybe load a flight plan in the GPS, or a VOR frequency in the Nav radio and go pretend flying.

I do not need or want most of the bullet points you listed. I do not need to do a walk-around. I did them in real life because I didn’t want to die if something was amiss, and I ignored it. To me, doing a walk around inspection in MSFS is like putting on a flight suit before flying a F-16 in DCS. Totally unnecessary.

There are features and benefits. Features are what the developer offers. In the Comanche, A2A offers a lot of features. Benefits are what the buyer values as important or wanted. As a consumer I personally don’t see a lot of benefit in most of the features. I especially don’t want to see failures.

In roughly 2300 hours of flying time in the USAF. I shelled an engine on take off requiring an emergency landing and taking the barrier. That was one of three times I had to take the barrier. For those who don’t know what a “barrier” is, think a Navy landing. There was a cable strung across the runway with huge chains attached to it. We came in with the hook down, landed short of the cable and hoped the hook caught it. The chains provided enough drag to slow down and stop the airplane. It was only done for an emergency. On one such landing, I had a serious emergency that required an immediate heavy weight landing. The computed touch down speed was over 200 kts. At that speed there was a real possibility of the cable breaking and sending us off the runway. Fortunately, it held, and we stopped on the runway.

Later in GA flying, I lost a magneto while flying a non IFR rated Cessna on top a solid cloud deck. With the help of ATC and a VOR I was able to let down through the cloud deck until I was below the clouds and land. I do not want simulated emergencies. I know what a real emergency is, and it is no fun.

I want to fly and enjoy the airplane. I want systems that are realistic. But, I want them to work and not fail.

I have been flying and enjoying the Black Square Bonanza and Baron. I like the looks of the Bonanza more than the Comanche. I prefer the Beech’s panel layout and avionics package better. I know it has failures too. The first time I get one, I am turning them off.

I am not trying to belittle A2A or the Comanche. It is just not my cup of tea. Just like I didn’t think the Just Flight F-28 was worth the price, so to the Comanche.

Now, when the SWS PC-12 comes out, I will buy it regardless of its price. If I still had my medical and needed an airplane, that is the airplane I would buy. I twice got to fly in one while in Alaska. Sat in the copilot’s seat and was in heaven. What a sweet airplane.

If it comes with failures, I will turn them off too!

[Bomber_12th]

The A2A Comanche costs $50 USD, which to me did seem a bit much for an aircraft type that I've never had a deep interest in, though I also thought $50 was cheaper than what they were going to offer it at, imagining the amount of work that went into it. I paid $38, because I still had a lot of credits left over from past A2A purchases. I really don't want to sound like I'm trying to sell anyone on the product, I just want to clarify why it appeals to me, personally, and others that are enjoying it. You might not like a Piper Comanche, and that's totally fine (it's never been anywhere near the top of my interests in GA aircraft), but one can respect the amount of time, effort and perfectionist-level attention to detail that went into this product. Since purchasing it, I've been becoming more and more interested in the Comanche (both sim and real). Zetar made the assumption that there was no GPS or autopilot (which is incorrect), and then seemed to state that because not having those items it is too expensive while seeming to skip over everything else this product offers (or perhaps I just misunderstood his post). Just the all-new flight modeling/programming and sound modeling/programming is phenomenal-enough on its own to be worth a considerable amount of the purchase price, not to mention the visual model, textures, cockpit functionality, avionics, pax/luggage loading capabilities and dozens of other features that are not systems or failures-related. Obviously, though, if you don't have any interest in the Piper Comanche, none of that matters.

I would imagine, over the three years that this aircraft was under development, there were many thousands of man hours involved in creating it, much like the DCS aircraft (typically 8,000 man hours is about the minimum development time for those, according to the owner of Eagle Dynamics). What is that worth to the end user/buyer? Compare what the A2A Comanche is selling for vs. the DCS aircraft (the closest comparison than any other MSFS aircraft that I know of). On the other hand, I've thought the prices for the Black Square Bonanza and Baron a bit too steep for the amount of work that was done on those, but that's just me (I would like to have them, but not at their full retail prices).

For a lot of people, both the potential for random and user-induced system failures is what makes flying a sim aircraft like this interesting and worthwhile, knowing that everything you do matters and will keep mattering as you continue to build hours on the airframe. The longer you hangar it, and the longer you fly it, the more the airframe ages and wears and the more you have to tend to over time. I don't know about everyone else, but for me I get a heightened sense of responsibility for properly taking care of and managing the aircraft, and I gain a greater sense of accomplishment when I know I've done everything well and the plane is still in good shape when I park it, ready for the next flight (because it could very well be in a sorry state if I didn't make proper checks and operate it correctly). You do everything right and you could very well never experience any failures at all, or you could just happen to one day experience a random failure completely out of the blue (A2A is good at incorporating algorithms for just such a thing, with each part/system having a different level of potential for failure). Keep mistreating it, and you're going to accurately have one problem after another. I know in past Accusim products, if you skip over checking on certain things like trim tab hinges during your walk around, you're liable to eventually have a trim tab failure, whether that be a few hours, a few hundred hours or a few thousand hours later, which you could have seen and prevented ahead of time had you been making the proper pre-flight checks all along (and the same thing applied to checking landing gear, flaps, air intakes, oil quality and quantity, etc.). I also like the fact that, as just another example, if you bring the aircraft out on a really cold day, you're not going to be able to use the exact same start process to get the engine going as you would on a hot day, and the engine is also not going to operate the same in cold temps vs. hot temps (accurate items like that, you simply don't find simulated in most any other addons).

Me, personally, I'm interested in classic and vintage GA types and warbirds built before the 1960s, and I like the looks and the performance of the Piper Comanche (it feels very much like a prop-driven fighter, or an AT-6 with a nose gear). I'm not interested in modern military or civilian jets, or turboprops. So, for those types it doesn't matter how detailed or accurate they are; if they're much more than $10-15 I'm not likely to purchase them since they're likely not to be used more than a few times on my end. However, you won't see me going around to threads about those types of aircraft, having to make comments that they're of no interest to me or making complaints about the cost - I just simply won't buy them or comment about them, knowing full well that others see tremendous value in them that I don't. With this A2A Piper Comanche, and the recently-released FlyingIron Bf 109, I've been flying them a few times a day, so I'm getting quite a good return on my investment in both. In my case, a PC-12 doesn't appeal to me in the least, so even if one were to be released which was considered to be the most accurate, in-depth, detailed aircraft simulation ever made to-date, if it costs much more than $10-15 I wouldn't be buying, as I would likely not use it more than once or twice. Personally, some of my favorites are the old Waco cabin series biplanes, Boeing P-12/F4B, Stearman 75s, AT-6s, BT-13s, P-51B/Cs, P-38s, B-25Js, etc. - any of those, actually done really well, with care and attention to detail, with true-to-life visual models and textures, advanced flight modeling, sounds, systems, etc., like the A2A Comanche, I'd be over the moon, no matter how much they'd cost (within reason of course).

[heywooood]

This is an interesting heading for this topic to take. Everyone wants something different from their flight sim and the products they buy..or rather - there are categories of users.
I agree with the idea that, for some of us, It's ok to assume things like the checklists, walkarounds, and even engine warm up or an earlier flight was taken in the aircraft before I've decided to 'fly' it.
I like the idea of wear and tear and of random system failures, but prefer not to practice them myself. Just a preference and it is based on the general intention I have when I am flight simming that I
just want to fly without having to deal with a problem. Often times I am caught out on that by either an MSFS failure -sudden excessive and random stutters or lag - or by a bug in the aircraft I've selected that is
either new because of a Sim Update or one that I had forgotten about because I haven't flown that one in a while - the sudden reminder of why I hadn't flown it just thrust in my face is enough to make me shut down my PC
and go pull weeds or water the yard for an hour.
For some folks though I can understand the appeal. The model has been so carefully crafted and the features so thoroughly and expertly integrated into the sim that they are worthy of a standing ovation - such is A2A and Flying Iron and a few other developer's efforts.
The only reason I haven't bought the Comanche yet is the price. It isn't their 'fault' so much as it is my self-imposed condition. I just won't spend more than 30 bucks on an addon anymore - I can't keep up with the aircraft I really want without some kind of cap.
I hope A2A will continue to make addons for this and the 2024 version of MSFS - I just have to wait for a sale price or for them to make 'lite' versions of their aircraft.

[Dimus]

Although slightly OT, this is a nice discussion, showing how diverse the simming community is and how differently each one of us gets enjoyment from this hobby.

I was fortunate enough to make my childhood dream of flying a reality, although not as a profession but as a hobby when I managed to afford the PPL and the funds to keep it current since 2007. After that simming was more focused on flying stuff I could not fly in real life but included also testing routes and airports in my area that I would like to do in real life. This led me to scenery development as well.

I tend to relate to Jim not wishing to have failures while simming, especially when having faced real ones, which is not fun at all. The only failures I try some times in MSFS are forced landings. The default C-172 is very close to the ones I fly and the areas in MSFS so close to reality that one can test scenarios much easier than in real life.

Having said all that I will probably get the Comanche very soon as it seems to be a masterpiece worth having, regardless of the time I end up flying it. I had it in P3D and I remember that it ended up being my go-to GA plane, even if I did not use many of its extra features.

[Bushpounder]

Wish he had owned an Aztec! I'd like to see one done to this level.

Don BP

[Mr.Mugel]

I am not the biggest fan of the real Comanche aircraft, but as soon as I have the money, I will buy it. Even if only to support the development of such aircraft with this depth of systems and simulation. For anyone who is not into that I completely understand that the pricetag is quite steep. And that is where choice comes in handy.

Very happy to see that A2A has finally arrived in MSFS. Looking forward very much to what they come up with. I am with John on this one, something like a T-6 or Stearman in this level would be great at some point. I did enjoy the P3D T-6 a lot! I'd also love some warbirds in this flavor, but I think that is getting difficult to realize. Anyway, FlyingIron seems to cover this pretty good by now.

[katonic]

To offer a slightly different perspective - I love the push in the throttle and head for the stratosphere escapism that a sim can offer me. But I'm also a lapsed GA pilot and the A2A GA products offer a sense of immersion that I don't really get otherwise. While it will never be the same as real-world flying I find that the wear-and-tear options, walkarounds, etc help me knock some of the rust off of the mental processes necessary to stay safe. I know the simulated airplane and weather will be different each day and there are consequences to a lack of attention and focus. The limits and consequences help me think and stay ahead of the simulated airplane. It's not what I want every time I start up MSFS but I feel it does help me personally avoid a few bad habits.

Chris

[dvj]

I may have to perform a reinstall but this aircraft is unflyable. Gets out of control quickly and just spinns around and around in the air at about 500 ft with no control. ??? Then the engine suddenly over revs on its own and the aircraft drops like a rock. When starting from the runway, there are what appears to be 5 flight deck guys standing round the aircraft that begin slowly scooting away. I don't understand what's happening.

Who are these 5 guys?

[mgr]

I may have to perform a reinstall but this aircraft is unflyable. Gets out of control quickly and just spinns around and around in the air at about 500 ft with no control. ??? Then the engine suddenly over revs on its own and the aircraft drops like a rock. When starting from the runway, there are what appears to be 5 flight deck guys standing round the aircraft that begin slowly scooting away. I don't understand what's happening.
Who are these 5 guys?

Seems to be a conflicting addon? Those are carrier-crew, not in the default MSFS?

Is this your post, or another with the same problem: https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=74847

Do you have this addon? -> https://msfs.touching.cloud/mods/ka-10m-hat/ (seems to be problem)

[Tim-HH]

What an excellent aircraft! I've just uploaded my first repaint for it: flightsim.to

[dvj]

Seems to be a conflicting addon? Those are carrier-crew, not in the default MSFS?

Is this your post, or another with the same problem: https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=74847

Do you have this addon? -> https://msfs.touching.cloud/mods/ka-10m-hat/ (seems to be problem)

Yes the issue may be related to the KA 10m Hat which I have, but the five guys only appear with the Comanche, no other aircraft. This implies that something in the Comanche coding is picking up the conflicting addon. We should not have to delete the Hat.

Uninstalling and reinstalling fixed the odd flight behaviors, but now the interior audio for the engine is missing although all of the environmentals like wind noise are present. Given this is A2A's first foray into MSFS, bugs are to be expected.

[Tom Clayton]

When I get into my cockpit to fly a MSFS or DCS airplane, I know I am pretending...

There are features and benefits. Features are what the developer offers. In the Comanche, A2A offers a lot of features. Benefits are what the buyer values as important or wanted. As a consumer I personally don’t see a lot of benefit in most of the features. I especially don’t want to see failures.

Shout it louder for the people in the back!!!

I recently bought the Tecnam P2006T for more money than I really wanted to spend, but only because it's such a unique aircraft. I'm happy I bought it and I love flying something that's closer to what I'd fly in the real world. The beauty and handling are the "benefits" of the purchase. But on the other hand, flying it in Easy Mode means that I'm not using several of the "features" I paid for. So it came down to making a decision of cost vs. benefit, and the benefits won the day. I'm glad I bought the Tecnam, but there are too many other planes in the Comanche's class that cost less. I congratulate A2A for such a brilliant release, but I'll respectfully pass on this one.

[Whitehawk]

Best GA simulation bar-none. Although to be expected from A2A - the attention to detail is magnificent. The feel of flying it, and looking after the systems, is the closest to reality I've seen in any sim.

I teach in C-152/162/172/182 PA28 for a living, and while jumping into a sim and going is fun, this thing triggers a different mindset - I find myself doing it properly without thinking because it feels like I should, and that's fun. For me it's the joy of flying a high-performance GA cruiser accurately to explore an epic environment.

Of course I hear those that aren't into such features, that's your call and very justified in making it - there's a plethora of awesome addons that tick the fire-up and fly box, which is the nice thing about our sims. Options for everyone.

[Wing_Z]

Yes MSFS is bigger than anyone can use ...

I teach in C-152/162/172/182 PA28 for a living

Matter of interest: these are 70-year old aircraft, the Jaguar Mk1 is the same vintage.
Are they seen as "Vintage", and what's their expected life?

[jmig]

Best GA simulation bar-none. Although to be expected from A2A - the attention to detail is magnificent. The feel of flying it, and looking after the systems, is the closest to reality I've seen in any sim.

I teach in C-152/162/172/182 PA28 for a living, and while jumping into a sim and going is fun, this thing triggers a different mindset - I find myself doing it properly without thinking because it feels like I should, and that's fun. For me it's the joy of flying a high-performance GA cruiser accurately to explore an epic environment.

Of course I hear those that aren't into such features, that's your call and very justified in making it - there's a plethora of awesome addons that tick the fire-up and fly box, which is the nice thing about our sims. Options for everyone.

I have never heard of a C-162. Is that the "Lite" division aircraft they came out with some 10-20 years ago? If I remember correctly, you only needed a drivers license and mo medical?

[azflyboy]

The C-162 was Cessna trying to move into the light sport market, since they thought they could recapture the popularity of the 152 under LSA rules.

It ended up being significantly more expensive than Cessna originally promised (about $150k versus 100k), was severely performance and payload limited, and as a result, sales were pretty bad.

Cessna produced the 162 from 2009-13, and only built about 275 before killing the program off.

[Whitehawk]

Yes MSFS is bigger than anyone can use ...


Matter of interest: these are 70-year old aircraft, the Jaguar Mk1 is the same vintage.
Are they seen as "Vintage", and what's their expected life?[/COLOR]

Cheers for the interest guys, yeah our 152 is a little long in the tooth at 44 years young, but she's having some spar work done and I expect to be teaching aerobatics again in a few weeks! Archer is 2000 model, the 172s are S models from 2005 so quite new, there's a reason they are the most produced aeroplane in the world and still rolling off the line, I call them the toyota corolla of the skies - they don't excel at anything, but they have no real shortcomings - hitting average in every category in aviation is practically unheard of :-)

Now the poor little 162 on the other hand, that was always gonna be a painful existence.. They tried to do too much with it, make a 152-killer with the known and trusted Cessna values of aluminium skin-on-frame, little continental up the front etc. while also shoe-horning it into the LSA category. Result, the same useable load issues as the 152, traumahawk and our old Grumman AA-1C (loved those things!) 205kg useful in the modern world doesn't go as far as it used too.. Plus expensive as azflyboy points out, and whipping production off to China cost them some sales. Add to that poor factory corrosion proofing, doors that destroyed themselves if they came open in flight (cue a mandatory secondary door latch) and root ribs getting doublers at Cessna's expense due to bolt hole wearing, it failed from the get-go. Which is a shame, as it had some promise. If they'd doubled-down on LSA with some composites and a Rotax, the useful load would have been better (and maybe spring for some sound-proofing????), or stuff the LSA market and make a real 152-killer. Either would have been better.. I've mixed feelings at 830 hours on type, they're ok to fly, good to puddle about with for lower hourly rates than the four-seaters, but are challenging to fly well unless you have a smooth hand, tiring to flying for a long time, and tedious to teach in due to thin seat cushions, noisy, twitchy controls, and refuelling every flight.

Don't know about the Sport licenses in the States, in NZ we have the DL9, it's a commercial driver medical with Passenger endorsement, as an alternative standard to the CAA Class 2 medical for the Private license. For a short time we had a Recreational Pilot License on that medical, which was so much of a waste of time that it got rolled back into the PPL. 162 can be registered as a microlight so it can be flown on our Advanced Microlight Certificate, they go to their general practice doctor to get a medical, similar to the DL9 but a different form, and not a drivers' medical.

Hope that waffle has been of interest, now I'm gonna go explore virtual Norway, which way to Tromso? :-)

[jankees]

I wonder if Jankees will get out his paint brush for this one?
T43

I will:
F-BLGY (0005) by JanKees Blom, on Flickr

EDH (0000) by JanKees Blom, on Flickr

fifi (0006) by JanKees Blom, on Flickr

[Twice43]

I will:
F-BLGY (0005) by JanKees Blom, on Flickr

EDH (0000) by JanKees Blom, on Flickr

fifi (0006) by JanKees Blom, on Flickr

Rubens has returned to the easel!
Nice work.
T43

[Maty12]

My own two cents here as someone who hasn't picked it up yet but plans on doing so, is that an add-on I can't damage isn't something I'd spend money on. Random failures I'm neutral on, but if my actions don't have consequences I don't really see much of a point in flying it, let alone buying it. I like doing things by the book and taking care of my virtual plane, and I find correcting after mistakes pretty exciting. There's just a sense of accomplishment there that I can't get with a plane that doesn't mind being at full throttle the whole time.

I don't care for GA planes in general, and honestly the fact that I'd consider buying this at all is already unique and speaks volumes of how much I value the features and realism that A2A provide in their Comanche.