T-6 Texan

[andremsmv]

Right now, the default planes in DCS World are the Su-25T and the TF-51D Mustang. I'm not a huge fan of jets and have not flown the Su-25T very much, but I did fly the TF-51D a lot before buying the P-51D. To be honest, the TF-51D is just a boring default plane. At least the Su-25T is unique, but the TF-51D is pretty much just a lighter version of the P-51D without guns. Knowing that the P-51D would be the first plane I buy, I was a little disappointed that I would only really fly one airplane for a very long time until I decide to buy and learn how to fly another plane.

 

My wish is that the TF-51D be replaced by the T-6 Texan as a default plane for DCS World. It is easier to fly, and serves as a great introduction to this simulator.

 

Now you may be asking, "Why in the world would ED spend tons of time and money developing this free plane when we already have two perfectly good default planes?"

Well first off, removing the TF-51D as a default plane means that ED could raise the price of the P-51D to maybe $40 or so, since it will no longer simply be a sophisticated version of a plane that already comes with the game.

Secondly, and maybe most importantly, the Texan will most likely have people wanting more. With a top speed of no more than about 210 mph, pilots will be thirsting for more. With the T-6 Texan as a default plane, people will happily spend money not only to just fly into combat, but simply to have the opportunity to fly the legendary war birds themselves. I think the Su-25T does a good job of making pilots say "oh come on, I want to fly a real jet," but the TF-51D is as real as a prop plane gets. I speak from personal experience when I say that many people are more than happy with a free-to-play 99% accurate simulator offline with a huge, highly detailed map to go with it (I played DCS World for about a year before I bought my first module). Right now, the only reason people buy war birds in this game is to fly them in combat, but with the addition of the Texan, several people will be more than happy to dish out a few bucks to buy a war bird simply for the joy of flying it.

 

My point is that not only would the addition of the T-6 Texan be super cool, but could also generate more money for Eagle Dynamics.

Edited October 21, 2017 by andremsmv

[Magic Zach]

If I may add something, I know a LOT (and I'm talking a least 2/3 the people I know) that don't do combat in props, and will not buy the P-51D because they already have a TF-51D. When I ask them why they don't have the P-51D, they all say the same thing: "The TF-51 is basically just a Mustang without guns."

Being that the TF-51 and the P-51 perform the same (relatively) people don't even feel compelled to buy a Mustang, because for what they want to do, they already have one for free!

Making newcomers feel that they're limited compared to what everyone else has got will make them feel like they need to buy something. This is what a lot of games today will do.

[Dudikoff]

Right now, the only reason people buy war birds in this game is to fly them in combat, but with the addition of the Texan, several people will be more than happy to dish out a few bucks to buy a war bird simply for the joy of flying it.

 

Say what? :)

 

Are you suggesting that ED should develop a whole new DCS module (that some people would pay to have) and then give it away for free instead of the TF-51 (which as a variant of an existing payware module didn't cost them much) with the sole intent that it would be so boring for the newcomers to fly that they would run to buy new modules? Why T-6 Texan then and not a Cessna? Sounds like you just want the T-6 for free.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dudikoff

[andremsmv]

Say what? :)

 

Are you suggesting that ED should develop a whole new DCS module (that some people would pay to have) and then give it away for free instead of the TF-51 (which as a variant of an existing payware module didn't cost them much) with the sole intent that it would be so boring for the newcomers to fly that they would run to buy new modules? Why T-6 Texan then and not a Cessna? Sounds like you just want the T-6 for free.

 

To answer your question, yes that is pretty much what I am saying. Assuming ED does develop a Texan, they may make some more money initially by selling it for a small price, but in the long run it wouldn't be as profitable as if they replaced it with the TF-51D. People who already have WWII modules would almost certainly not buy it since it would not really be effective in combat, and people who don't have WWII modules would rather buy a real war bird instead. Like I said above, the Texan will serve as a plane that will dip pilot's toes into the flying WWII machines, the way the Su25T does with jets.

 

Also, a Texan makes much more sense than a Cessna because it's a combat simulator. And no, I don't just want the Texan for free. If this were to happen I would fly it a few times and say "yeah the Mustang is way cooler." I honestly think that replacing the TF-51D with a Texan would serve in ED's best interest by encouraging people to buy their modules for purposes other than just combat.

[Evoman]

I am not so sure about the Texan being an ideal starter plane. One of my other hobbies is flying RC airplanes. I have a friend that was interested in the Texan just because he liked how it looked and it came in yellow which is his favorite color. So I did some research and read several reviews of the available electric foam T-6's on market and all of them mentioned they will snap spin at low airspeed with no warning. In my opinion the T-28 Trojan is a better prop trainer that is very forgiven. I personally own a Dynam T-28 and it is one of the best RC planes I currently fly. Even when I first started flying it and it was not well balanced I was able to land it without incident.

 

Check out these videos of an electric and gas RC T-6 Texans both crashing for the same reason, snap spin.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Evoman

[Slazi]

Terrible idea.

 

Removing an existing free airframe would anger all the people who enjoy it.

 

ED have far better things to work on.

[probad]

i got nothing against the t-6, but this proposal is just self-serving reasoning

[andremsmv]

i got nothing against the t-6, but this proposal is just self-serving reasoning

 

Why would I want a Texan when I already have two WWII planes and will likely get the rest before the year ends (which would be well before ED would even think about developing a Texan). I thought I explained pretty reasonably why this could work out in ED's best interest

 

It seems that you haven't even read the post.

[Gladman]

I'll take a Texan 2. :)

[andremsmv]

I am not so sure about the Texan being an ideal starter plane. One of my other hobbies is flying RC airplanes. I have a friend that was interested in the Texan just because he liked how it looked and it came in yellow which is his favorite color. So I did some research and read several reviews of the available electric foam T-6's on market and all of them mentioned they will snap spin at low airspeed with no warning. In my opinion the T-28 Trojan is a better prop trainer that is very forgiven. I personally own a Dynam T-28 and it is one of the best RC planes I currently fly. Even when I first started flying it and it was not well balanced I was able to land it without incident.

 

Check out these videos of an electric and gas RC T-6 Texans both crashing for the same reason, snap spin.

 

 

 

That might just be the problem with war birds in general. They tend to be a little more unstable than civilian or commercial planes. Every other war bird stalls when taking a turn too tight as well.

[Steve_]

I am not so sure about the Texan being an ideal starter plane.

 

I mean... it was THE "starter plane" It does have a few interesting quirks but all warbirds do. I'd love to see a T-6/Harvard done by ED or a 3rd party but I can't see it ever happening. People cry about jet trainers, imagine if we had a prop trainer..

Edited November 11, 2017 by Steve_

[andremsmv]

I am sorry but RC aircraft can't be compared to real aircraft.

 

I've logged flight time in a T-6, because I was pursuing a P-51 type rating some years back (ironically). It was not the fastest, but very stable and great at aerobatic maneuvers. I did not find it difficult or unforgiving at all to fly. To be quite frank, I found it easier to fly than a Cessna 172, so take what you will from that. The most trouble I had, was due to the fact that it's a tail dragger and I had no prior experience in one.

 

What is nice about the T-6, is that it doesn't have some of the nastier quirks that can pop up in the P-51 and you don't have to be "on top of the plane" as much.

 

Since it's an aircraft I've actually flown, I'm partial to having it in DCS, but not in the way the OP suggested.

 

If it were up to you, how would it be implemented in DCS? Surely it can't be sold because it isn't a real combat plane and cannot compete with anything in DCS.

[jamespejam]

I think the T-6 would be a strong addition to the DCS, coming along with the Yak-52, hopefully with a nice sound package that could match the original beast and it would have my money:D

[Stratos]

Would love a Texan, specially If we can arm it and use it as a Mosquito FAC.

[Burning Bridges]

What a wonderful plane!

 

 

I would love the Texan and it makes a lot more sense flying on let's say Nevada. But on the other hand we have the Yak, which is the ideal beginner plane.

 

 

 

By your logic it is the Yak that should be the free module but then you'd have people who have been convinced to offer their professionally developed module to gamers which was a great move and they would never agree.

 

 

 

To give away modules for free you first need the module and second you need to offer compensation to the creator, and this could be from half a million $ to several million. Who is going to pay for that?

 

 

The only way out I see is the development of planes on sort of "open source" basis, perhaps this will be possible in the future but again, if it threatens the future of ED and DCS it's not likely to be considered.

[Andrew8604]

I like the idea of the T-6 as a "tail dragger" trainer that might be a little less frustrating to learn than the "what the hell just happened? This plane sucks!" reaction to not knowing how to fly the P-51, Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190, P-47, P-40, F4U, etc.

 

 

But, I like the idea of the Fairchild PT-19 better. Much simpler systems...just pure learning to fly a tail dragger.

The PT-19 is used in this 1943 training video, "Combat Aerobatics" --

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I'd gladly pay a full T-6 module, not sure about the free module would change.

 

 

S!

[Stratos]

It was the trainer plane for allied forces in WW2, it trained thousands of pilots during and after the war, it should be in DCS, specially considering it can serve as a FAC for Korean war, light attack plane for Cold War conflicts like Algerian war or varied insurgence wars, etc.