Aeroclub looking for flight simulator suitable for Recreational training

[409tonner]

Our Aeroclub is looking to purchase a flight simulator suitable for flying training for RAaus and light GA mainly to build confidence on approaches ,radio calls etc . It does not necessarily have to be able to qualify for log book time. Is there anyone that has any experience or knowledge on this . Any advice would be appreciated thanks

[mnewbery]

The first and most relevant answer is "YouTube". I am writing this actually on my flight simulator hardware. A friend is going through this right now at his house and the options are dizzying. He wanted a helicopter simulator to which I replied ok sure which one and why? He said he didn't know.

Questions you need answers for:

1. Budget budget budget budget

2. Space - how much have you got to play in and where is it - and does it need to be permanent or moveable?

3. Make a list of training outcomes and prioritise them. After beginning the build, do not change the list or the order

4. Decide if the three items above are mutually compatible

 

Once these items are sorted, you can propose a range of solutions to the club and work from there.

 

I bought a lot of my simulator parts used and opportunistically but it was still relatively expensive. I think I have saved about what it cost me in dual training.

 

My most recent "study"  was 40 forced landings from various points in the circuit with a 9 knot cross wind. Because the simulator didn't display the view out the side window very well, it wasn't the best solution. I focused on procedures. I always focus on procedures because that is what this simulator is good for. I am not super happy with aspects of the flight model but for what it cost me I am willing to deal with it. One thing that the yoke has done is force me to be very smooth precise on the control inputs.

 

I use a Saitek yoke. Its basically a crap bit of plastic but it fits in a drawer when I am not using it which could be months in a row.  

 

The flight model I used was a PA28-161.  It doesn't fly notably well but the cockpit is correctly rendered.

 

I would prefer a precision flight controls (PFC) yoke but the training outcome differences aren't worth the cost for me.

 

A head tracker works well but three 50 inch screens work a lot better. Unfortunately, as a general rule the cost of the simulator doubles when going from one screen to three. This is because of the needed rendering power in the graphics processor(s). This in turn places a bigger demand on the flow of bytes through the computer, which increases the power demand and so-on.

 

Before settling on a particular flavour of simulation software, see if you can try them all and decide which one meets the need. The deal breaker might be that the flight model yo are looking for isn't supported by that platform, or the model is crap.

 

Books to look at

 

"Exercises for Flight Simulator X" by Tarik Merryface 

"Flight Simulation for Beginners: A Guide to Get You Started" by Gabriel Accascina

 

Which cockpits are procedures are you trying to model?

[Yenn]

There was a very good looking one at the last SAAA fly in at Narromine, about two years ago. Can't remember the brand name/

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, mnewbery said:

Questions you need answers for:

1. Budget budget budget budget

What is the complete list of hardware required for a simple, but practical simulator for 409tonner's needs?

[mnewbery]

A laptop running Windows 10 with at least 16Gb of RAM
A three axis joystick like a Thrustmaster Extreme 3D pro
Flight gear 2020 simulation software

Or you can use Flight Gear 1.9 and a 4Gb RAM laptop running Windows XP then only use the keyboard for controls

 

Neither is particularly good for any training outcome unless its "training to install a flight simulator"

 

 

[mnewbery]

https://gofly.online/flight-training/

[Garfly]

I imagine that a sim set-up capable of proper aeroplane 'feel' and omnidirectional viewing would be very pricey - mainly for the hardware interfaces needed to make it happen.

 

But I don't agree that a more basic set up (say, a capable gaming computer a good monitor, or two, and a high-end joystick - possibly pedals - plus software) would be useless.  It depends what'd be expected of it and how it'd get used.

 

For example, I wouldn't try to use a basic one for circuit training because, in my experience, it's too hard to reproduce having your head on a swivel as one does in real life.  But if you were willing to work on the 'confidence on approaches' issue (see OP) using mainly straight-ins then I think the sim can do wonders for 'getting' the right sight picture of the runway and a sense for the inter-relationship of power/speed/attitude on final. (Even without the bodily 'feel' to go with it.) And, you get to replay each of your attempts from every conceivable angle, over and over.

 

Again, on a basic set up I'd probably not even bother with cross-wind landings. The hardware's realism wouldn't be up to it (though the software's would be); leave that one for the real world or a fancy simulator.  On the other hand you can, for example, learn a lot about Performance issues by choosing a low and a high altitude runway and then play with the temperature; compare the take-off distance at Moorabin and Mt.Hotham at zero degrees and at 40. Of course, there are any number of other things that even a basic sim can do to develop one's aeronautical thinking.

 

And for nav training they can be real usseful, given how accurate the virtual earth's form has become. And you can add your own WX - or take real time or random.  You can plan using your whiz wheel and then watch those abstract wind-triangles manifest in virtual reality. 

 

But maybe the best uses of a flight-sim these days is to teach (oneself?) the finer points of EFB use.  X-Plane, for example, can be set up to display your virtual flight in OzRunways exactly as if it was a real one. Or, to put it the other way, you can plan a flight in the EFB and then go fly it in the virtual world where you will find all the mountains and airstrips and lakes (and times and distances) you'd expect to see in the boring old real one. And since fuel is free you can always choose the Cirrus Jet rather than the C172 to speed things up.  And as far as running through all the necessary enroute cross-checks, radio calls, frequency changes etc, which is what the OP seems to have in mind, I think even a basic set up can be turned to good (self) teaching use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Garfly

[Roundsounds]

A static procedural trainer would be of value, this is a mock up of the cockpit of training aircraft and can be constructed for a few hundred dollars. The use is limited to learning procedures such as engine start, pre takeoff, engine failures etc. Radio calls can also practiced by setting up scenarios in something like a hangar with local features / airfield drawn on the floor with chalk. 
Unless you’ve got a budget of a couple of hundred thousand dollars flight simulators are of little value in initial training.

I have worked full time in simulator training for the past 20 years, I have found basic procedures training is far more effective in static training devices.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Roundsounds

[Garfly]

Some earlier ideas: