MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
points for discussion:

1. IFR Flight
Today I visited a friend (and fellow pilot) who heard about our new
flight sim, and has set up MS Flight Sim 2004 (not the new version) to
serve as an advanced instrument flight trainer. He owns an Aerostar,
and has downloaded add-ons to the original program that precisely
recreate his panel equipment, as well as the flight model of the
Aerostar itself.

He has installed this on a very fast computer, with a very nice 22"
wide screen monitor. The results are quite amazing. I shot a full
approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS to Rwy 9 at
minimums. By the time I broke out, after flying the published
procedure, I was sweating! This thing was just plain as real as it
gets, and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
while) I was working my butt off.

He has it programmed to start with the aircraft out of trim, and with
variable crosswinds throughout the approach. It's diabolically
difficult, and authentic as hell. He says he uses it all the time to
maintain proficiency -- and I think it would be helpful for any pilot.


2. Formation Flying
He then showed me a scenario he has created with a second aircraft, the
task being to fly formation with it throughout the various phases of
flight. Again, the experience was as real as it could get, and quite
difficult. He has attended formation school, and says that this
program and scenario are dead on.

Inspired, I went back to the hotel, fired up our "Kiwi" (see it he
http://alexisparkinn.com/the_kiwi_is_born.htm ) and started downloading
various enhancements. First was an enhanced terrain mesh that brings
the detail down to 38 meters, nationwide. (This is double the detail
of the default program's terrain.) Then I added another program that
corrects and enhances bodies of water, roads, and lights, which are
often inadequately rendered in FS2004.

These two programs have allowed me to kick up the realism even higher,
to the point where I can quite literally taxi to my own hangar, or fly
through realistic mountain passes. Runway markings, wind socks,
rotating beacons, radar (if applicable) -- it's all there now, and with
a frame rate of over 55 frames per second (thanks to the new computer),
the flight model is absolutely seamless and realistic.

3. Emergency Procedures
I have downloaded the AOPA Cherokee Six sim model (which utilizes an
exact flight model replica of a Cherokee Six), and have been using it
(in lieu of a Pathfinder, which I haven't yet found on the net) to
practice emergency procedures.

Wow, what an amazing eye-opener THAT is. With full cockpit controls, a
photo-realistic panel (on a dedicated monitor), and butter-smooth
control response, it is possible to perfectly simulate engine-out
scenarios that you would NEVER be able to practice in your real
airplane.

Specifically, I've been practicing the dreaded "return to the airport
after engine failure" on takeoff, killing the engine completely at
various heights and in different wind conditions. The results are
truly stunning, and anyone who has flown this scenario will never, EVER
try to initiate the 180-degree-turn to land that has killed so many.
I'm here to tell you that it will result in a stall-spin scenario,
every time...

What's great is that you can actually turn the engine off -- something
you can never do in a real plane -- and it's astounding the difference
that makes. That idling engine is still making some power, and it's
enough to completely throw off your perception of flight.

Same goes with how far you THINK you can stretch your glide, with an
engine out. With the engine at flight idle, you can glide MUCH farther
than you can with the engine off -- and this is something that can only
be demonstrated in the sim.

4. Primary Flight Training
Here's where many pilots object, and I used to agree -- until we set up
the Kiwi. With the 104" projection of the world, a second monitor of
the panel, and authentic flight controls, I'm now prepared to say that
this thing is valuable for showing newbies what flying is all about.

I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.


I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
instrument procedures trainer.

Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide.

Careful ... those are fighting words in this newsgroup.

I shot a full approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS
to Rwy 9 at minimums.

I collapsed the nose gear landing at KCID just last night, after an
ILS approach to runway 27. The winds were incredibly gusty. I kept
getting pushed up and down as I landed. I touched down but a gust
picked me back up a few feet. I got down again, landing rather hard
on the main gear, but the nose gear hit a lot harder and collapsed.

Only a few days earlier, in similarly gusty weather, I lost all the
gear landing in fog at Logan International.

I'm beginning to wonder if all the East and Midwest have winds like
this all the time, or if I've just had bad luck with the weather, or
if there is some mystery setting in MSFS that I've accidentally turned
on that is creating unrealistic gusts of substantial strength. The
weather was otherwise clear with scattered clouds at around 2600 feet
last night, and a 9-knot wind from the west.

Maybe with practice I'll get better.

Specifically, I've been practicing the dreaded "return to the airport
after engine failure" on takeoff, killing the engine completely at
various heights and in different wind conditions. The results are
truly stunning, and anyone who has flown this scenario will never, EVER
try to initiate the 180-degree-turn to land that has killed so many.
I'm here to tell you that it will result in a stall-spin scenario,
every time...

I've tried engine failures on a number of occasions, although mostly
in the Baron. That and attempts with failures in a single-engine
plane have taught me that engine failures need to be avoided at all
costs. Particularly with just one engine, there's a good chance that
you won't make it, period. At least that what simulations have told
me.

4. Primary Flight Training

Now you are definitely training on dangerous ground.

I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
instrument procedures trainer.

Oh dear. But as long as I'm here to attract most of the fire, you'll
probably be moderately safe.

Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!

That's the worst part. You're not supposed to say it's fun.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.

What would it cost to duplicate the kiwi? How much gas could one buy for
that?

Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
"as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

Jon

Jay Honeck wrote:
This thing was just plain as real as it gets, and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
while) I was working my butt off.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1165207605.867323.172810@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
points for discussion:

1. IFR Flight

Here I have to agree with you. I found my sim time to be very valuable with
respect to Instrument training and currency. I think it's too easy to
"cheat" in real life because if you stop scanning for a moment, and the
plane starts drifting, you usually get "seat of the pants" cues to remind
you to keep up your scan. Even if the cues are the wrong direction, they
bring you out of your coma and get you back on your scan.

The simulator doesn't give you that, so if you stop your scan, it starts
drifting, and it becomes very clear that you and your plane have drifted
and demonstrates just how important it is to keep your scan going.

OTOH, I find the most disorienting part of IMC flight to be takeoff - I
believe that the same factors that cause left turning tendency also create
seat of the pants feelings that are innacurate and distracting. Combine
that with the fact that your most likely to be "out of practice" when you
first take off in IMC (as opposed to landing, when you've probably spent
some amount of time getting re-acquainted with your scan), and I think it's
easiest to get yourself into trouble on takeoff in IMC. I find that I have
to consciously make an effort to focus on my scan during takeoff in IMC,
and after the first time I found myself having trouble, I actually tell
myself outloud to stay on scan if I know I'm taking off into soup...

I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...

It's not a matter of logged or not... the reality is that MSFS on your
everyday home computer will cost you 50 bucks... (or 5 bucks if you buy
the previous one) and the overall introduction that you get to seeing
how the instruments work and trying things that you're told about from
your instructor at home can save you thousands on flight training.

Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.

Is it worth paying 5 bucks to a student who can take flight simulator
and see what they can do about flying approaches, especially DME arcs
etc on a sim, which they can pause and see whats going on, instead of
doing it cold turkey in an airplane the first time burning valuable
time and too busy doing the next thing before they grasp the last
thing? Yeah, the 5 bucks goes a long way.

What would it cost to duplicate the kiwi? How much gas could one buy for
that?

Good question. Since this is a prototype for the sim(s) we're planning
to build at the Iowa Children's Museum (Google for the Big Kids Toy
Show that I helped organize last spring, and you'll see why), I've been
trying to keep costs as rock-bottom as possible.

I haven't come to a final figure yet, but it really depends on how you
slice it. For example, the projection system was something we needed
for our meeting room. If that was something you bought for your home
theater, would you count it as part of the sim price? Same goes for
the computer -- if you've got one in your home now, should you count
*that* as part of the sim? And the stereo system?

I don't think so, for the purpose of this discussion.

So, if we eliminate those three (admittedly big) items, we're down to
the "fuselage", the flight controls, and the various extra cables
(which are NOT insignificant, BTW). The flight controls are around
$200. The fuselage...is anyone's guess. My A&P thinks he can build
one a day, when the time comes, so figure eight hours at his shop rate,
so call it $480. I scavenged the seat out of my Mustang, but any seat
will do, really, and I had the 12 volt power supply (for the electric
seat) sitting in my workshop for a decade. Figure an extra $100 for
cables, and various other stuff I'm not thinking about.

So, for around $780, you can build yourself a world-class flight sim.
Eliminate the "fuselage" (you *can* sit at a desk) and you're down to
$200 - $300.

Add everything in, including computer, projection system, etc, and
you're probably over $3500, cheapest. Basically, for 2/3rds the price
of installing a GNS-430, you've recreated the world, and every aircraft
in it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Personally, I've been saving some money (in the line of several
thousands) to make a complete mock-up of a stationary flight simulator
for an ATR-42 and ATR-72.

Why? Pure fun I guess, plus it's a great way to get people interested
in aviation. If you are interested in seeing what can be done using
just flight simulator as a tool take a look at a company called project
magenta (google it to find their website), if you were to add a
hydraulic system to what they do it could be considered the same sort
of full motion simulator I did my Dash-8 training on.

Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
"as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

I'm not really sure, but I think it's because the sim set-up is too
widely variable from person to person. For example, flying MSFS on my
laptop at work using a mouse would *NOT* recreate flight in a way that
would be truly meaningful. Flying the Kiwi (and some step in between)
is.

Since the FAA can't delineate between the two experiences, they simply
disallow it. Makes sense to me, really.

Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Logging has nothing to do with the realism of the simulator. We have
an ancient piece of crap at the FBO which is approved for logging
time. I consider most PC simulators to be far more realistic, but they
cannot be logged. Logging has nothing to do with realism.


Jon Kraus wrote:
Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
"as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

Jon

Jay Honeck wrote:
This thing was just plain as real as it gets, and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
while) I was working my butt off.