![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael" wrote in message om... while someone with no experience has a learning curve. In my experience, FAA-certified FTD's generally offer terrible simulations. Well, I gave demos this week to 2 airline pilots in my FAA-certified FTD and they both flew an ILS to Laguardia down to minimums in a crosswind on the first try, broke out at minimums over the approach lights, and landed on the first try. I think when you say "FAA certified FTDs" it depends what equipment is installed. Even at a given certification level, there is a very wide variance in the control feedback and trim system the FAA wil permit. In general, the FTD manufacturers are switching over from analog to digital design and that permits more precise scaling and update rates of the instruments, which in turn makes it easier to fly the FTD with a conventional scan. It is hard to just call a device a "Frasca" or an "ATC 300" just like it is hard to refer simply to a "PC" running "Microsoft Word" -- there are so many versions which have evolved over time. As for PC-based devices, generally they turn out to be a lot easier to fly if you add a throtte quadrant with flap and gear controls, rudder pedals, and a generic avionics console. A self-centering yoke with increasing resistance at the extremes of travel makes a *huge* difference in the ability to hand-fly an instrument approach on one of these devices -- that is probably the most important component of any home PC-based FTD. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|