On Topic

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Tail draggers were starting to become somewhat rare because most makers
stopped making them.

Why did they stop making them?

Why did they stop making cars with tail fins?

Nose gear airplanes became the fashion for GA, with a small number of
tail dragger enthusiasts.

Tail draggers are making a resurgance because of the nostalgia, they tend
to be cheaper to make (and thus sell), and there are situations where a
nose wheel is not really desirable to have.

Nope, most pilots will continue to train in something inexpensive and
transition to something else later.

I was thinking mainly of people training for piloting as a career, where
financial limitations are less of a factor.

Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in F-22's and
scrap all the trainers?

For transport pilots, I don't think they will use F-22s at all.

Non sequitur.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

This is never going to happen. Keep deluding yourself.

Wait and see. It will happen first in the Third World.

Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world
and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than
primary trainers.

Yeah, for a type rating for a similar airplane.

That wasn't possible before, and now it is. More changes along these lines
will occur in the future.

Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator.

And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time
requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or
using simulation.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Why did they stop making cars with tail fins?

Because there was no longer a market for them.

Nose gear airplanes became the fashion for GA, with a small number of
tail dragger enthusiasts.

It has been a very durable "fashion," rather like disc brakes and fuel
injection.

Tail draggers are making a resurgance because of the nostalgia, they tend
to be cheaper to make (and thus sell), and there are situations where a
nose wheel is not really desirable to have.

So it's a niche market. Meaning that, unless a prospective pilot specifically
wants to fly tail draggers for some reason, there's no reason to include them
in a training program.

Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life.

It's possible to spend a lot more on something that will eventually provide a
payback than on something that won't.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

I don't know how the Air Force sets its priorities. I don't think money is
always a key factor.

Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world
and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than
primary trainers.

Real simulators for large airliners are cheaper than the airliners themselves.
And regulations differ and can change. For example, the ICAO requires Level 4
proficiency in English, but it allows individual member states to measure that
proficiency in their own way, which means that many people who still can't
speak English well enough to be safe manage to join air crews.

Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator.

Simulators substantially predate computers.

And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time
requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or
using simulation.

Experience is always an asset. But you don't necessarily need a real airplane
to get experience. And in a real airplane, you're more likely to get one
year's experience ten times than ten years of varied experience, because
real-world flying tends to be fairly monotonous if it's safe, whereas
simulation can provide experience in all sorts of situations that would be too
dangerous to experience in real life (which is one of the main reasons for
using it).

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:



Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life.

It's possible to spend a lot more on something that will eventually provide a
payback than on something that won't.

And it is quite possible you are insane.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

I don't know how the Air Force sets its priorities. I don't think money is
always a key factor.

"I don't know how" being the operative part.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world
and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than
primary trainers.

Real simulators for large airliners are cheaper than the airliners themselves.

But not cheaper than much of anything less than an airliner, which is the
point.

Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator.

Simulators substantially predate computers.

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time
requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or
using simulation.

Experience is always an asset.

Good to see that you are not totally insane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

Reality-targeted flight simulators predate electronic computers.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

Reality-targeted flight simulators predate electronic computers.

The operative word being "targeted".

The first flight simulators that were anything near realistic had analog
computers running them, but the view was nowhere near realistic.

It wasn't until digital computers that it became possible to have a
realistic view.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
motion is just not right. Plus they can't come close to simulating the
things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com writes:

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
motion is just not right.

Inner ears don't detect constant motion, they detect acceleration, and they
are very easy to fool.

Plus they can't come close to simulating the
things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.

You can mess up your inner ear just by spinning in a chair. It doesn't take
much.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a Bonanza or Airbus?

Mxsmanic wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com writes:

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
motion is just not right.

Inner ears don't detect constant motion, they detect acceleration, and they
are very easy to fool.

True but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

Plus they can't come close to simulating the
things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.

You can mess up your inner ear just by spinning in a chair. It doesn't take
much.

Again, true but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a Bonanza or Airbus?

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a real airplane?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

True but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

On the contrary, it's extremely important for simulators. Full-motion
simulators are designed specifically to profit maximally from the various
defects of human motion perception. The same defects that result in spatial
disorientation are put to work in simulators to create an extremely persuasive
illusion of real, continuous movement.

The simulator actually uses only acceleration cues and washout to persuade the
human brain that the sim cockpit is actually going somewhere. It works
extremely well.

Again, true but irrelevant to the reality of simulators.

If you can be messed up by turning in a chair with your eyes closed, you can
definitely be persuaded of just about anything with a properly-programmed
motion base reinforced by effective visuals and sound effects.

Anyone ever suffered GLOC in a real airplane?

Sure, but only in aerobatic and fighter aircraft, which are a very tiny
percentage of all the aircraft in service. Most aircraft will disintegrate
long before GLOC occurs.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
wrote in message
...

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the
resulting motion is just not right. Plus they can't come close to
simulating the things that really mess up your inner ears during
sustained turns.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?


The "insider" view is that visuals are the dominant cue, and
since the time of TV cameras on gantries over a landscape board, visuals
have steadily improved. Sim visuals are not at the Atavar level of
visual realism yet - but that took lots of post-processing.

6DOF motions are all well and good, but NASA aside, they provide only
onset motion cues.
As to multi million dollar sims - the going rate is getting on for $20
million presently for a full house commercial jet.

Brian W