Redbird's new full-motion, low-cost flight simulator

On Jul 4, 11:14*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
See

http://www.flyingmag.com/safety/trai...ht-simulations

Hmmm, $58,800.... For that much, I could buy my glider outright (no
partnership) and pay for about 8 years of flying it. I think I'll
pass....

It is neat to see this tech become more commoditized, though.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

It will be interesting to see how many hours get logged onto these at
a moderately busy flight school -- it could drive the price per hour
pretty low and still offer a nice ROI.

In article
,
a wrote:

On Jul 4, 11:14*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
See

http://www.flyingmag.com/safety/trai...ht-simulations

Hmmm, $58,800.... For that much, I could buy my glider outright (no
partnership) and pay for about 8 years of flying it. I think I'll
pass....

It is neat to see this tech become more commoditized, though.

It will be interesting to see how many hours get logged onto these at
a moderately busy flight school -- it could drive the price per hour
pretty low and still offer a nice ROI.

Right, it's obviously aimed at schools that can rent it out to students.
I imagine it could become pretty cheap in that setting. I also imagine a
few rich crazy people will end up with installations in their homes.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jul 5, 11:04*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,



*a wrote:
On Jul 4, 11:14*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
See

http://www.flyingmag.com/safety/trai...ht-simulations

Hmmm, $58,800.... For that much, I could buy my glider outright (no
partnership) and pay for about 8 years of flying it. I think I'll
pass....

It is neat to see this tech become more commoditized, though.

It will be interesting to see how many hours get logged onto these at
a moderately busy flight school -- it could drive the price per hour
pretty low and still offer a nice ROI.

Right, it's obviously aimed at schools that can rent it out to students.
I imagine it could become pretty cheap in that setting. I also imagine a
few rich crazy people will end up with installations in their homes.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Had a funny thought: will the schools offer a dry rate (bring your own
extension cord)?

The reality is, use would have to be pretty high, for 2000 hour rental
years -- that's 40 hours a week, the device alone would have to earn
$10 an hour for a 3 year payback, and that contributes nothing for
space and instruction time. A more realistic use rate might be 500
hours a year, device charges $40 an hour for a 3 year payback (more or
less a 30% ROI, not a bad target for high risk ventures). I think I'll
keep my checkbook unopened.

On the other hand, there are things I'd like to do in my airplane and
would happily pay a few hundred dollars to try them in a realistic
simulator.

Speaking of realistic sims, those of you who fly unpressurized with
O2, do try to get to a place where you can experience hypoxia under
supervision. The experience may be enough for you to decide to stay at
12k or under unless there's an emergency. Well, 15 or 16k if you're a
lot younger than me --and that would not be hard to be!

In article
,
a wrote:

The reality is, use would have to be pretty high, for 2000 hour rental
years -- that's 40 hours a week, the device alone would have to earn
$10 an hour for a 3 year payback, and that contributes nothing for
space and instruction time. A more realistic use rate might be 500
hours a year, device charges $40 an hour for a 3 year payback (more or
less a 30% ROI, not a bad target for high risk ventures). I think I'll
keep my checkbook unopened.

For things where the simulator is just as good or better than a real
plane (practicing instrument procedures?) then $40/hour is a great rate.
But still somewhat hefty....

On the other hand, there are things I'd like to do in my airplane and
would happily pay a few hundred dollars to try them in a realistic
simulator.

Oh yes. I'd easily pay WAY more than what I pay for actual flight time
to practice takeoff aborts at difficult altitudes in a simulator good
enough for the experience to translate into reality.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jul 5, 12:49*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,

*a wrote:
The reality is, use would have to be pretty high, for 2000 hour rental
years -- that's 40 hours a week, the device alone would have to earn
$10 an hour for a 3 year payback, and that contributes nothing for
space and instruction time. A more realistic use rate might be 500
hours a year, device charges $40 an hour for a 3 year payback (more or
less a 30% ROI, not a bad target for high risk ventures). I think I'll
keep my checkbook unopened.

For things where the simulator is just as good or better than a real
plane (practicing instrument procedures?) then $40/hour is a great rate.
But still somewhat hefty....

On the other hand, there are things I'd like to do in my airplane and
would happily pay a few hundred dollars to try them in a realistic
simulator.

Oh yes. I'd easily pay WAY more than what I pay for actual flight time
to practice takeoff aborts at difficult altitudes in a simulator good
enough for the experience to translate into reality.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike, that $40 would not pay for the space rent, instructors, clerks,
other overheads. I agree that many of us would pay a few hundred
dollars for realistic sim of spin recovery, other outside the envelope
stuff. With a safety pilot aboard I've flown to touchdown under the
hood on an ILS, but man, if you don't feel the ground effect in time
you're going to bounce! a half dozen approaches from the OM inbound to
touchdown in zero zero in a full motion sim would be very comforting,
but I'd have to feel the ground effect cushion for it to be useful for
me. I'd also like to feel what it's like to have the airplane collect
enough ice to be dangerous, that would have to be a 'feel' thing
too.

I doubt that there is a full motion sim would do a good job at showing
someone a stall/spin entry -- can not do that in real life in a
Mooney, but man, in a suitable airplane with an instructor aboard,
what happens when the inside wing stalls in a too slow too steep turn
gets your attention! We got inverted in a heart beat. That is an
'unusual attitude' I never want to face in real life.

"a" wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 12:49 pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,

a wrote:
The reality is, use would have to be pretty high, for 2000 hour rental
years -- that's 40 hours a week, the device alone would have to earn
$10 an hour for a 3 year payback, and that contributes nothing for
space and instruction time. A more realistic use rate might be 500
hours a year, device charges $40 an hour for a 3 year payback (more or
less a 30% ROI, not a bad target for high risk ventures). I think I'll
keep my checkbook unopened.

For things where the simulator is just as good or better than a real
plane (practicing instrument procedures?) then $40/hour is a great rate.
But still somewhat hefty....

On the other hand, there are things I'd like to do in my airplane and
would happily pay a few hundred dollars to try them in a realistic
simulator.

Oh yes. I'd easily pay WAY more than what I pay for actual flight time
to practice takeoff aborts at difficult altitudes in a simulator good
enough for the experience to translate into reality.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike, that $40 would not pay for the space rent, instructors, clerks,
other overheads. I agree that many of us would pay a few hundred
dollars for realistic sim of spin recovery, other outside the envelope
stuff. With a safety pilot aboard I've flown to touchdown under the
hood on an ILS, but man, if you don't feel the ground effect in time
you're going to bounce! a half dozen approaches from the OM inbound to
touchdown in zero zero in a full motion sim would be very comforting,
but I'd have to feel the ground effect cushion for it to be useful for
me. I'd also like to feel what it's like to have the airplane collect
enough ice to be dangerous, that would have to be a 'feel' thing
too.

I doubt that there is a full motion sim would do a good job at showing
someone a stall/spin entry -- can not do that in real life in a
Mooney, but man, in a suitable airplane with an instructor aboard,
what happens when the inside wing stalls in a too slow too steep turn
gets your attention! We got inverted in a heart beat. That is an
'unusual attitude' I never want to face in real life.


I know what you mean. Got my ticket in the 60's and was lucky enough to have
an instructor that had an AT-6 so spins, stalls and some VERY unusual
attitudes were the norm. Would not want to see them again.

Perhaps a CFI will chime in here but IIRC, they do NOT teach spin recovery
any longer in the US or at least, it is not required.

Vic

On Jul 5, 5:03*pm, "Vic Baron" wrote:
"a" wrote in message

...



On Jul 5, 12:49 pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,

*a wrote:
The reality is, use would have to be pretty high, for 2000 hour rental
years -- that's 40 hours a week, the device alone would have to earn
$10 an hour for a 3 year payback, and that contributes nothing for
space and instruction time. A more realistic use rate might be 500
hours a year, device charges $40 an hour for a 3 year payback (more or
less a 30% ROI, not a bad target for high risk ventures). I think I'll
keep my checkbook unopened.

For things where the simulator is just as good or better than a real
plane (practicing instrument procedures?) then $40/hour is a great rate.
But still somewhat hefty....

On the other hand, there are things I'd like to do in my airplane and
would happily pay a few hundred dollars to try them in a realistic
simulator.

Oh yes. I'd easily pay WAY more than what I pay for actual flight time
to practice takeoff aborts at difficult altitudes in a simulator good
enough for the experience to translate into reality.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike, that $40 would not pay for the space rent, instructors, clerks,
other overheads. I agree that many of us would pay a few hundred
dollars for realistic sim of spin recovery, other outside the envelope
stuff. With a safety pilot aboard I've flown to touchdown under the
hood on an ILS, but man, if you don't feel the ground effect in time
you're going to bounce! a half dozen approaches from the OM inbound to
touchdown in zero zero in a full motion sim would be very comforting,
but I'd have to feel the ground effect cushion for it to be useful for
me. *I'd also like to feel what it's like to have the airplane collect
enough ice to be dangerous, that would have to be a 'feel' thing
too.

I doubt that there is a full motion sim would do a good job at showing
someone a stall/spin entry -- can not do that in real life in a
Mooney, but man, in a suitable airplane with an instructor aboard,
what happens when the inside wing stalls in a too slow too steep turn
gets your attention! We got inverted in a heart beat. That is an
'unusual attitude' I never want to face in real life.

I know what you mean. Got my ticket in the 60's and was lucky enough to have
an instructor that had an AT-6 so spins, stalls and some VERY unusual
attitudes were the norm. *Would not want to see them again. *

Perhaps a CFI will chime in here but IIRC, they do NOT teach spin recovery
any longer in the US or at least, it is not required.

Vic

I don't think they are required --- the spin stuff I experienced was
long after I was instrument rated, it was a swap, he wanted a safety
pilot for instruments, I wanted some time up side down.

"Vic Baron" wrote in message
...
Perhaps a CFI will chime in here but IIRC, they do NOT teach spin recovery any
longer in the US or at least, it is not required.

As far as I know, spin training is only required for the CFI certificate in the
USA. Only a signoff for the training is required, spins are never part of the
actual check ride.

As a student pilot, I insisted on pre-solo spin training. If I ever screwed up
enough to get myself into an inadvertent spin, I did not want to be required to
figure out spin recovery for myself!

Vaughn

"Vic Baron" wrote

Perhaps a CFI will chime in here but IIRC, they do NOT teach spin recovery
any longer in the US or at least, it is not required.

It isn't hard to find an old timer instructor who teaches spins and
recoveries in the course of their normal training routine. If you (anyone
out there) don't have such a person, ask around; I'll bet someone knows some
CFI in the area who will be happy to run you through a few spin cycles.
--
Jim in NC

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article
,
a wrote:

The reality is, use would have to be pretty high, for 2000 hour rental
years -- that's 40 hours a week, the device alone would have to earn
$10 an hour for a 3 year payback, and that contributes nothing for
space and instruction time. A more realistic use rate might be 500
hours a year, device charges $40 an hour for a 3 year payback (more or
less a 30% ROI, not a bad target for high risk ventures). I think I'll
keep my checkbook unopened.

For things where the simulator is just as good or better than a real
plane (practicing instrument procedures?) then $40/hour is a great rate.
But still somewhat hefty....

On the other hand, there are things I'd like to do in my airplane and
would happily pay a few hundred dollars to try them in a realistic
simulator.

Oh yes. I'd easily pay WAY more than what I pay for actual flight time
to practice takeoff aborts at difficult altitudes in a simulator good
enough for the experience to translate into reality.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

That's a pretty good example of one of the good uses of a sim for emergency
procedures.

I used to be an advocate for true motion, almost to the point of bigotry,
after having the oportunity to try one for a few minutes years ago; but I've
since come to doubt the need for any more motion than the old link trainers
could provide--as far as I have been told, they could jostle around more
than enough to simulate turbulence and almost certainly helped to win the
war with far fewer casualties than might have otherwise been the case.

Peter