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

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

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:14:19 -0400, vaughn
wrote:

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!


well said. Especially figuring out spin recovery during short final,
where they are more likely to occur! I was fortunate enough to be part of
the student pilots where spin training was mandatory in Canada in 1999.

"Dimitri P." wrote in message newsp.vs0x00zt8gnu4d@main...
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:14:19 -0400, vaughn wrote:

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!


well said. Especially figuring out spin recovery during short final, where
they are more likely to occur!

Huh? If you are on short final, you had better recover quickly from the
pre-stall, well before the actual stall and wing-drop! Because on short final
there isn't enough sky beneath you for a spin recovery. In fact, a befuddled
pilot may not be able to recover from pattern height at all. One of my main
take-home impressions from my pre-solo spin training was the loss of altitude
involved in the stall-spin-recovery sequence. It made me understand the
importance of maintaining airspeed and staying coordinated in the pattern.

Vaughn

On 3/27/2011 7:47 PM, vaughn wrote:
"Dimitri wrote in message newsp.vs0x00zt8gnu4d@main...
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:14:19 -0400, wrote:

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!


well said. Especially figuring out spin recovery during short final, where
they are more likely to occur!

Huh? If you are on short final, you had better recover quickly from the
pre-stall, well before the actual stall and wing-drop! Because on short final
there isn't enough sky beneath you for a spin recovery. In fact, a befuddled
pilot may not be able to recover from pattern height at all. One of my main
take-home impressions from my pre-solo spin training was the loss of altitude
involved in the stall-spin-recovery sequence. It made me understand the
importance of maintaining airspeed and staying coordinated in the pattern.

Vaughn


Now you're talking!

Brian W

On 3/27/2011 5:56 PM, Dimitri P. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:14:19 -0400, vaughn
wrote:

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!


well said. Especially figuring out spin recovery during short final,
where they are more likely to occur! I was fortunate enough to be part
of the student pilots where spin training was mandatory in Canada in 1999.

Hmmm...'short final' means 500 ft to me.
Spin recovery means more than 500 ft to me.

Better to maintain approach speed, and recover from a stall if you must,
not a spin.

Briaan W

Hmmm...'short final' means 500 ft to me.
Spin recovery means more than 500 ft to me.

Better to maintain approach speed, and recover from a stall if you must,
not a spin.

Very true. But a spin (incipient) -- or any other type of cross-control
stall is more likely to occur during the landing phase. Say you're
approach, for some reason you're already stepping on the rudder, student
pulls to "stretch" the glide. A wing is more likely to drop upon
stalling... (spin) and recovery is a matter of luck. Else, it might turn
into something like a "under the bottom stall". Nasty stuff... Spin
training to me, means "awareness" to such thing. Not necessarily a
guarantee that low altitude cross-control stalls can be recovered without
ending in a "under the bottom stall" or if slipping, in a "over the top
stall" But, if well trained, I believe that with some quick instincts and
luck, recovery may be possible.