Trogdor

Through in sim software. And that’s my point: If the goal is fidelity, then measure the fidelity within the sim itself (imagine you press a button to enable some plugin that checks that the minimum viable hardware is attached and the current sim settings are suitable (think weather and frame rate), fly, and when done, generate a verified report for your logs, vis-a-vis “certified”). If the goal is to maintain a crappy hardware cottage industry, then have a long BATD standard and expensive certification process to prevent (cost prohibitive really) pilots from using their own stuff. If the goal is to encourage certificates pilots to sim more, then enable them to do so with the guard rails needed to make the experience “loggable” through software. Just step back: Does anyone here think the systems mentioned in this thread are even remotely more realistic than what you can assemble yourself for a fraction of the cost? Heck, is there anything even custom in the systems you mentioned or are they all just using off-the-shelf components? Does anyone here think the integration of said components warrants their price tag? We are living in a golden era of home desktop sim. And no, I don’t think you have to treat it like a FlightSafety course in a Level-D (or something equally as expensive) to do a few approaches in a single-engine piston to have something that counts for your 6HITS. Btw, by enabling pilots to sim at home, it also enables remote instruction too which I think is another untapped market (FlightSimCoach is one example, Pilot Workshops IFR Accelerated course is another).

I never said that. I said the certification standards should be updated and modernized to allow for home desktop usage (and it shouldn’t cost you 20k to certify XP12). i think our disagreement is what a BATD should be (or could be).

I’m simply stating that Part 135 and Part 141 operators already send their pilots to Level D type simulations that far surpass anything I could come up with at home. See the new Vision sim Cirrus offers its pilots for insurance requirements. But to replicate fidelity in a 172, you don’t need much these days. Btw, the FAA doesn’t write software directly, but they spend millions (actually now billions) on hiring people who do. My suggestion is one of many avenues to get to a thriving desktop sim market the FAA acknowledges exists and is useful for proficiency. Again, it is obscene I have to spend 10k to “log” approaches.

Google around. It really is insanity (link is to a thread in /flying on Reddit). As many have stated, cheaper to get your private than certify a home sim. Again, got to protect those vendors.

That's what I believe I just said above. And that is my point: The certification process is mainly for hardware vendors not pilots. It has nothing to do with "cheating"(since as you pointed out cheaters are gonna, well, cheat) but trying to ensure some minimum level of fidelity that can only be provided by specialized hardware vendors when all of this got started. Today's home sim market is vastly different than when those certification rules were written. By today's standards, I think even you will admit that the home desktop market offers a vast array of quality hardware options that are far superior than your local Redbird. Yet, even if I spend thousands on my own setup to ensure a higher quality experience, I have no way to recoup that investment back with the FAA. However, if I spend thousands with Redbird on some crappy system, I suddenly am "certified" to log approaches. That is simply unacceptable in my (log)book. Bottom line: Part 91 operators should have a way to create a home, cost-effective desktop sim experience that is fairly low friction to log approaches. This would encourage pilots to sim and even better, make them better instrument pilots in the process.

I'm going to respond to Mark using your quote: Logging in general is a trust-based system. Period. There is nothing stopping anyone from fraudulently claiming hours, approaches, signoffs, you name it, and pilots have. Mark is the expert here, but I am going to wager a guess there is no dedicated team at your local FSDO that is looking for fraudulent hours in logbooks. Action is only taken when fraud is discovered in some kind of broader context, vis-a-vis, an accident, a check ride, et al. But now all of a sudden, sims are different, right? FAA is just so worried that all of these pilots are going to fake logging approaches on their sims! Heavens to Betsy! Say it ain't so! What's really going on IMO is the sim certification process is a business. And you can't erode that business which includes flights schools, hardware partners, instruction courses, etc. Not to mention the incidental losses from more people simming at home than going to the airport. To directly address the FAA is behind sims comment, here you go: There is NOTHING stopping the FAA from writing a piece of software (or hiring a vendor to do so) to record and log sims on your desktop. It could even audit your hardware to ensure you have a bare minimum setup. It could even monitor frame rate and a bunch of other telemetry to ensure a minimum acceptable fidelity. Basically, it could "certify" your experience as you fly it. Heck, could even grade you now (by grade, I mean generate a report). For Part 91 operators at least, there should be an inexpensive process that allows certificated pilots the ability to log approaches using their own home system (which 99% of the time is far better than the Redbird at the local FSDO and offers higher fidelity to the types of operations they fly). Until the FAA really addresses this, I am on the side that they are there to support the business of certification, not to get pilots to sim more (which btw, I think if you lowered the barrier to logging approaches at home, you would produce SAFER instrument pilots).

Hands down my favorite part of this video is the admission of basically how bad using knobs are with Air Manager on a touchscreen is and you quote "need to practice to build proficiency" - good stuff. Is there anyone here that would give me a "touch-screen knob" sign-off? Again, I would really think twice about laying down lots of AMUs for a system like this. You want great knobs, here you go: Home | Octavi The FAA is just so woefully behind regarding sims.

It's not just fidelity. It's the price you are paying: Is logging approaches really the goal here? If not, then I would claim there isn't a lot of ROI with a certified unit. Remember, they made choices on the sim's configuration that you probably would not have made given today's hardware market. As someone else mentioned too, Redbirds et al are really for flight schools that can absorb/tax deduct the cost. I'd also like to throw out that with your own system you aren't limited to a static configuration like a G1000 panel. You can mix and match as you see fit.

Some advice from the peanut gallery: Both Gleim and Redbird systems are not that great, hardware wise. The 10k+ you are spending is mainly to pay the certification so you can have the ability to log approaches - which if you fly a lot is not that very useful. For a fraction of the cost, you can have a much higher fidelity system that truly mimics the same workflows you have in the cockpit - this is particularly true if you fly Garmin (GTN series). I also think as someone else mentioned, you are way better off with XP12 (I recommend the vFlyte Arrow III with two G5s, a GFC500, and TDS GTN support - disclaimer: VNAV doesn't work yet). I have used a multitude of simulators and none of them are really as good as my humble home setup. If you don't have a PC already or you aren't very technically inclined, I do see value in purposeful built home simulators. However, I think with all the resources online, it is not that hard to learn if you have the time and inclination to do so.

@JackPlek GMAX Aircraft has a well equipped K in Canada. I know, not a J. But worth a look.

To make a long story short, I'm the last man standing that actually wants to buy something now. Before, I lost the vote. Now, I'm the only vote.

Looking for a later model M20J preferably with Garmin glass (it's what I fly now) and not a timed out engine. Be amazing if you had the wings sealed too. If you haven't already listed, DM me.

I thought this was only a 210 thing?

Just an observation: I would expect the arms to be the same between the Rocket and a stock 231/252 since the datum didn't move. The CG is however 0.3 more forward and the Rocket is about 200 pounds more. If I do W&B with that in mind, I should have a round idea on where the CG should lie given my weight scenarios (and some Rocket's have had at least 50-100 pounds removed from avionic upgrades). Put simply, after reviewing a lot of doc, I think @donkaye, MCFIsheet is correct. I think the plane in question's useful load/empty weight and CG are both wrong. That's why so many Rocket owners have zero issue with two-three PAX and significant fuel without 120 pounds in the back. God, anyone see what a 177 is like? That's even worse and it can still put two adults in the front with fuel and a little weight in the back.

I do not have the original numbers. The original shop has been called to see if we can get them and if we re-do the math, does the CG make sense.