MooneyCFII Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 I am working with the folks at FlyThisSim (FTS) to develop a set of Mooney simulations for their TouchTrainer. Since I wanted a Mooney sim to use with my students (I hope to use the sim as a procedures trainer for new Mooney pilots as well as for getting an instrument rating) this seemed like the best route. After looking at a number of sim manufacturers I decided to work with FTS because they are willing to customize their sim to match the panel in a specific aircraft and then get it certified as a BATD for initial training and currency. (Once done you could use the Mooney Sim in the TouchTrainer to do your recurring IFR currency and the panel would look and behave like YOUR aircraft.) Of course, it makes sense for the first sim to be an M20J since that seems to be the most popular of all the M20 series. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) And, of course, since I am footing part of the bill for its development, it is going to be an M20K sim too. (Not too much different from the M20J.) But the nice thing about the Mooney is that the airframe behavior just hasn't changed that much thus allowing the creation of a sim for nearly any of the M20 series in relatively short order. It should be possible to have a family of simulations that covers from the M20A through the Acclaim. I am pretty excited about the idea. In speaking with FTS today they asked me if I could provide some examples of common instrument panel layouts so they can match them. Seems like we have three main panel sizes, several with the basic 6-pack of steam gauges, various nav/com and GPS combos, with and without HSI, and some of the new glass panels. (They have G1000, G500, and Aspen glass to use to build new panel layouts.) So I am soliciting pictures of peoples' panels. I want to get a good cross-section of early, mid, and late model panels to use as templates for the sims. They already have a good library of instruments, radios, GPS's, and autopilots. About the only thing they don't have is the pneumatic wing-leveler. (Is anyone still using the pneumatic wing leveler AP anymore?) So, if you have a good panel shot that you think is representative of a substantial number of aircraft, please send it to me or directly to FTS. Disclaimer: Just so everyone understands, I have no formal relationship with FTS other than I am going to become a customer. I do not receive any compensation from FTS. I like their product and have ordered one to use in training. Because I do Mooney training I am working with FTS to help them develop a Mooney sim I can use but I can imagine a number of Mooney pilots wanting their own sim to use to maintain log-able IFR currency or to use to earn their instrument rating. Quote
carusoam Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 Wow! Ryoder was working on a simulated panel for the older M20s recently... I use the old MS FS that has the M20M with a complete set of BK instruments circa late 90’s. One thing I have noticed that shows up differently between various Mooneys is the HP/weight ratio. A fully loaded Bravo will have a much longer T/O run than an empty 310hp Eagle. Similar reasoning will result in different climb rates. Add in Turbo for climb and cruise performance at altitude. An Aspen or two have been added across the fleet. Every wing leveler ever made is still installed somewhere. Knowing how to get it serviced has been helpful for most. Sounds like a great project! Best regards, -a- Quote
Vance Harral Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 OK, I'll bite. Not sure how "typical" it is, but this is a 1976 M20F (very similar layout to a 'J') with a pedestrian 6-pack, but fairly modern gear in the radio stack. Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Posted October 7, 2014 More info. The TouchTrainer from FlyThisSim is based on the X-Plane flight dynamics engine. It is much more true-to-life than the Microsoft Flight Sim model. You can tune the model by changing power-to-weight, prop efficiency, airfoil, coefficient of drag, change in Cd with gear and flap deployment, change in center-of-pressure with gear and flap deployment (so you get the correct pitch change), etc. This means that the model is easily tuned to match the real airplane. Take-off roll, distance to clear obstacles, climb rate, landing roll, etc., will behave properly for changes in load, CG, and density altitude. One of the cool things that I plan to use in my training is that the TouchTrainer is compatible with PilotEdge. PilotEdge is a live air traffic control service. You fly the sim and you can talk to a live controller. He/she sees you and other sim users on her "scope" and can provide vectors, clearances, traffic calls, or just suggestions for bettering your radio procedure. You can fly realistic VFR and IFR scenarios, and then the controller can tell you how you did and help you do better. What a boon for new (or "seasoned") pilots with mic fright. Sorry for waxing ecstatic. I am *really* impressed with this product and look forward to using it with my students. Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Posted October 7, 2014 OK, I'll bite. Not sure how "typical" it is, but this is a 1976 M20F (very similar layout to a 'J') with a pedestrian 6-pack, but fairly modern gear in the radio stack. Thanks. I will send this along. I suspect we will get a more-or-less generic 6-pack panel with typical nav/comms, add an HSI, add a 430/530, Aspen or G500, etc. But switches and controls will appear in their proper places and will behave as they do in the plane. It should be a good way to learn the new avionics before you plunk down your bucks for a new panel. Quote
David Mazer Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 Atypical but another example from a 86 K Rocket Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Posted October 7, 2014 Atypical but another example from a 86 K Rocket Thank you. I'm adding it to the list of panels. Nice panel. The new panel I am doing for my K won't be far off from yours. Quote
Joe Zuffoletto Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 CFII: A worthy project and I think you definitely chose the right platform. I purchased the TouchTrainer a little over a year ago and use their G1000 C-182T to approximate my Acclaim. It's awesome. The Acclaim is obviously much faster in cruise, but when flying holds and approaches the speeds are the same, and the Turbo lets me practice in the high country, where I normally operate. FTS offered to model my Acclaim, but the cost wasn't worth it. I have no regrets... the 182T works just fine. It really keeps me sharp on IFR G1000 ops and translates very well to the aircraft. Plus I can log it for currency. Eric Paton and his team at FTS are awesome. When I found a couple minor bugs in their G1000 software they fixed them right away and even remotely installed the fixes on my computer. I'll post a picture of my sim when I get home tonight. It's pretty cool and a lot of fun. I even take it up VFR from time to time because the displays are so amazing! Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Posted October 7, 2014 Cool Joe. But wouldn't you rather have your Acclaim rather than a C182T? I am working with them to get a Mooney sim, including the Acclaim. Quote
Joe Zuffoletto Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 Of course! Let me know what I can do to help. Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Posted October 7, 2014 Wilco. And thanks for the offer. Quote
kortopates Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 CFII: A worthy project and I think you definitely chose the right platform. I purchased the TouchTrainer a little over a year ago and use their G1000 C-182T to approximate my Acclaim. It's awesome. The Acclaim is obviously much faster in cruise, but when flying holds and approaches the speeds are the same, and the Turbo lets me practice in the high country, where I normally operate. FTS offered to model my Acclaim, but the cost wasn't worth it. I have no regrets... the 182T works just fine. It really keeps me sharp on IFR G1000 ops and translates very well to the aircraft. Plus I can log it for currency. Eric Paton and his team at FTS are awesome. When I found a couple minor bugs in their G1000 software they fixed them right away and even remotely installed the fixes on my computer. I'll post a picture of my sim when I get home tonight. It's pretty cool and a lot of fun. I even take it up VFR from time to time because the displays are so amazing! I assume you have a CFII for dual to be able to log the time for currency - yes? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Posted October 7, 2014 I assume you have a CFII for dual to be able to log the time for currency - yes? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Well, I do have my CFII rating. But if your comment is meant to suggest that a CFII must be present for the pilot to be able to log the time toward currency then I believe you may be in error. As I understand it, a pilot may use the FTS TouchTrainer for IFR currency without the presence of a CFI. That is what FTS says clearly on their web site. See the first bullet item at http://flythissim.com/touchtrainer.php. It states, "Train, Maintain and Log Time. Log IFR Currency without an Instructor." So, if they are not lying, you do not need a CFII present to log time for currency. I do know that some some BATD's the maximum interval for recurring training using the sim is 2 months rather than 6 months. That seems reasonable to me. Given how easy it is to bang out 6 approaches on the sim, having to do that every 2 months is not a hardship. Flying IFR is a perishable skill. With the cost of avgas what it is, how many of us actually fly enough to stay *really* proficient? I see the sim as a way to stay proficient without breaking the bank. I figured my break-even point at about 100 hours. Between maintaining my own currency and instructing, I expect to break even in about year. Quote
kortopates Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 I didn't realize that and why I asked. Is this something new that the FAA is doing for specific type of sim like the BATD? Or just specific to this one? I'll have to look at their website to see what authority they reference. Thanks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote
Joe Zuffoletto Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 FAR 61.57.c does not require the presence of an instructor to log time for IFR currency in a simulator. Believe me, I checked and double-checked about this before plunking down several AMU's for this device! Having said that, I still go up with my CFII, who is also a G1000 guru, once a year to practice reversionary mode, emergencies, etc. in the aircraft. Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Posted October 7, 2014 Well, I have been dealing with both FTS and Redbird rather extensively. Seems that there are no universal rules but there are some broad guidelines. Sims seem to fall into a couple of broad categories with the Basic Air Training Device (BATD) and Advanced Air Training Device (AATD) being the ones of greatest interest to mere mortals like me. (This implies something about the depth of one's wallet.) Typically, with the BATD you can log all the standard sim training for an instrument rating (10 hours) and you can do recurring training for currency. This seems to cover about 90% of the need for a sim. The AATD goes one step further and allows one to log ALL the hours necessary for an instrument rating and it may be used to perform the instrument proficiency check (IPC). I can see where it would be nice to put someone in the AATD and get them back up to speed, and then sign off their IPC without ever so much as a whiff of burned avgas. But as I understand it, each sim receives its own set of "operating limitations" that determines what may and may not be logged in that particular sim. So that implies to me that not all BATDs or AATDs are created equal. You still need to go read the FAA certification letter that comes with the sim to know in detail what you may and may not log. Still, it appears to me that the FTS TouchTrainer provides a lot of bang-for-your-buck. At first I thought that the touch screen would be hard to use and it is a little awkward for knobs, but it works flawlessly for switches and pushbuttons. It really is nice having all the controls be where you expect them to be and to behave the way you want them to behave. Case in point, when I visited the FTS factory, I was able to see them working on some systems malfunction simulation. The TT simulates the systems in the target aircraft in detail. Systems failures are as correct as they can be because they simulate the components in each subsystem. They were working on a particular system failure for their Cirrus sim where the sim wasn't quite behaving like the real aircraft. (It was an electrical system failure mode.) That level of detail appeals to me a lot because the troubleshooting a pilot or A&P would do would be identical to the real plane and not just sort-of similar. This is what I would like to have for a procedures trainer. Quote
carusoam Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 I look forward to see how well this turns out. Best regards, -a- Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 Here is my panel with G500. Wow, nice. BTW, you are local to me. We ought to get together. Quote
Joe Zuffoletto Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 As promised, some pics of the Acclaim in my basement... Ready to launch into the clouds on runway 17L at my home airport, KAPA: The G1000: It's an amazing simulator. When I get a chance I'll post another pic of it flying an approach. Any requests? 3 Quote
carusoam Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Your going to be on the cover of USA Today with a realistic setup like that in your basement. Now, if you post a picture of the Acclaim on runway 28 at 39N, I can keep a secret.... Best regards, -a- Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 If you could have a one Mooney model configured only one way, which would it be? My feeling is that a 'J' with six-pack, HSI, 430W, and a KX155 for a #2 nav/com is probably the most generic Mooney out there. Thoughts? Quote
MooneyCFII Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 Your going to be on the cover of USA Today with a realistic setup like that in your basement. Now, if you post a picture of the Acclaim on runway 28 at 39N, I can keep a secret.... Best regards, -a- Well, that is the TouchTrainer from FlyThisSim. They have quite a library of instruments, components, and avionics. In fact, they call their avionics simulation SimAVIO. So once they create the Mooney flight dynamic model we can have pretty much any panel we want in it. One cool idea would be to be able to "try out" a new panel before you ask the shop to build it for you. Fly your new panel around in your airplane on the sim for a couple of weeks to decide if you want to change anything. 1 Quote
carusoam Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 One short body. E. Because even the C and D people would prefer an E... One medium body. J. Because there are so many... One long body. R. Because so many people are moving to LBs after they have C or J experience. One TC'd. K. Because there are so many... One TN'd. E, J, S. Because they are dedicated GA pilots... Or see who has the coinage and follow that lead.... Thinking out loud, -a- Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.