New simulator for Mooneys

[Joe Zuffoletto]

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-

39N and N87 were my college airports! Carusoam, I love you more with each passing day.

USA Today would find me boring. I use the simulator to prep for Angel Flights more than anything else.

Here's runway 28 at 39N:

[ryoder]

Good idea to create a Mooney. I am building a 2d panel for fsx based o n my 65 M20C. The panel is original except for the radio stack. I actually a m getting used to it but would like to practice approaches and holds with my exact layout and having the ability to log time with a cfi would be a big bonus. I prefer the Redbird full motion simulator to sims that dont move or dont have a very wide angle pov. Of course for instrument training the full view is less important. Make sure when the panel is created that the developer creates gagues appropriate to the Mooney such as the manifold pressure fuel pressure combination.

[MooneyCFII]

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-

Well, I happen to agree with you almost exactly. So the question is, "what will be the first Mooney sim they produce?" I have "bent" the process in my desired direction by being "the guy with the coinage". They have agreed to produce *one* Mooney for me for the money I have paid. I told them that I want my one Mooney to be the J and the K. My logic is that the airframe and panel are essentially identical and the only real mod is to change the altitude behavior of the engine. Hopefully they will agree. I also think that will cover the greatest number of users in one shot. Most of my students own J's, or F's with the J mods. An F with the J mods is close enough to a J that it really doesn't make that much difference for flying instrument approaches. The panels are a bit different but not hugely so. We'll see.

 

Do others agree or disagree and why?

 

Thanks!

[MooneyCFII]

I prefer the Redbird full motion simulator to sims that dont move or dont have a very wide angle pov. Of course for instrument training the full view is less important. Make sure when the panel is created that the developer creates gagues appropriate to the Mooney such as the manifold pressure fuel pressure combination.

Redbird has done an excellent job of marketing themselves. As a result of what I heard at last-year's "Migrations" I decided to do my CFII add-on at Redbird in San Marcos. I wanted to both experience their sim in a training environment and to see how they are using the sim in new ways to speed and improve instruction. I am now using their sims again with one of my students -- a new, low-time Mooney pilot who has decided to get his instrument rating.

 

With something like 50 hours in the Redbird sims, i.e. the TD and the FMX, I think I can say I have a pretty good idea how they work. They are nice but they are very limited in the number and types of aircraft that they can simulate. Avionics complement is fixed due to the hardware switch panel overlays. Knobs tend to work backwards or not at all if turned too quickly. This is especially annoying when trying to change the OBS or heading bug while busy in a turn during an instrument approach. The software appears finicky with the instructor's console doing strange things and crashing often.

 

As a result of this experience I have voted with my own money on the TouchTrainer from FlyThisSim. I am sold on the idea that FTS can create panels that really operate like the airplanes I have on my line so the transference for my students is very good. "That which is learned first is learned best," is one of the key parts of teaching. So learning something one way in the sim and then getting into the plane where things are different doesn't help. In fact, when I was first considering getting a Redbird LD I was seriously considering reconfiguring the panels of the planes to match the sim. (I was going to do this because I was going to redo the panels in the planes anyway.) With the TT I won't have to do that and I will be free to select what I feel to be the right avionics complement for the planes and then have FTS adjust the sim to match. 

 

Of course, as with all things, your milage may vary. ;-)

[carusoam]

RedBird has done a great job of marketing... I've been to there site. I read about their various levels of equipment.

Looked at the equipment that is at my local FBO already.

Then I go back to my desktop computer with a failing disk drive...

Best regards,

-a-

[Oscar Avalle]

Let us know when you are done!

[ryoder]

They should use the physical g1000 switches for added realism. They are available online for usage with xplane and fsx. I have the g1000 app on my iPad and have used it in fsx but it's hampered by touch screen knob control.

[Piloto]

Two months ago I got a Dell Laptop with Windows 8.2 and touch screen. I installed the Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 in it. To my surprise I can control all the switches on the simulated Mooney panel (M20M/TLS) just like on the real panel. No need to point the mouse. Impressive!!!!

 

José 

[carusoam]

Just need a 310hp switch to go with that!

Best regards,

-a-

[marky_24]

And if you really want to you can edit the aircraft.cfg to 310hp it's pretty easy

[carusoam]

Marky,

I may have to contact you for instruction on that.

Have to get a disk drive fixed, first...

Best regards,

-a-

[cliffy]

Just curious but it would be real interesting if this could combine with Aces High  http://www.hitechcreations.com/ for WWII action flights  Kind of a dual role set up. Mooney trainer PLUS  an evening of flying WWII aircraft on realistic missions in real time with pilots from all over the world. . 

[ryoder]

I like this setup. Real switches.

http://www.emuteq.com/G1000.html

[gsxrpilot]

I think I'll just go burn some 100LL instead. 

[MooneyCFII]

In the continuing saga of the FlyThisSim TouchTrainer, FTS has sent me the first iteration of the Mooney sim for the TT. I wanted a representative M20 that pretty much any Mooney pilot would be comfortable flying so I opted for an M20J. The panel is a standard "6-Pack" with an HSI. Avionics are a GNS530W GPS/FMS, KX155 NavCom, KR87 ADF, and KN63 DME. (I wanted to be able to fly and teach any published approach.) In addition to the standard engine instrumentation it also has a JPI700 engine monitor.

 

There were a few bugs but I sent them back a bug list and they are working to remove them. Hopefully they will get the squawk list cleared quickly and can offer the sim to others.

 

Now that I have had my TT for a couple months I have become rather attached to it. It is nice to be able just walk over, boot it up, and fly an approach. I believe that, as a result, my proficiency now is higher than it has been any time since I got my instrument rating (39 years ago). I like that I can switch to an aircraft with a G1000, G500, Aspen 1500, or steam gauges just so I can gain experience with hardware I don't have. I like being able to fail systems and then practice. For the first time in a long time I am really comfortable with partial panel. (I feel that if I had to, I could fly an ILS to minimums using just needle/ball and airspeed.)

 

So 'Rocket', burn some 100LL and come visit me. I'll show you the sim and then we can go fly some form.

 

BTW, here is what the new panel looks like:

 

http://mooneyspace.com/gallery/image/36298-new-flythissim-touchtrainer-m20j-panel/

[Tony Armour]

Nice CFII, how is it going ? Do you know if they can do this on the basic trainer or does it have to be the visx ? I have been looking around at different stuff and really don't care about the visual "surround" aspect of training, at least for the $$ difference. For example, the Beech software is only available on visx. Maybe because of more panel space in the Beech.

It may be hard to beat FSX for what it can do but I don't have any experience with it either. Years ago I had A simple yoke and Flight Deck software that ran on a 486 and it was great. Never failed and would fly any published approach. Pre GPS days.

I'll take input from anyone on sim stuff. Actually found this thread searching Google for flythissim.

[MooneyCFII]

The Mooney 201 sim for the FTS TouchTrainer will work without the Visx external view. I equipped mine with the external view because I like to be able to simulate the transition from the gauges to visual when breaking out at minimums. 

 

I am still waiting for FTS to fix the errors in the initial version. There are some small systems problems but the big problem was that the flight-dynamics were off. I hope to see a new version any time now.

[carusoam]

FSX has a Bravo with a nice mid 90s BK panel with a version of a G530 GPS connected to a BK A/P...

It is a nice memory exerciser. Especially the part about loading a procedure and activating it or flying an ILS...

Load up the workload and see if you can generate the stress level required to produce a gear up landing.

Ever forget to raise the flaps in real life?

So much button pushing is required to fly the instruments and radios. It is a lot like my plane. It is missing one thing...the blue light (nav source indicator)

It is interesting to get some real world advice/training then use it on the sim until the thought process works...

Best regards,

-a-

[MooneyCFII]

(Gawd I hate stupid forum software. I went to bed in the middle of answering this and when I finally posted this morning, I had been logged out and my entire response lost. Why can't we use an email group? <sigh>)

 

Where to start? I think the answer to your question is actually a book, not a message in a forum. 

 

First, loading yourself up to fail is not a learning experience. I don't think it helps you to learn at all. I think that isolating individual skills and exercising them until they become "muscle memory" is the right answer. That implies using the sim for repetition on simple stuff until you reach the level of unconscious competence.

 

(Stages of learning:

• Unconscious incompetence -- you don't know that you don't know.
• Conscious incompetence -- you have been introduced so you know what you don't know -- the beginning of learning a new skill
• Conscious competence -- you know the skill and when you focus you can do it -- where we are late in the instruction cycle
• Unconscious competence -- you perform the skill well even when you aren't thinking about it.)

One of the problems I have seen with most GA IFR owner-pilots is that they never really get beyond the level of conscious competence and that is a VERY perishable commodity. The airlines don't have that problem because the pilots exercise the skills on a daily basis and then do recurring training every 6 months or so in the sim on things they don't do every day. They operate at the level of unconscious competence most of the time ... on the automation. Flying the "raw" for them is not an unconscious process and we have seen the erosion of basic flying skills in the airlines. (I have a friend who used to be a test pilot for one of the biz-jet manufacturers. His ability to "fly the raw" was gone when he came to me. Nonetheless, he is a qualified ATP flying high-tech kerosene-burners.)

 

So the sim is great for just maintaining competency. It doesn't matter if you can log the time or not. Just being able to fly the sim, maintain altitude, heading, AS, and RoC is a huge win. (Think about it, how long does it take you to settle down and do a good job of hand flying your airplane on the gauges? And it *is* hard to convince yourself to hand-fly when the AP does a good job and ATC has you poking buttons in the FMS all the time.)

 

Break down your exercises into simple, repetitive things. Enter a hold from different directions over and over. Intercept and nail the localizer over and over. The goal is to push yourself over the edge from conscious competence into unconscious competence. When you get to the point where you can do it while carrying on a conversation with your wife about the kids, you know you are there. :-)

 

As I said at the beginning of this, the right answer is to turn this into a book. Maybe I will. In the mean time, hopefully this has given you some ideas.

 

And I think this should probably turn into another thread.

[gsxrpilot]

In the continuing saga of the FlyThisSim TouchTrainer, FTS has sent me the first iteration of the Mooney sim for the TT. I wanted a representative M20 that pretty much any Mooney pilot would be comfortable flying so I opted for an M20J. The panel is a standard "6-Pack" with an HSI. Avionics are a GNS530W GPS/FMS, KX155 NavCom, KR87 ADF, and KN63 DME. (I wanted to be able to fly and teach any published approach.) In addition to the standard engine instrumentation it also has a JPI700 engine monitor.

 

There were a few bugs but I sent them back a bug list and they are working to remove them. Hopefully they will get the squawk list cleared quickly and can offer the sim to others.

 

Now that I have had my TT for a couple months I have become rather attached to it. It is nice to be able just walk over, boot it up, and fly an approach. I believe that, as a result, my proficiency now is higher than it has been any time since I got my instrument rating (39 years ago). I like that I can switch to an aircraft with a G1000, G500, Aspen 1500, or steam gauges just so I can gain experience with hardware I don't have. I like being able to fail systems and then practice. For the first time in a long time I am really comfortable with partial panel. (I feel that if I had to, I could fly an ILS to minimums using just needle/ball and airspeed.)

 

So 'Rocket', burn some 100LL and come visit me. I'll show you the sim and then we can go fly some form.

 

BTW, here is what the new panel looks like:

 

 

Wow, that looks almost exactly like my panel. I really need to come fly that sim with you. If work would get out of the way, I could. I just got home after 19 days on the road. 

[Tony Armour]

After researching fast bonified gaming computers......after buying monitor/s, yoke, power controls, software etc. oh yea, and most likely "trying" to make it all work. Flythissim pricing doesn't look too bad.

[Tony Armour]

CFII, I'm a little confused. When you bought the TT, did you buy the Cessna or ?? And they built the Mooney for you or ?

I'm trying to figure out how you also have the g1000, Aspen etc.

Do you get "all" the airplanes software and then only the yoke/joy stick (cirrus) and power controls are different. I just see on their website where you buy the Bonanza, Piper, Cirrus and it leads me to believe you only get the software for what you buy.

Thanks

In the continuing saga of the FlyThisSim TouchTrainer, FTS has sent me the first iteration of the Mooney sim for the TT. I wanted a representative M20 that pretty much any Mooney pilot would be comfortable flying so I opted for an M20J. The panel is a standard "6-Pack" with an HSI. Avionics are a GNS530W GPS/FMS, KX155 NavCom, KR87 ADF, and KN63 DME. (I wanted to be able to fly and teach any published approach.) In addition to the standard engine instrumentation it also has a JPI700 engine monitor.

There were a few bugs but I sent them back a bug list and they are working to remove them. Hopefully they will get the squawk list cleared quickly and can offer the sim to others.

Now that I have had my TT for a couple months I have become rather attached to it. It is nice to be able just walk over, boot it up, and fly an approach. I believe that, as a result, my proficiency now is higher than it has been any time since I got my instrument rating (39 years ago). I like that I can switch to an aircraft with a G1000, G500, Aspen 1500, or steam gauges just so I can gain experience with hardware I don't have. I like being able to fail systems and then practice. For the first time in a long time I am really comfortable with partial panel. (I feel that if I had to, I could fly an ILS to minimums using just needle/ball and airspeed.)

So 'Rocket', burn some 100LL and come visit me. I'll show you the sim and then we can go fly some form.

BTW, here is what the new panel looks like:

[MooneyCFII]

When you purchase the TouchTrainer from FlyThisSim, you get all the aircraft from one manufacturer with your purchase. You have a choice of current-production aircraft from Piper, Cessna, Beechcraft, Diamond, and Cirrus. So if you choose Beechcraft, you get both the Bonanza and the Barron, and each comes with several panels including steam gauges, Aspen, G500, or G1000. You pay extra for each additional manufacturer's aircraft. Since I use mine for flight instruction, I opted to get all the manufacturers. 

 

Now, since I do a fair bit of instruction in Mooneys, I wanted a Mooney. But FTS did not offer a Mooney. So I cut a deal to pay to build the first Mooney sim. I got to choose the panel layout but they are free to sell this to other customers as well. In the case of the Mooney, they only let me pick one panel layout and one model of aircraft. I opted for a 201 with HSI, Garmin GNS530W, and a full King stack with King autopilot. I figured this would be a really good middle-of-the-road Mooney that most Mooney owners would be comfortable flying IFR. If your Mooney doesn't have a GNS530 then just turn it off and practice your IFR using the King radios. If you don't have an HSI then just don't use it. Anyway, that was my logic.

 

I do recommend the TT. Frankly, I find it more usable than the Redbird sims. I have now done some of my own training the Redbird and I have run a student through a Redbird sim. I found it had some very annoying quirks and bugs. You also are locked into a very limited number of aircraft and panels. The TT allows customization of the panel and all the switches and knobs work due to the touch screen. I know Redbird has the marketing traction but for me, the TT is easier to use and MUCH more cost-effective. 

 

That is my opinion. But I did vote with my wallet.

[Tony Armour]

I did talk with Carl today and I understand all that now. Right now, if I bought the Mooney I would be getting the short end of the stick so to speak. With one Mooney panel, they should sell a Mooney purchaser another group and include the Mooney at no charge. But he spoke like it would be no big deal to add another model. He did say the 201 was good enough to send out, of course the wait time is like five weeks. I have my eye on a used visX with the Cirrus group. I would be looking at spending another $950 for Mooney though. How much do you (or others) charge for sim only time, no instruction ?

[MooneyCFII]

Um, well, I like Carl but I think he may be mistaken about the 201 being usable. Speeds and power settings are completely different from the real airplane. (The sim doesn't stall until about 30KIAS.) I borrowed a known-stock 201 with a good engine and did some data collection and sent that off to FTS. The electric pitch trim is WAY too fast. There is no manual pitch trim. Flaps do not work as they do in the Mooney. (They used a flap model with presets instead of having to hold the switch to extend the flaps.) It is all little stuff and I have reported it to them. And it may be that they have fixed all the problems and I just haven't received V2.0 yet. 

 

It would be good if others wanted the Mooney and wanted a different panel from the one I spec'd. Also we need an Acclaim and an Ovation. That requires new flight dynamic data from the 201. Personally, I spec'd a 201 but I really would like to have a 231 or 252. 

 

But how many different planes do you need? I wanted them all because most of the planes FTS offers on the TT are here at my home field and I wanted to be able to make it easy for my neighbors to use the TT. Most people don't need very many aircraft models.