Flight Sim / BATD for Home

[Max Clark]

I fell down a rabbit hole researching flight sims for my home.

From what I can tell the RedBird TD2 and Gleim FE-BATD are both FAA certified BATDs. At $10k they're not cheap, but compared to everything else I've found so far (Real Sim Gear, Virtual Fly, etc...) they're a deal.

Have you been down this road? Did you buy a certified BATD for personal use? Any pitfalls I should look out for?

Thanks!

[toto]

2 hours ago, Max Clark said:

I fell down a rabbit hole researching flight sims for my home.

From what I can tell the RedBird TD2 and Gleim FE-BATD are both FAA certified BATDs. At $10k they're not cheap, but compared to everything else I've found so far (Real Sim Gear, Virtual Fly, etc...) they're a deal.

Have you been down this road? Did you buy a certified BATD for personal use? Any pitfalls I should look out for?

Thanks!

I've been watching for a few years for a flight school to go out of business and get a cheap certified BATD at auction, but I haven't found one yet.  I rent a TD2 from a local flight school for $25/hour and it's great.

Between the two, I'd go with the Redbird every day of the week.  Gleim makes fine test prep books, but Redbird has been in the sim business for a long time and I've had really positive experiences with their equipment.

There was a competitor around for a while called FlyThisSim that had an LOA and it was about half the cost of the Redbird TD, but they were having trouble keeping up with orders and finally (I think) went out of business.

Anyway - if I were going to drop $10k on a BATD, it would be a Redbird. 

[McMooney]

i use the sim at the local airports for currency, use msfs 2024 at home

[GeeBee]

I purchased a Redbird TD2, the full monte. 3 screens, the desk and rudder pedals. I like that it simulates fairly good my G1000 system. What they don't tell you is you need to buy a 400 dollar  nav data base. It is a world wide data base and I don't update it but every other year which is good enough. I have had one issue with the set screw on the yoke working loose, but I repaired it easily. Other than that it works really good. It has sufficient fidelity that when I set up an approach to Lake Tahoe, I could not maintain altitude (13,000) until I properly leaned the engine. I am very used to simulator instruction and operation and that helps get the most out of the unit. If you're not used to it, you need to be disciplined in your approach and use. Treat every flight like it is the real thing and be honest with yourself in your self de-brief.  I like that I can log it for currency and I often find myself shooting approaches to an airport I have not been into. Overall, I would highly recommend a BATD if your objective is serious instrument currency.  I cannot speak to the Gleim but I feel the Redbird is good value. If you don't want to be able to log approaches and time, get the toy units. Once you own one of these things you'll find hand flying approaches in the real world very easy because you're proficient beyond most pilots. 

One thing that might change in the future is the use of VR goggles which I think will make a huge change in vision simulation.. I am fairly sure you'll see that as the next big thing although FAA approved as BATD? Who knows.

By the way, if you want a work out on step down approaches, fly the VOR into Kathmandu, Nepal. You will get very good at it. 

[Max Clark]

I logged a touch over 20 hours in an FMX during my instrument training. Part of the reason I’m considering buying one. 

[midlifeflyer]

Sounds like you have your reasons to do it at home. I have flown and teach in the TD2, but not with the Gleim. If I were doing this myself, I would look very seriously at the Gleim because I think X-Plane (which I use at home) is a far better platform than Prepar3d and the avionics have a little better fidelity. 

[Jackk]

With my SO’s training we have X plane (one version prior to the new one I think) on her laptop, a yoke and throttle quadrant off Craigslist (clamps to table and laptop sits on top of the yoke).  We updated the nav data from the FAAs nav website for free (some Reddit tips for that), works perfect for what non level Ds are good for, instrument and procedure training.     Think all in we are a hair under $100.

 

 Wouldn’t spend 10 large on a sim unless you are a flight school charging for it’s use and can write it off, and even then unless they really need to log it… you just don’t get that much more bang for your buck really

[Jackk]

How to update xplane nav data for free 

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/xl34ac/update_xplane_nav_data_for_free/?rdt=54877

[toto]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

Sounds like you have your reasons to do it at home. I have flown and teach in the TD2, but not with the Gleim. If I were doing this myself, I would look very seriously at the Gleim because I think X-Plane (which I use at home) is a far better platform than Prepar3d and the avionics have a little better fidelity. 

I’ve never seen a Gleim sim in person, but I think it uses a touch screen interface instead of physical controls? The physical controls seem better for developing muscle memory (better fidelity with the aircraft), but if you’re like me, the sim panel doesn’t look much like my real panel setup anyway. So it may be a non-issue. 

I started renting the flight school TD2 in 2020 for currency during the craziest of the Covid crazy days, and found that I really liked the experience.

[GeeBee]

My view on spending 10 grand is this. I think like the airlines. My airplane is for going places, not droning around on approaches and holding patterns to satisfy the FAA. The current cost of an Ovation overhaul plus the fuel, plus wear and tear on ancillary items easily amortizes that 10 grand. Any money spent on a device that does not satisfy the FAA requirements is not valueless procedurally, but it will not do any thing to defray the costs and wear and tear on your airplane. I'll add there is the additional value of not droning around putting yourself into position for an approach or other maneuver. You can snap right to the position making more efficient use of the training time.  

[Jackk]

54 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

My view on spending 10 grand is this. I think like the airlines. My airplane is for going places, not droning around on approaches and holding patterns to satisfy the FAA. The current cost of an Ovation overhaul plus the fuel, plus wear and tear on ancillary items easily amortizes that 10 grand. Any money spent on a device that does not satisfy the FAA requirements is not valueless procedurally, but it will not do any thing to defray the costs and wear and tear on your airplane. I'll add there is the additional value of not droning around putting yourself into position for an approach or other maneuver. You can snap right to the position making more efficient use of the training time.  

 A red bird or similar isn’t a level D, and even a level D isn’t the best for stick and rudder.

 

 Personally I find pattern work, stalls, etc fun and a little piston mooney isn’t that much real world to run 

[GeeBee]

44 minutes ago, Jackk said:

 A red bird or similar isn’t a level D, and even a level D isn’t the best for stick and rudder.

 

 Personally I find pattern work, stalls, etc fun and a little piston mooney isn’t that much real world to run 

But the objective of a BATD is for instrument currency and competency. You don't need Level D for that. The overhaul cost all in for an Ovation is about 75K. So if you spend 10% of that time droning around for instrument competency, you've covered the cost of a BATD right there. The other day I had a bad electric fuel pump, 2500 installed. We have not even talked about fuel, tires etc, nor the extra strain on the engine of training events. Even if it is break even, the efficiency of a simulator cannot be overcome. I can do 3 approaches in 22 minutes. At that rate I have 300% more practice than someone in a real airplane.

[dkkim73]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

But the objective of a BATD is for instrument currency and competency. You don't need Level D for that. The overhaul cost all in for an Ovation is about 75K. So if you spend 10% of that time droning around for instrument competency, you've covered the cost of a BATD right there. The other day I had a bad electric fuel pump, 2500 installed. We have not even talked about fuel, tires etc, nor the extra strain on the engine of training events. Even if it is break even, the efficiency of a simulator cannot be overcome. I can do 3 approaches in 22 minutes. At that rate I have 300% more practice than someone in a real airplane.

@GeeBee does the RedBird have a setup that can simulate the M20R, or any Mooney? Or do you essentially have a G1000 Cessna with that arrangement? I imagine it would still be very useful as 85% of the thinking and almost all the Garmin switchology will be the same. 

I have a frankensimulator at home right now with touchscreens and Airpanel manager with X-plane. It's not completely set up, and there are some quirks getting the Acclaim and G1000 simulation going well. It's a work in progress and I haven't used it too much to date. I couldn't quite get to spending for the Real Sim Gear physical panels, though that would improve it. The ideal along this path would be the RSG panels, a force feedback yoke, etc. Plus a custom physical panel if you're an enthusiast or retired maybe... some people go quite a ways and do simulated ATC, etc. 

I used to be much more diligent with sim early on (after my IFR ticket in the 2000's), had a copy of Elite IFR and would practice multiple approaches with that. Overall, I tend to agree that the value of sims is primarily rigorous drilling of IFR workflow. And the BATD would help get credit for that. There is a Redbird at the local airport and I might just sign up to try it.

[Jackk]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

But the objective of a BATD is for instrument currency and competency. You don't need Level D for that. The overhaul cost all in for an Ovation is about 75K. So if you spend 10% of that time droning around for instrument competency, you've covered the cost of a BATD right there. The other day I had a bad electric fuel pump, 2500 installed. We have not even talked about fuel, tires etc, nor the extra strain on the engine of training events. Even if it is break even, the efficiency of a simulator cannot be overcome. I can do 3 approaches in 22 minutes. At that rate I have 300% more practice than someone in a real airplane.

 Currency wise if you’re flying the plane enough to be proficient, aside from maybe a hold or something, how much else do you have to do?

 

 When I was working 91, I’d track it in FF, occasionally I’d just ask ATC for a different entry for a IAP to get that required lap in.

 

 Would be interesting to run the numbers 

[kortopates]

[mention=18744]GeeBee[/mention] does the RedBird have a setup that can simulate the M20R, or any Mooney? Or do you essentially have a G1000 Cessna with that arrangement? I imagine it would still be very useful as 85% of the thinking and almost all the Garmin switchology will be the same. 
I have a frankensimulator at home right now with touchscreens and Airpanel manager with X-plane. It's not completely set up, and there are some quirks getting the Acclaim and G1000 simulation going well. It's a work in progress and I haven't used it too much to date. I couldn't quite get to spending for the Real Sim Gear physical panels, though that would improve it. The ideal along this path would be the RSG panels, a force feedback yoke, etc. Plus a custom physical panel if you're an enthusiast or retired maybe... some people go quite a ways and do simulated ATC, etc. 
I used to be much more diligent with sim early on (after my IFR ticket in the 2000's), had a copy of Elite IFR and would practice multiple approaches with that. Overall, I tend to agree that the value of sims is primarily rigorous drilling of IFR workflow. And the BATD would help get credit for that. There is a Redbird at the local airport and I might just sign up to try it.

Redbird does have a performance set up for the Acclaim that the factory commissioned Redbird to develop some time ago. It was never offered to the public but i do have an Acclaim owner student that was able to get Redbird to set up their personal Redbird using the Acclaims performance data. It’s a pretty reasonable representation of Acclaim performance. I worked with a couple of Mooney Full motion Redbirds years ago when I worked with Mooney.

For G1000 owners it works well but the navigation has many quirks making it different than the real thing. I also teach an advanced IFR flight sim lab with a dozen redbirds at the college and know them and their quirks well.

The legacy 6-pack panel is a disappointment though since they still don’t have support for the GTN Navigators, just the GNS530W. But recently they at least added an option for a HSI which is some improvement. But for other than G1000 pilots i think there are better options to better mimic your panel. None are cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

6 hours ago, toto said:

I’ve never seen a Gleim sim in person, but I think it uses a touch screen interface instead of physical controls? The physical controls seem better for developing muscle memory (better fidelity with the aircraft), but if you’re like me, the sim panel doesn’t look much like my real panel setup anyway. So it may be a non-issue.

There’s a flying club near me with a Gleim setup. I probably ought to get checked out in it just so I know more about it. 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Jackk said:

 Currency wise if you’re flying the plane enough to be proficient, aside from maybe a hold or something, how much else do you have to do?

 

 When I was working 91, I’d track it in FF, occasionally I’d just ask ATC for a different entry for a IAP to get that required lap in.

 

 Would be interesting to run the numbers 

Weather does not always cooperate enough to meet 61.57 (c) (1) to make an approach, hold or interception legal. In the South if you have weather conditions less than VFR during the summer, you probably don't want to be in them.

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, GeeBee said:

But the objective of a BATD is for instrument currency and competency. You don't need Level D for that. The overhaul cost all in for an Ovation is about 75K. So if you spend 10% of that time droning around for instrument competency, you've covered the cost of a BATD right there. The other day I had a bad electric fuel pump, 2500 installed. We have not even talked about fuel, tires etc, nor the extra strain on the engine of training events. Even if it is break even, the efficiency of a simulator cannot be overcome. I can do 3 approaches in 22 minutes. At that rate I have 300% more practice than someone in a real airplane.

FWIW, this is a copy and paste of my answer to a similar question on another forum. Under discussion was the Redbird TD2 and how it’s used, understanding that it is not a duplicate of your airplane. BTW, the “analog” airplane I’m referring to is an Ovation   Short version: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.

 

For me personally currency and staying sharp. 

In case you are interested in the details, I throw a virtual dart at a virtual map. It might be an airport I am planning to visit or an interesting procedures, even an ODP or SID even though they don't count for currency. I might set myself up so my "destination" is below minimums and I have to proceed to an alternate. Our TD2 has both glass and analog panels and I will switch them up. I might hand fly or I might use the autopilot. Since I usually fly glass, when I am going to take a trip in an analog airplane, I'll usually move to the analog panel and hand fly an approach or two there.

For when I'm training others, it's usually for transition training or increased proficiency. On the transition the Redbird G1000 is not a real G1000. It doesn't have full G1000 functionality so there are some limitations (and I've seen some bad habits in flight because of it when the instructor doesn't point them out). Same for the analog KAP140. But for basic buttonology and knowing where your fingers need to go, it does a good job.

One place where they really excel is hand flying. With no biofeedback and sometimes funky control response, you need to be on your toes with your scan.

 

[GeeBee]

12 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.

Bingo!

[dkkim73]

5 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

One place where they really excel is hand flying. With no biofeedback and sometimes funky control response, you need to be on your toes with your scan.

This is non intuitive but I also think true. I agree with several instructors who have consistently said "it's easier to fly the real airplane". 

Although I suppose the X Plane Mooney does not bounce as much. Which is not realistic. The real plane dials in the energy and speed management and maneuvering in ground effect better.

But we are mostly talking about IAPs here...

[midlifeflyer]

8 minutes ago, dkkim73 said:

The real plane dials in the energy and speed management and maneuvering in ground effect better.

My goals are instrument currency and proficiency. I don’t care at all about landing or even takeoffs. Unless I’m doing a SID or ODP, I start in the air. And if I break out instead of going missed and crash on the runway, who cares? (Unless I’m using something like PilotEdge to get the ATC piece as well,  I want to land and taxi off without embarrassing myself by creating a smoking hole on the runway.)

[GeeBee]

31 minutes ago, dkkim73 said:

This is non intuitive but I also think true. I agree with several instructors who have consistently said "it's easier to fly the real airplane". 

Although I suppose the X Plane Mooney does not bounce as much. Which is not realistic. The real plane dials in the energy and speed management and maneuvering in ground effect better.

But we are mostly talking about IAPs here...

This is true of all simulators. Even the most sophisticated (and I have flown in the very best) are harder to fly than the real airplane for a variety of reasons including inertia and stability. That said, the degree of difficulty in the simulator makes you a much better pilot in the real airplane. There are some other things that will force you to be better. For instance I get "simulator eyes" from 200' down in the sim. My depth perception goes to heck.  For that reason, I never look outside until 50' so I can pretty much hand fly a CAT IIIA raw data on course and slope looking up at the last seconds to flare. That ability to fly the slope down low serves me in the real world when I go to the bottom of the barrel on a CAT I at night. Many pilots upon identifying the runway environment at 200' have a "duck under" tendency. My sim training aids in not letting that happen.  

[dkkim73]

12 hours ago, GeeBee said:

when I go to the bottom of the barrel on a CAT I at night. Many pilots upon identifying the runway environment at 200' have a "duck under" tendency. My sim training aids in not letting that happen.  

@GeeBee Interesting. I can relate to the duck under, although some of that comes from my concern for not being too fast or high in this plane. 

Has this changed your practices in the real world in the Mooney? Do you continue to look at the indications after verifying you've broken out until a lower point? Or do you simply more intentionally stay on the GP/GS visually?

[kortopates]

[mention=18744]GeeBee[/mention] Interesting. I can relate to the duck under, although some of that comes from my concern for not being too fast or high in this plane. 
Has this changed your practices in the real world in the Mooney? Do you continue to look at the indications after verifying you've broken out until a lower point? Or do you simply more intentionally stay on the GP/GS visually?

You have to practice flying down GP to the IFR landing zone or you will be ill equipped landing with minimum visibility. Note we’re not discussing clouds here. Even breaking out at 200’ yet with 6 mi visibility allows you finish the approach with a VFR landing configuring from none or partial flaps to full and significantly slowing down. But with only 1/2 mi visibility you still won’t have the threshold in sight at 200’, just the ALS, and still gently coming down to 100 agl to pick up runway visually. imagine heavy rain, you can’t risk re-configuring the aircraft but need to stay on GS all the way down. So to be prepared to land with minimum vis we really need to practice staying on the needles all the way to the landing zone.
This is also a requirement for new IFR candidates on their check ride.
We could say the same for partial panel approaches but that is another topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dkkim73]

18 minutes ago, kortopates said:

...

. Note we’re not discussing clouds here. Even breaking out at 200’ yet with 6 mi visibility allows you finish the approach with a VFR landing configuring from none or partial flaps to full and significantly slowing down. But with only 1/2 mi visibility you still won’t have the threshold in sight at 200’, just the ALS, and still gently coming down to 100 agl to pick up runway visually. imagine heavy rain, you can’t risk re-configuring the aircraft but need to stay on GS all the way down. So to be prepared to land with minimum vis we really need to practice staying on the needles all the way to the landing zone.
...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you, makes sense. Of course can't switch totally outside without specified visual references legally or by common sense. I am more thinking of technique in terms of scan, altitude callouts etc. Since it takes attention to re orient, if you leave the needles too long and then look back it can take a second etc. 

A meta point I suppose is that you shouldn't be too much in a hurry to leave a stabilized situation just because you are somewhat visual.