Warbird Information Exchange

Rob, while it's a great idea and technically feasible there are a few drawbacks.

1) The cost of developing and certifying the hardware and software would be fairly high.

2) Any reasonably priced sim is going to lack feel. Motion simulators, let alone a centrifuge based model, are very expensive.

_________________
Dan Johnson

My thoughts on the whole thing is to check out 3 guys at once in Diemert's 4 seat P-51. It would save a lot of money.

Or check out five guys at once in those six seat Skyraiders with 6 sticks in them.

Talking with Frasca Intl, would be a great place to start, I'm sure they could give you a more accurate estimate than any of us here can. As I said before, it's a great idea, but the cost may be much more than the market will bear. A rough estimate based on my software experience and a general idea how sophisticated flight simulation software needs to be would lead me to guess the initial development cost would be in the millions or even tens of millions of dollars. If the simulation engine is adaptable enough, it may be possible to produce addtional type specific variations for several hundred thousand plus the cost of the new hardware.

_________________
Dan Johnson

What I said was "I think it's a good IDEA in principle". I still think it's a good IDEA. I just don't think it will work. I'm also not real sure that it's even practical. I also said that I didn't think there would ever be enough of a market for it to make it worth while.

If you want to persue this, I still think Rudy Frasca would be the person to talk to.


Harvard IV, I've got a few hours in the AD-5 Skyraider that you are talking about. It's got duel controls and is a blast to fly. Just don't get in a big hurry to go anywhere, don't even plan on keeping your clothes clean and be sure and invest in an oil rag company!

Back to Lurking.....

_________________
Brad

Remember that recurrent training for the most part is done through level D sims or slightly less that require a large amount of technical gobbledy-gook to certify. In many cases the development cost to FAA approved standards would outweigh the benefit cost. The only feasible A/C I could see it working for would be your L-39 class since it is rapidly becoming something of a personal business sport jet and the market is constantly expanding.

My .02, but I would figure that Frasca, though having an interest in warbirds, would not even figure such a risk. The business and general aviation sim market is growing and I can't see them putting R&D into such a limited niche market.

Ryan Keough

There are definitely some pros and cons to this idea. First off, it is a really great idea, and I'm surprised nobody has done it yet. If we expect to continue flying warbirds for the next 50 years, I think this is something that *has* to happen.

Here are some of the issues, in no particular order:

Cost: Will the cost of designing and building a sim actually offset the cost of getting T-6 and TF-51 checkouts? Who is gonna foot the initial bill to design and build this thing? If it's high enough fidelity for the FAA to consider the experience good enough to award a type rating, it is gonna cost million$. Where will it be located? Who will operate and repair it?

Fidelity: In my experience, simulators are poor at teaching pilots aircraft handling characteristics. They are *right on* when it comes to teaching emergency procedures or instrument flight. So, will the simulator really be good enough to show a new pilot the "corners" of the flight envelope where he can really get into trouble? Will the flight model of each aircraft be good enough to allow a pilot to really practice the stick-and-rudder to get himself out of those corners?

Good Morning Col. Rohr. when you fly in the Box, you do get a certain amount of training and feel for the A/C, but there is a would of difference when flying in the real world. In the Box, you can crash it, reset it and talk about it and do it again. You still can't beat the real thing. Being in the back seat of a T-6 is still by far the best training to have. I was typed in the Hawker 700 in October and I can say its a different world when you are flying the real thing. The most important part of the training is who does the training and what they have for a program. I don't have a lot of Warbird time, but I have been around a lot of warbird drivers and you can listen to them as they talk about the training and what they do to stay current. There are really great instructors out there who do a great job of instruction. It comes down to the PIC and how he flies.

My .02 worth,

Cheers,

Lynn

okay, now I am not a pilot nor have I the funds anywhere near close within the foreseeable future to become one... but, here some thoughts for you.

how many flight simulator programmes are on the market for computers and how many of those have basic flight parameters for the requisite aircraft?

how many people buy them?

considering we are talking what would, unless it is building sized simulator with full motion etc, be basically an emergency procedures training simulator then why limit it to one aircraft? By this i mean that running the aircraft instruments etc is being done electrically most likely and with this then undoing a few bolts and connections replacing the entire instrument package ought to be possible and plausible ( anyone care to say F4U to F6F to hurricane in maybe an hour for change overs? ) and with only a change of the programme ( flight system and reaction parameters ) there's a new type to practice/learn on.

so now we have a market for a completely authentic flight simulator which replicates the aircraft you are flying, even if it is a bit less authentic without the actual cockpit. We have a variety of aircraft possible within the one adaptable "cockpit" and programmes. If acceptable by FAA standards we also have a market for using the "cockpit" for training pilots of the real things.

I reckon marketted correctly, are you reading this Mr Allen as your company already makes combat flight simulators, it would possibly even pay for itself despite the costs of adaption and manufacturing and research.

just my 0.016c US worth. but if it helps fund something which will allow some reduced costs for certification and save some airframe hours so the aircraft will survive longer... I say go for it.

This could give an all new meaning to BLUE SRCEEN OF DEATH

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

One of the issues being overlooked is judgement. Kind of the "very few Old Bold pilots" scenario. There are a lot of very good stick and rudder folks who were done in by poor judgement in my (limited experience) opinion.

How many pilots on the warbird scene were done in by lack of procedures training? For the most part the NTSB reports seem to cite poor judgment over lack of training in type as the root cause for most of these fatal warbird accidents. Maybe we need a judgement simulator?

Just a few points to add to the discussion...

1. The reason I was going to have to attend Stallion 51 was for the insurance company, not because it was required to get the Experimental Type Rating. I like to carry full hull for at least the first year, and the insurance company wanted 10 hours of dual in a fighter. If I had not been able to use the T-Mk. 20 Sea Fury, then I would have had to use the TF-51.

2. Rob, I have to agree with the others here that what I learned in my fighter dual couldn't be duplicated in a sim. Sims are good for emergency procedures and practicing IFR and approaches (I go to FlightSafety every year), but they cannot replicate that first takeoff, as the power comes up on 3000hp of radial engine and 14ft of 4 bladed propeller.

3. Now that I have a fighter checkout behind me I would not have to do all this dual over again. Probably some backseat T-6 rides to knock the rust off with an instructor on airspeeds and emergency procedures, cockpit drill and ground school, and then go fly three TO and Landings to a full stop. Again, it's up to the instructor, the EAE (Experimental Aircraft Examiner, that's the new designation), and the FAA approved training program (which was created by the EAE). Now, if a two place trainer was available in type (TF-51 or 2 place Spitfire) I would do everything I could to get a ride before going solo. It only makes good sense. But in something like a Corsair it would be a "study, brief and go".

Also, I have learned from the Classic Jet guys at CJAA that the change from 1000 hrs. PIC to 500 hrs. is just a draft at this time, and is not finalized. The draft calls for a change to 500 hours, but the additional requirement of an instrument rating. This may or may not take effect, and if it does will probably not be soon. Sorry for any confusion that I might have caused.

Hi Rob,

It would be a snap to build a simulator of the Sea Fury or Mustang. In fact I imagine that some of the PC Sims out there today do a fair job of replicating the flying characteristics of these and many other vintage fighters. The problem is, flying is not the problem.

The problem is 98% of all the training that goes into a warbird checkout happens on the runway. The “flying around” is the easy part. Hell, any kid with a bunch of PC sim time could fly the thing. He couldn’t land or take off, but he could fly it. OK, maybe that’s a slight oversimplification, but only slight. Stalls, slow flight, unusual attitudes, spin recovery techniques…these must all be examined with any new airplane you fly, but in this regard the Sea Fury is not much different than the L-39. I’ve never bounced a landing in the L-39 (including my very first one from the back seat). It’s not because I’m a SH pilot, but because with trailing link landing gear and anti-skid brakes the L-39 is a dream on the runway (and in the air). The Sea Fury is a completely different animal, though. It must be respected, just like any taildragger, once tires touch pavement.

No sim in the world is going to teach people how to handle piston fighters on the runway. Even if you could accurately program it, the control feel would be wrong (they never get the control feel right at FlightSafety either). When the tail comes up on the Sea Fury during takeoff you have to put it “on step”. There is no way to know you’re “on step” except by feel. When it’s right, you know it. When it’s not, it skips and hops and wants to fly early. Very bad.

The best piece of advice I received during my checkout was “Just do whatever it takes to make the darn thing go straight down the runway.” Good advice.

Steve

I certainly think it is possible to do this especially with the multi eng acft such as the 25,17,46,47 and 24.. It might not work for the initial qual type rating unless you developed a full up motion and all certified sim . But for the recurrent annual type check this is a real possibility as it is really nothing more than a annual EP and procedures qual ride.. These annual rides are very hard on the equipment when considering shutting down engines in flight and the thermal shocking from the shutdown and restart not to mention I never was a fan of shutting down good round motors in flight as you might not get it back and single eng operations are much more risky..

As for the fighters, again it is possible, if it is a full up sim. Take for example the Air Force and A-10. All training is done in the sim and your first ride is solo. But this takes a very serious training program with someone that has already got fighter (at least AT-38) time. Now instead of initial qual I see no reason why you couldn’t develop a procedures sim that could qual folks in a different type if they already have experience in a fighter type of some kind. This could also be true for the multi motor acft also. This would save risk on airframes during training.

All this is a good idea but someone would have to do a feasibility study to see if there would be enough interest to make it viable and at least to some extent profitable.

take care

jcw

I'd have to disagree. Flight sims such as combat flight simulator are only good for helping you remember various procedures like putting the flaps down before the gear, etc.. However, I think the flying qualities are poorly simulated.

Hey Rob:

Since you put it that way, I'd have to agree. You might be able to make some pretty good pocket change on it if you could make a cheaper civilian copy of it.

Chris