X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:05:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3102663 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:48:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=72.14.220.158; envelope-from=mehapgood@gmail.com Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 22so1015227fge.1 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:x-mailer:subject :mime-version:date:references:sender; b=Vy1cL4AQs43Fur/BAtfxiLM4j2GKhbycBdVfWM6lXFhxqWz6prGEjWIc1zW1qAekC6 GlVKiMfQ5IIcT4vj0ax7rAevjWHwnOg+8JK+x4IW30RTUQ0JCHFhA0lOmlQP7slqjQn3 K3AV7kHtmtDFKcWwqyDyTih5qgrF8cc2kMGAc= Received: by 10.86.81.9 with SMTP id e9mr1528706fgb.63.1220222888555; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ?10.151.95.85? ( [166.133.191.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm5008966fge.3.2008.08.31.15.48.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Cc: Lancair List X-Original-Message-Id: <7070327F-CC7B-4AD4-8B2E-2F0A8BAF24BE@alumni.duke.edu> From: Matt Hapgood X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3--749984023 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (5C1) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Simulators, Training and "Slow flight" Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 5C1) X-Original-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:47:35 -0600 References: X-Original-Sender: Matt Hapgood --Apple-Mail-3--749984023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not to get too technical, but that Motus equipment is not, in FAA dfinition, a simulator. It is a Flight Training Device, not a simulator. And there is a monumental difference between the two. Simulators are extremely accurate reproductions of the cockpit and flight modelling. Flight Training Devices are very different and serve a very different purpose, and the vast, vast majority make no effort to accurately model flight dynamics, and are therefore not credited by the FAA for performing aircraft specific training. They are focused on training approaches and other generic training. Not aircraft specific procedures or systems training. Matt Hapgood FlyRight Inc 704-720-9623 Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos, poor formatting and brevity! On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:15 PM, "Ted Noel" wrote: > > MS Flight Sim and X-Plane, while fun and educational, are not up to > the challenge of providing the kind of fidelity needed for type > familiarity, let alone upset recovery training. > > > That's curious. The designers of X-Plane are quite proud of their > flight dynamics, and my local FBO uses X-Plane to drive an FAA- > certified Motus motion sim. > > > > That being said, if a group was serious about creating a high- > fidelity simulator, I would be please to contribute to the effort > with the development of a high fidelity aerodynamic model. The > variations between our individual aircraft remain a challenge, but > from mostly from a systems level. The aero models could be readily > adapted model the range of variations between our aircraft. > > > Tom Low > > > > I think all of us would be grateful for your help. Perhaps we could > pass the hat to reimburse for the time and effort. If others are > willing, I'll put some $$ in. > > > > Ted Noel > > N540TF > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.10/1638 - Release Date: > 8/27/2008 7:06 PM --Apple-Mail-3--749984023 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not to get too technical, but that = Motus equipment is not, in FAA dfinition, a simulator. It is a Flight = Training Device, not a simulator. And there is a monumental difference = between the two. Simulators are extremely accurate reproductions of the = cockpit and flight modelling. Flight Training Devices are very different = and serve a very different purpose, and the vast, vast majority make no = effort to accurately model flight dynamics, and are therefore not = credited by the FAA for performing aircraft specific training. They are = focused on training approaches and other generic training. Not aircraft = specific procedures or systems training.  

Matt = Hapgood
FlyRight = Inc
704-720-9623

Sent from my iPhone = - please excuse typos, poor formatting and = brevity!

On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:15 PM, "Ted Noel" = <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> = wrote:

 
 MS Flight Sim and = X-Plane,=20 while fun and educational, are not up to the challenge of providing = the kind=20 of fidelity needed for type familiarity, let alone upset recovery=20 training. 
 
 
That's = curious. The designers of=20 X-Plane are quite proud of their flight dynamics, and my local FBO = uses=20 X-Plane to drive an FAA-certified Motus motion = sim.
 
 
 
That being said, if a = group was=20 serious about creating a high-fidelity simulator, I would be please to=20= contribute to the effort with the development of a high fidelity = aerodynamic=20 model.   The variations between our individual aircraft = remain a=20 challenge, but from mostly from a systems level.  The aero models = could=20 be readily adapted model the range of variations between our aircraft.=20=  

 

Tom=20 Low

 

I = think all of us would be=20 grateful for your help. Perhaps we could pass the hat to reimburse for = the=20 time and effort. If others are willing, I'll put some $$=20 in.

 

Ted=20= Noel

N540TF

 

 

No virus found in =
this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com=20=

Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.10/1638 - Release Date: =
8/27/2008 7:06 PM
= --Apple-Mail-3--749984023--