Redbird Simulator for IFR hours

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Redbird...they are good for learning procedures as a student. IMO, learning to fly by the numbers and manage a stabilized approach in a real airplane is more challenging than flying a Redbird. Being current vs being proficient.

Yes. Recognizing the limitations of something should not mean also recognizing its advantages.

But I disagree that managing (as opposed to learning) a stabilized approach is more challenging in an airplane than a Redbird (although that may be model dependent). I think one of the advantages of training devices is the lack of biofeedback. Enter the clouds in an airplane and you feel the bumps and changes in lift vectors. You are physically prompted. In an ATD, the screen shakes and the instruments change but you feel nothing. Add the sensitivity of the controls and you can greatly improve quality of the scan.

 

[Doug Reid]

Yes. Recognizing the limitations of something should not mean also recognizing its advantages.

But I disagree that managing (as opposed to learning) a stabilized approach is more challenging in an airplane than a Redbird (although that may be model dependent). I think one of the advantages of training devices is the lack of biofeedback. Enter the clouds in an airplane and you feel the bumps and changes in lift vectors. You are physically prompted. In an ATD, the screen shakes and the instruments change but you feel nothing. Add the sensitivity of the controls and you can greatly improve quality of the scan.

I have logged hours in the Redbird sim. It is a good tool for learning, but like any tool, it requires the pilot to master other skills to be effective. If you fly a high performance complex airplane, you have to think miles ahead and know the power settings that achieve desired results. That was my point. Learning how to fly an approach in a sim is great...but it has limitations.

 

[coma24]

There are several running X-Plane. Gleim’s and FlyThisSim’s offering comes to mind. There is a also a separate “certified” license from X-Plane you cam buy if you want to try to gey the FAA sign off on your homebrew sim setup, too.

https://www.x-plane.com/pro/certified/

Am aware, I've been running xplane since V5 I specifically said, "RB BATDs/AATDs running X-Plane" (ie, Redbird).

 

[coma24]

I have logged hours in the Redbird sim. It is a good tool for learning, but like any tool, it requires the pilot to master other skills to be effective. If you fly a high performance complex airplane, you have to think miles ahead and know the power settings that achieve desired results. That was my point. Learning how to fly an approach in a sim is great...but it has limitations.

What are the limitations? I fly a complex, relatively high-speed piston experimental that has a reputation of being a bit of a bear as an IFR platform (not warranted imo, but the point stands). I absolutely find that sims (non-certified, no less) help keep me sharp on many, many fronts, all of them directly relevant to flying the airplane that I fly. About the only thing that's missing is the workload of dealing with turbulence. The fact that the actual stick forces required to control the airplane are different are irrelevant, I just treat them as separate airplanes. My muscle memory for the r/w airplane is separate to the plane I fly in the sim.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What are the limitations?

Pretty much comes down to the lack of avionics fidelity. If you are willing to accept that you'll push a button and not get what you expect from using the real unit or that it will do something the real unit doesn't, it's a great tool.

I mentioned one involving the G1000 or GNS. Another is using the KAP 140. The one in the Redbird has GPSS. The real one doesn't (dunno if there's a GPSS translator add-on for a real 140).