Flight Sim vs. Real Flying, Question for Real Life Pilots??

[lnuss]

FS is a good way to learn many procedures related to real aviation, including getting some idea of how aircraft fly. But it's not going to cut your real world training time much, if at all -- there's just a LOT of difference. There's also the risk of developing bad habits, which your real world CFI will have to spend time trying to break, such as looking at the instrument panel too much, and trying to fly by the indications on the gauges.

If you were learning FS from a real CFI, it would reduce those problems, but would still not cut your real world training time by much.

However, FS can increase some people's comfort level when they first get into a real aircraft, and for many it helps a bit in some areas.

I'd suggest you just approach FS as a fun experience where you can also learn something about aviation, but not to count on it for cutting training time in the real world -- maybe it'll help some, but that's not always the case.

[Kimber]

Starting from knowing nothing about aircraft, Flightsimming for a
couple of months before starting lessons, I thought it helped a
lot!! My husband, a pilot, made me learn FSing like it was "real"!!
I knew the names of the gauges and controls when I started lessons!!

I found Flightsimming a big help in getting my IFR ticket!!

I use it for fun flying that I can't do in real life!!
Like 800knt inverted passes by the tower!!

Moving up to real world flying seemed easy because of the limited
visibility in the flightsim, you can see a lot more in the real
world!!

Having a yoke and pedals and a floor mounted joystick makes it
more real!!

[Lou_Betti]

No disagreement with you, Larry, but I have two friends, both of whose names would be somewhat well known at these forums, who spent years flying FS.

They then went on to get their licenses, and both did it very quickly. I'm talking in the 40-hour range.

As to myself, I went almost 10 years without flying for real, yet used FS to keep the rust off (almost all instrument flying / approaches). When I got back to it, I even surprised my Flight Safety-trained instructor by doing something in a Piper Arrow IV that Flight Safety didn't even have him do! Nothing major, just a 60-degree bank turn at 1500' with full flaps.

That being said, and putting this in perspective:

FS is a good "tool", but it is not, never has been, nor will ever be the real thing.

By all means, use a yoke / joystick and rudder pedals, that will certainly help.

Spend some good time with FS, and when you do go to fly for real, you should be ahead of the game. No guarantee however.

It all depends on the person.

I didn't have FS when I learned to fly, as there was no FS back in 1974. No Personal Computers either!

I wish I had it!;-)

Regards,
[link:www.dreamfleet2000.com|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx2/f...nners/LOU.gif]
[font size=1][font color=blue]Can you pilot a plane, instead of programming an FMC to do it for you?[/font color= blue][/font size=1]

[FearlessTower]

While FS is not the same as the real world and never really will be, it is still a very valuable tool for learning to fly. I can personally attest for FS reducing the number of hours needed. I got my PPL in the low 40's (spread out over 9 months due to weather and instructor's schedule)...actually would have been ready and signed off to take the practical right at 40 if it weren't for that 3 hours of practical prep within 60 days of the test).

Now, that being said, I had a few important advantages - I am in the Navy, so I was used to talking on the radio and it didn't intimidate me like it does with many new pilots. I have also spent alot of time flying around with my Dad in small planes so I was already aware of the differences between the computer and the real thing.

I would highly recommend using FS9 to assist with pilot training....you may not be able to log it, but that doesn't mean it won't help you. One of the reasons that I was able to finish my PPL in low time, but spread out over several months is because of FS9. When I couldn't fly because of scheduling or weather, I could load up a flight in FS9 and practice what I had learned in previous lessons. The result is that even though my lessons were often spread out, I never had to do any rework or relearning. That is where FS probably had the greatest value - a real cheap way to practice without paying 4 bucks a gallon!

Things like the yoke and rudder pedals definitely add a level of realism, but just remember, the controls have an entirely different feel in the real plane.

My personal recommendations (in addition to all of the ground and flight instruction your instructor will give you) is to use FS to reinforce what you will be doing in your lessons and spend alot of time listending to one of the many live ATC websites or use a protable scanner just to become familiar with the radio.

Hope that helps,
Andrew

[tcr1016]

I want to thank everyone for giving input. I want to ask do you use 2D or 3D panels views? 2d gives gauges but limited forward view. 3D seems to not give very good instrument visibility.

[FearlessTower]

You will find alot of opinions on the 2D vs 3D and it ultimately boils down to personal preference. I personally like and use both. When you start flight training after simming, you will find that one of the common problems that flightsimmers have when learning to fly is that we spend too much time looking at the instruments. This is because in FS, you don't have many of the same visual cues and the panel is always right there in front of you. When learning to fly VFR, much of the emphasis is visual and centered on what is often called attitude flying. You will have to do things like make 360 degree turns maintaining a constant altitude without looking at the instruments. I found that the virtual cockpit was helpful for practicing that type of stuff. I learned to fly in a Piper Warrior and I used the Dreamfleet Archer for sim practice. The instrumentation was practically identical and the only real difference was 180 hp for the Archer vs 160 in the Warrior (not enough to notice in the sim). I found that using 0.75 zoom in the VC was the best for pracitcing visual stuff. That way I could adjust the eyepoint with the hat switch on the yoke so that I wasn't constantly looking at the panel and then practice visual maneuvers with an occasional glance down at the instruments as I would in the real world. In my case, the VC helped alot to get me in the habit of looking outside of the plane.

If you are planning on learning to fly, I would recommend finding out what planes the flightschool uses and get a comparable FS addon to practice with. If you are flying cessnas which most schools use, I strongly recommend the Flight1 C172. If they use cherokees like the Warrior, I don't think you can go wrong with the Dreamfleet Archer.

Anyay, that's my two cents.

Andrew

[Kimber]

The VC for sure!! More of the real view of the real world!!
Zoom in a bit to see the gauges better!!

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/940/tattors4gs.jpg

[lazlo123]

>You will find alot of opinions on the 2D vs 3D and it
>ultimately boils down to personal preference. I personally
>like and use both. When you start flight training after
>simming, you will find that one of the common problems that
>flightsimmers have when learning to fly is that we spend too
>much time looking at the instruments. This is because in FS,
>you don't have many of the same visual cues and the panel is
>always right there in front of you. When learning to fly VFR,
>much of the emphasis is visual and centered on what is often
>called attitude flying. You will have to do things like make
>360 degree turns maintaining a constant altitude without
>looking at the instruments. I found that the virtual cockpit
>was helpful for practicing that type of stuff. I learned to
>fly in a Piper Warrior and I used the Dreamfleet Archer for
>sim practice. The instrumentation was practically identical
>and the only real difference was 180 hp for the Archer vs 160
>in the Warrior (not enough to notice in the sim). I found
>that using 0.75 zoom in the VC was the best for pracitcing
>visual stuff. That way I could adjust the eyepoint with the
>hat switch on the yoke so that I wasn't constantly looking at
>the panel and then practice visual maneuvers with an
>occasional glance down at the instruments as I would in the
>real world. In my case, the VC helped alot to get me in the
>habit of looking outside of the plane.
>
>If you are planning on learning to fly, I would recommend
>finding out what planes the flightschool uses and get a
>comparable FS addon to practice with. If you are flying
>cessnas which most schools use, I strongly recommend the
>Flight1 C172. If they use cherokees like the Warrior, I don't
>think you can go wrong with the Dreamfleet Archer.
>
>Anyay, that's my two cents.
>
>Andrew

I also use the DF Archer with the 3d panel to practice flying without relying heavily on using the instruments... Suprisingly I found it to be quite easy to maintain altitude..

[flyinggriffin]

Using a 2D or 3D panel will depend on how good a computer and or graphics card you have.

I would also increase the default rate that the view changes in the VC to something that is more like a real life head swivel.

[FearlessTower]

Excellent point Bob! To really be able to make use of the VC, you need to adjust the default pan rate in the FS9.cfg.