The company introduced its latest flight simulator technology, AX-D Flex: a “roll-on, roll-off” solution designed to train pilots on multiple aircraft, from business jets to midsize airliners, within a single mothership. Each simulation bay can accommodate up to three different cockpits, which can be swapped out in two hours or less, the company says.

Roll-on, roll-off flight simulators—which allow pilots to train on a variety of aircraft within a single system—are uncommon, but not unheard of. CAE and GlobalSim, for example, sell systems billed as roll-on, roll-off.

However, Axis says its solution is the first such simulator with a front-loading mechanism, which makes it simpler to switch between cockpits. The nonsimulated area, where the instructor and observer sit, stays in the simulator.

“Training providers are typically required to install specific simulators for different aircraft types,” said Christian Theuermann, member of the Axis executive board. “The launch of AX-D Flex will redefine the landscape of flight simulation, offering a cost-effective solution that allows pilots to train a variety of different aircraft types.”

According to Axis, AX-D Flex enables software-based avionics simulation using commercial off-the-shelf components that are “OEM-quality” and is designed to reduce maintenance costs and pilot downtime.

The mothership houses AX-D Flex’s basic structures, including the core motion and visual display systems. Accompanying it are “swap units” comprising a cockpit module and base frame, which contains computers and other technical devices.

With the front-loading system—which uses a stationary forklift—the swap units, including larger cockpits, can be lifted from the mothership and replaced with new modules. A pilot could go from simulating a business jet like the Bombardier Challenger 300 to a midsize airliner such as the Boeing 737 Max within two hours.

The simulator interior’s track-mounted seats can be repositioned according to the cockpit being loaded in. The transition requires a maximum of two technicians, Axis says.

“Our hardware team has extensive experience in designing components that exceed industry standards,” said Helmut Haslberger, director of hardware development and production management for Axis. “Through our precision control and electrical systems, we’ve designed a seamless lifting mechanism to allow smooth transitions between cockpits.”

The U.S. military also has an interest in multipurpose simulators. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), for example, has modified an F-16 into an AI-controlled test aircraft that can simulate the conditions of other aircraft while flying. U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall earlier this month said he would get in the cockpit of the self-flying airplane. 

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Axis Unveils Three-in-One Flight Simulator appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

This is also the story of the Schneider Trophy, one of the most prestigious prizes in early aviation that sparked fierce international competition to develop the fastest airplanes in the world. The trophy was the brainchild of Jacques Schneider, a French hydroplane boat racer and balloon pilot who was sidelined by a crash injury. Originally an annual contest, starting in 1912, it promised 1,000 British pounds (more than $100,000 today) to the seaplane that could complete a 280-kilometer (107-mile) course in the fastest time. Interrupted by World War I, the contest resumed in 1919 with a new provision: Any country that won three times in a row would keep the trophy permanently. The prize quickly became the focus of intense international rivalry.

Until 1922, the contest was dominated by flying boats—with their fuselages serving as the floating hull—and by the hard-charging Italians—led by the companies Savoia and Macchi, which came close to walking away with three wins and the trophy, scoring average speeds just over 100 mph. But starting in 1923, the Americans introduced floatplanes (streamlined biplanes on pontoons) and took speeds to an entirely new level. Jimmy Doolittle—the famous racer who later led the first World War II bombing raid on Tokyo—won the 1925 race at 232.57 mph, putting the U.S. one step from final victory.

The sole British victory had come in 1922 in a flying boat built by Supermarine Aviation Ltd. Founded in 1913, the Southampton, England-based company had a disappointing record designing aircraft during WWI but since then had enjoyed some limited success ferrying passengers across the English Channel. The company’s chief designer was a young man still in his 20s named Reginald Joseph “R.J.” Mitchell. Desperate not to be shut out by the Italians and Americans, the British Air Ministry backed Mitchell’s efforts to experiment with some radical new designs.

The Supermarine S.4 (the “S” being for Schneider) was a streamlined floatplane, like the American entries, but a monoplane instead of a biplane, constructed mostly of wood and powered by a 680 hp Napier Lion engine. In 1925 it set a world speed record of 226.752 mph, but it proved highly unstable and crashed during trials for the Schneider Trophy race that year. Two years later, Supermarine and Mitchell were back with a revised design: the Supermarine S.5. Three were built and entered in the Schneider competition, numbered 219, 220, and 221. I’ll be flying No. 220 today.

I’ll talk about some of the differences between the S.4 and S.5, but first let’s set the scene. The Schneider Trophy race was hosted by whichever country won the last time. The Italians were victorious in 1926, so the 1927 race was held in Venice. This time, not only was the British government providing financial support, it also sponsored a team of Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots to fly the airplanes.

One of the more curious conditions of the Schneider contest was that the aircraft first had to prove they were seaworthy by floating for six hours at anchor and traveling 550 yards over water. I found taxiing, takeoff, and landing quite bouncy. With its powerful engine and high center of gravity, the S.5 had a tendency to porpoise up and down over the smallest waves.

For all the entries, just keeping the fragile airframes together and the high-powered engines functioning was half the battle. Often, the finicky aircraft broke down or crashed (like the S.4 did in 1925) before they could even begin the race.

The crowds still came. It’s been barely a few months since American Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic, creating a wave of popular enthusiasm for aviation. More than 250,000 spectators have gathered to see the 1927 Schneider race. The course itself is located outside the lagoon, along the Lido. The airplanes must fly seven 47-kilometer laps around the course for a total distance of 320 kilometers (just over 204 miles).

And here we go at full speed across the starting line across from the Hotel Excelsior.

We fly south along the shoreline of the Lido, past the lighthouse at Alberoni, and toward Chioggia.

A steep 180-degree turn at Chioggia, a miniature Venice that built its medieval wealth on its adjoining salt pans…

…then north on the seaward straightaway.

Another hard left turn around the San Nicolo lighthouse…

…then back across the starting line to begin the next lap.

Unlike the S.4, the S.5’s wings are strongly braced by wires. These may add unwanted drag, but they keep the airplane from breaking up under the stress of those high-speed turns.

The S.5 I’m flying, No. 220, is powered by an improved 900 hp Napier Lion piston engine, delivering 220 horsepower more than its predecessor. It has 12 cylinders, arranged in three lines of four cylinders each in the shape of a W, creating the three distinct humps along the nose. The propeller has a fixed pitch.

Fuel was carried inside the two floats, while the oil tank was located inside the tail. The engine was cooled by water, which circulated its heat to copper plates on the wings that served as radiators. Corrugated metal plates along the fuselage served as radiators for the engine oil.

The cockpit is mainly designed to monitor if the engine is overheating—and little else. The goal is to keep rpm close to 3,300, radiator temperature below 95 degrees, and oil temperature below 140 degrees. I’ve found that while the engine may not be air cooled, the flow of air over the radiator surfaces matters a lot. So maintaining a relatively high speed at an efficient engine setting actually helps keep things cool. There’s an airspeed indicator, but it tops out at 400 kilometers per hour, well below our racing speed. There’s no altimeter, and only a rudimentary inclinometer (bubble level) to indicate bank. It’s also nearly impossible to see straight ahead over the engine cowling.

In the cockpit to my right, I have a paper punch card. Every time I pass the finish line, I poke a new hole in it to keep track of how many laps I’ve completed.

Another little twist in the rules: Twice during the race, the aircraft had to “come in contact” with the water—typically a kind of bounce without slowing, which could be very tricky at high speed.

It so happens that  every single airplane except two—both Supermarine S.5s—failed to finish the race in 1927 for one reason or another. Our No. 220, flown by Flight Lieutenant Sidney Webster, finished first with an average speed of 281.66 mph.

The British had won the trophy, but they would have to repeat their performance two more times to keep it for good. To allow more time for aircraft development, participants agreed to hold future competitions every two years, with the next race coming in 1929.

The contest would take place in Supermarine’s home waters off Southampton. The company entered one S.5 and two S.6s. The latter, which had roughly the same design, were now all-metal planes with a new engine with more than twice the horsepower—the 1,900 hp Rolls-Royce R. To keep this monster engine cool, the S.6 needed surface radiators built into its pontoons as well as wings. Not only did one of the S.6s win the 1929 trophy with an average speed of 328.64 mph, but just before the race it set a new world speed record of 357.7 mph.

The British were now one win away from keeping the trophy for good. But with the onset of the Great Depression, the Labour Party-led British government pulled its funding and forbade RAF pilots to fly in the next race in 1931. The decision was wildly unpopular and led to public outcry. Into the fray stepped Lady Lucy Houston, a former suffragette and the second-richest woman in England. Fiercely critical of the Labour Party, she personally pledged to donate whatever funding was needed for Britain to compete in the race.

Backed by 100,000 pounds from Houston (and renewed participation by an embarrassed British government), Supermarine entered six aircraft in the race—two S.5s (including No. 220, which won at Venice), two S.6s, and two brand-new S.6Bs. The S.6B had redesigned floats, but most importantly, an improved Rolls-Royce R engine that delivered an astounding 2,350 horsepower. As it turned out, no other countries entered the competition that year. The S.6B raced alone, achieving an average speed of 340.08 mph. The next day, the S.6B set a new world speed record of 407.5 mph.

There would be no more Schneider Trophy races. With three straight, the trophy was Britain’s to keep, and it remains on display at the Science Museum in London, though few visitors may appreciate what it means. Besides a boost to national pride, the Schneider races propelled aviation forward by leaps and bounds. Today, it might be surprising to realize that the world speed record was consistently set by seaplanes from 1927 to 1935, when the Hughes H-1 Racer finally surpassed them.

The Supermarine S-planes provided Mitchell experience and confidence with incorporating all-metal construction, streamlined monoplane design, innovative wing shapes, and high-performance, liquid-cooled engines. And the S.6s introduced him to working with Rolls-Royce, which built on the lessons learned from its “R” engine to develop a new mass-production engine, starting at 1,000 horsepower, called the Merlin. In the early 1930s, Mitchell would marry these proven high-speed design ideas to the Merlin engine to create the Supermarine Spitfire, the legendary aircraft credited with winning the Battle of Britain during WWII. As for Lady Houston, who supported Supermarine’s entry in the final race, she was later lauded as the “Mother of the Spitfire” for keeping Mitchell’s development efforts alive.

In 1942, the British produced a wartime movie called The First of the Few. It tells the story of Mitchell’s development of the Spitfire, including the key role of the Schneider Trophy races. But the raceplanes themselves were mostly abandoned and ultimately scrapped. Only the Supermarine S.6B that won the 1931 race still survives—now on display at the Solent Sky Museum in Southampton. 

In 1975, Ray Hilborne built a replica of the Supermarine S.5, which was damaged a few years later. Bob Hosie rebuilt it to fly again, inspiring a folk song by Archie Fisher. Sadly, Hosie was killed in 1987 when it crashed. Today his son William Hosie is part of a project to build a new replica of the Supermarine S.5, with hopes to have it flying by 2027. You can learn more about it here.

Meanwhile, the Schneider Trophy race was revived in 1981. Instead of seaplanes, it features small general aviation airplanes as part of the annual British Air Racing Championship.

I hope you enjoyed the story of the Supermarine S.5 and its amazing legacy. If you’d like to see a version of this article with more historical photos and screenshots, you can check out my original post here.

This story was told utilizing the freeware Supermarine S.5 add-on to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 created by sail1800 and downloaded from flightsim.to.

The post The Story of the Schneider Trophy and the Supermarine S.5 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

If you are looking for something with considerably less space disruption and small enough to fit in a carry-on bag, check out the Yawman Arrow. The company notes the Yawman controller puts the yoke, throttle, and rudder pedals in your hands. The device went on the market as of Monday for $249, available for purchase at yawmanflight.com and Sporty’s Pilot Shop. The device was created by brothers Thomas and Dwight Nield, professional aviators, and John Ostrower, aviation media creator, and founder of The Air Current.

The company, based in Carmel, Indiana, calls it a “fully functional hand-held cockpit,” noting there are 21 buttons and seven axes available for programming the Yawman Arrow with added multipress capability “optimized for Microsoft Flight Simulator that makes the controller infinitely configurable for everything from basic aircraft function for flying and simulator commands to advanced autopilot interaction.” The goal is to radically reduce the need for both keyboard and mouse/trackpad when flying.

The Arrow was “designed for simmers by simmers.” It is built in the United States and can be a primary controller on simmers’ Windows or Apple laptop, desktop, or Android tablet. Its portability makes it different from other devices as it can be used on the road with a gaming laptop or Android tablet, or cast to a television from a laptop.

“This has been a methodical journey to bring together all the familiar pieces of flight simulation hardware into an ultra-mobile form factor without compromising the virtual flying experience,” said Yawman co-founder Thomas Nield. “We have achieved that, and we are excited to deliver it to the simming community. We’ve brought a deliberate precision to Yawman, making it a multifunction controller that requires no additional configuration software to maximize its plug-and-play utility.”

The Arrow is designed to work with virtual aircraft of all types, from smaller general aviation airplanes and helicopters to high-performance fighters and commercial jets. Company officials note the portable controller can be used for real-world flight familiarization, preparation, and training without complex hardware.

The Details

The Arrow features controls for pitch, yaw, and roll, and two vernier-style engine controls like those found on many piston-powered aircraft. When the player is flying a jet, these controls activate spoilers and thrust reversers.

The device has an integrated trim wheel, along with two shoulder bumper buttons, a five-button D-pad, and five-way hat switch for independent viewing angles and video recording. The user can access a multifunction six-pack of programmable buttons to customize their flight experience.

The Arrow is fully compatible with Microsoft Flight Simulator on PC, Laminar Research X-Plane on PC and macOS, Infinite Flight for Android, Lockheed Martin Prepar3D, DCS World—and more—as well as nonsimulation games that support HID joystick controls. However, it is not compatible with iOS devices or Xbox.

We Test It

FLYING had a chance to test fly the Arrow. I was assisted by Michael Puoci, one of my learners who is a professional aviation game designer. When Puoci, call sign “Puffin,” was training for his private pilot certificate, he utilized sim technology as an enrichment tool, flying every lesson at least twice before he got out to the airplane That’s the beauty of the syllabus; he knew what was coming next and was able to prepare.

Puoci builds games and test flies them on a regular basis. We met at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. He was armed with his laptop loaded with X-Plane 12 for the demonstration. We tried the Arrow in a Cessna 172 as that is the airframe we both have the most time in.

It was easy to set up the Arrow to interface with X-Plane—just a few clicks. No additional software configuration was required.

• READ MORE: Setting Up Your Sim

Full disclosure: I had never attempted to fly using a game controller before, so there was a learning curve.

During the takeoff from virtual King County International Airport/Boeing Field (KBFI), the left turning tendency got the better of me as I had to use my fingertips for what my feet usually do. It took me a few minutes to get the hang of using light touch adjustments, especially on the trim. I teach my learners pitch, power trim to level off, and it was a challenge to adjust the right lever for power and not to over trim.

It took me a few minutes to achieve coordinated flight, and I found myself physically tilting the Arrow, rather than activating the proper controls, until my hands figured what to do to achieve what I wanted. We had to try stalls too, which are a rudder-dependent maneuver. I did one, then Puochi did one. Learning took place.

If you want to take your aviation sim on the road, the Arrow was meant for you. The unit requires one available USB port (cable included) and weighs 7.83 ounces (222 grams) and does not require batteries or charging.

Shop the Setup

The post Yawman Arrow Hand-Held Cockpit Released appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Since that beautiful day in August of 2020 when Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS2020) was born, some of us have had a pretty delightful time of it. Little trouble and mostly a great experience. There are others, however, who have had nothing but headaches and misery. 

Why is that? Let’s look at some issues and their solutions, along with general operating tips and hints, that have helped me through a recent upgrade to a better flight simming machine. 

I must say immediately that “less is more.” Anyone using a computer for work, office, graphic design, etc., probably won’t have as much luck with MSFS2020  as someone with a dedicated gaming or flight simming PC. It’s just that simple. A PC that is not crammed full of the extra programs the average office computer is bloated with will always serve you better.

I recently purchased a high-end laptop to use for all my sim needs. A 4090 GeForce graphics card is the highest you can go. However, the top-rated MSI machine I chose at first didn’t have “GSYNC” technology in its display which meant that running MSFS2020 resulted in choppy graphics and screen tearing issues despite blazing fast frame rates. In the past, I had always chosen GSYNC computers, but for some reason this one slipped right past me. I returned it immediately for a GSYNC Asus ROG 18 gaming laptop and couldn’t be happier with the smoothness and performance. 

All that is to say I highly recommend a GSYNC based computer and video display. I now see frame rates over 100 where my old 3070 laptop maxed out at about 50 in rural areas. I have to give a shoutout to my local Boston Microcenter for being such a great place to purchase technology such as my new beast of a laptop. You’ll probably never find a good sim PC in a typical store. Specific online retailers specializing in high performance PCs and gaming laptops are pretty much the only way to go. Personally, for something this valuable, I like being able to return it in person if something goes wrong.

Let’s face it, MSFS2020 is very demanding and requires a great gaming-style PC with high end hardware. That said, most computers and laptops built since 2020 do a pretty great job of running it right out of the box. The problem is no two computers are the same and everyone on earth will have a different set of experiences to report. Many having non-stop issues with the sim have an old or slow computer. Some may have newer, powerful machines that still run everything poorly due to outdated drivers, bloatware, overly clogged hard drives, or actual hardware issues. 

In my recent upgrade to a better gaming laptop, I had a some @#%$!!! moments myself. I would say if you’re having trouble with poor performance, crashes, freezes, and nonstop aggravation with your sim, then simply reset windows to new and use the option to do a complete restore. This will wipe the drive clean, leaving nothing behind. Doing this will ensure getting as new a PC as possible with no bad files or programs left behind to do bad things. In my experience, the time it takes to do a reset (about an hour is all) is way faster than spending days trying to troubleshoot.

Let’s say you do this or actually get a new computer. There is a lot of “junk” to be done before you install the sim and hopefully the things I’ll talk about here will help someone out there! If I can help at least one fellow pilot or flight simmer solve their issues, it will be worth it. 

Before anything can be done, make sure you have a great internet connection. This program will not install or run well on slow internet, period. This can be a major issue for folks in places where the internet is poor and spotty. It can make using MSFS2020 nearly impossible. This is where X-Plane can be the sim of choice, as you can use it easily offline without any internet. 

Here are some important steps to take (in order) after a new install of Windows or getting a new PC:

Windows Updates 

Go to the search box on the bottom area of the desktop, (the one with the magnifying glass symbol). Type in “update” and then click on “Check for updates”. You’ll be brought to the main update interface. Next, click on update and let it go. Now, you may be prompted to do this several times and some “restarts to take effect” will occur. If it hasn’t been done in a while, this could take time (possibly hours depending on your internet speed). Once it says  “your computer is up to date,” you’re ready to do more. 

Startup, Sleep, and Shutdown Options

Type in “Closing lid” in the search box. Click on “Change what closing the lid does” which will bring you to the options to select variables under the heading “Define power buttons and turn on password protection.” Be sure to stop all sleep, snooze, and lid closing options. Having a computer “hibernate” when attempting to run a sim for hours will cause issues! Also, click the “Change settings that are currently unavailable” link to get access to the “Shutdown settings” section. Once there, uncheck “Turn on fast startup” to disable that feature. Experts say to shut off this option as it can introduce problems and system hangs since using fast start was originally meant to speed things up, but can also cause instability and issues if not everything got loaded properly. I have always shut it off on my computers and honestly my laptop boots just as fast and with less worry.

Editing Advanced Power Settings 

Editing these settings will enable you to change the way the processor and other components run. First, type “Edit Power Plan” into the search box. Then click on “Change advanced power settings.” Don’t allow them to reduce less than 100 percent off the max settings, and if on a laptop, don’t allow anything less than 100 percent unless the machine is not plugged in, like on battery. Spend time to look around at all the options and don’t just accept the default ones as good. You need all the power you can get! Hard Disk,  Desktop background settings, Sleep, PCI Express, Processor power management, Display, and Battery options all need to be tweaked for power and not rest. Computers don’t need naps, only pilots do.

USB Controllers

Type “Device Manager” into the search bar. Click on it and then navigate down to “USB serial bus controllers”. Click on that and find “USB Hub” in the dropdown menu. Right click on USB Hub and select “Properties”. Click on the “Power Management” tab, where you will find another hidden option allowing you to uncheck the “Allow the computer to run off this device to save power” box. As we use many connected hardware devices, having a USB port suddenly napping away, can cause the sim to freeze or lock up sometimes. This option may work if you have any issues where the controls aren’t working fast enough or you get sim lockups. 

Game Mode 

Go back to the search bar, type “Game Mode” and select “Game Mode settings.” Click the toggle to turn OFF Game Mode. Most experts say not to use “game mode,” so (to be honest) without much evidence, I leave it off as well. Hopefully it’s not just a placebo. However, once you search for game mode, you’ll find an option under “Related Settings” called “Graphics.”  Click on that and you’ll see a list of programs. Look for Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane and click on it. Next, click “Options”  and choose the one for  “high performance.”. Click Save. This is a new feature and seems to be one that many experts suggest. 

HAGS

Hardware-accelerated GPU scheduling (HAGS) is necessary for 4000 series NVIDIA cards to get the best quality and performance as well as the new DLSS and frame generation technology. This can also be enabled on the “Graphics” page (if needed, you can navigate back to it by typing “Graphics” in the search bar and selecting “Graphics settings”). Once there, click on “Change default graphics settings” and make sure the Hardware-accelerated GPU scheduling toggle is set to ON. Below HAGS, also set the toggle for Optimizations for windowed games to ON. If you have a lower card like a 2 or 3000 series, it may be better to leave HAGS off. Experiment to see. 

Windows Defender 

Next, type in and click on “Windows Security.” Go to Virus & threat protection and find Virus & threat protection settings. Click on “Manage settings” and scroll down to “Exclusions.” Select “Add or remove exclusions” then “Add an exclusion.” From the dropdown menu, pick “Folder.” From there, find and select your install directory for the sim you use. Now processing power won’t be used to scan this while you’re busy flying. Less intrusion is necessary! MSFS2020 and all my other games run from the Steam network so I just have the entire steam folder selected to ignore my games and sims I use. Defender is all you’d ever need to keep your PC safe in the first place. It is well made and doesn’t slow down your PC by keeping it active. 

Nvidia Drivers 

I personally prefer Nvidia graphics cards. For a long time, it’s been widely accepted in the sim community that they provide the highest quality and power for a sim. Nowadays, I could be wrong on this as gamers have accepted–and some even prefer–Ryzen. For me, I am sticking with Nvidia. If you have a Nvidia or Ryzen machine, you’ll need to upgrade to the latest or near-to latest drivers. Realistically, something less than a year old will do. Googling your specific card  is probably the best way to bring up your upgrade options. As always, when upgrading on Nvidia, be sure to choose the “Custom Installation” option and check the “Perform a clean installation” box to completely clear out old drivers and do a fresh install. 

Nvidia Control Panel or Other GPU interface 

It’s extremely important to make sure your main graphics card is listed as either the only one or top priority. On my laptop, I have a Nvidia Control Panel whereby I can select my 4090 graphics card as the priority and main card to use during any gaming or simulation, or just always use it bypassing the internal one on the motherboard. You can’t run any sim on an internal graphics processor. Usually this hassle is only on a laptop. With Nvidia, I have found that customizing settings to anything other than default usually doesn’t result in any added benefit to performance or quality. Some may disagree and have had good luck. The only thing I might change is the option to always use maximum performance vs. normal, but then again, even in default normal, the GPU will go to highest performance when required. Snake oil? No clue on this one. After years of fiddling I still have no proof. All I can say is less “tweaking” seems to result in the best performance and quality overall.

Getting Rid of Bloatware 

One of the most beneficial and satisfying things to do for me is to get rid of system hogging, clogging programs like any outside antivirus software. It’s not necessary and will cause system slowdowns, intrusions, and worse. Windows Defender is plenty all by itself. So via the search bar look up “Add or remove programs” and click on it., Go down the list and uninstall things like McAfee antivirus, Norton antivirus, Windows Office (a massive hog), and other junk a flight simmer will never need. Years ago, virus were a big threat. They’re much less these days, and I used to always find computers so bogged down, so slow and unresponsive, because they are plagued by antivirus software that everyone is told to use. Throw it all out. Just be careful not to delete something either Windows requires or you may need later. 

• READ MORE: Tips and Tricks for Flight Sims

Installing MSFS2020

Once you install the sim for the first time you don’t have to do anything with the so called “community folder.” However, if you have either a pre-existing installation or items you had downloaded or purchased, those are going to need to be re-installed. 

That “Community Folder” Thing…

All the addons you purchase or download for free will be placed into the “community” folder. Become familiar with it as during updates it’s important to temporarily either empty it out (i.e. select all, cut [ctrl-x] and paste the contents elsewhere [ctrl-v], or rename it to something like [Community_backup]. This must be done prior to any Asobo Studio pushed updates. You’ll know it’s time as you’ll be prompted to update. Just exit out the sim, and do this procedure, then re-start the sim and let it do it’s update thing. Once done, you can place your community folder contents back where they were prior to the forced update.

The location of your community folder depends on whether your MSFS2020 is from the Microsoft Store or Steam. 

The location for a Microsoft Store installation is:

C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.Flight Simulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Packages\Community

The location for a Steam Store installation is:

C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft Flight Simulator\Packages\Community

If you’re redoing a new installation from scratch–or just a new one from a new computer–do not just “copy” over your pre-existing community folder. I ran into trouble when I did this by just dragging the community folder over onto my new PC, and trying to install the sim. MSFS2020 failed to update properly on installation and all my addons didn’t work right. The sim was unusable and crashed, as I believe the underlying paths to installed options made the new installation think they were still in the area they were on the previous PC. In any event, a new installation with you re-downloading your add-ons and not including them in the community folder during the installation is the only way to do this error free. You should be flying high now.

I hope this helps at least one person out there get the best out of their sim with the least amount of anguish. For those of you who are real pilots, I can hear it now, “it’s much easier just to fly a real plane.” Well, kinda…But addicted sim geeks like me know we can’t live without both, real and virtual.

The post Optimizing PC Performance for <i>MSFS2020</i> appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In Part 1 of my series featuring Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 initial setup (May 2023/Issue 937), we discussed the importance of making instant views to use all the time when flying. Positioning yourself and creating the proper “captain’s eye point” is crucial in being able to fly like a real pilot would, as well as correct sight positioning and view toward the runway to enable landing like the pros.

• READ MORE: Your First Sim

For some reason, the default viewing height given is always in error, often too low to see properly over the “dashboard” or glareshield. Unless you’re a 5 year old learning to fly, the default viewpoints are always bizarre to me. After 10,000 hours of flying mostly corporate jets in my career, I can promise you that in order to get the best look and “feel,” please use the photo on the next spread to get a sense of the proper view height.

Whether it’s a transport category jet or Cessna 152,the same principles should apply: See enough of the panel to give you the PFD, or basic instruments such as speed, vertical rate, and some engine gauges, but then cut off the rest. You must see more than 50 percent of your view out of the front, as I have shown you in the image. You can have hot keys set for the rest of the panel or external views as we discussed earlier.

Once this pilot’s eye is set, the rest is not as important and can be anything you’d like to have in a “scan” or button press corresponding to all the 1-9 viewpoints you locked in before. Often people tell me if they set the view like that, they can’t see the primary gauges that well. I tell them, in real life, especially in jets where everything is bigger and farther apart, we can’t either.

Takeoff in jets is done by the nonflying pilot calling out our V-speeds. Same on landing. We actually have to scan down far away from the view outside to see our speeds and instruments. Thus, the nonflying pilot is again calling out everything we need to hear. I actually don’t see the airspeed indicator much at all in a jet on landing—or takeoff for that matter.

The Keys to It All

Onward to the important “key bindings” you’ll need to perform next in order to run your cockpit efficiently. Now, my key assignments are only an example, but they have worked great for me for more than 20 years in all simulators—and have never changed. Now with more hardware, these key assignments can be brought over to the Honeycomb system or whatever you may have at hand.

Let’s start with your keyboard F key row. I assign F1to 4 as some external lights.

Options/Controls Options/Keyboard/Filter All/SearchBy Name (insert “landing light” for example)/Toggle Landing Lights (then insert your key you want like F1)/Save And Exit

Continuing on, assign the following necessary key commands:

F5 Flaps Up/F6 Flaps Up A Notch/F7 Flaps Down ANotch/F8 Flaps Full Down

Recommended Autopilot Functions

I set up my system to actuate the autopilot using these key settings:

F9: Decrease autopilot reference airspeedF10: Increase autopilot reference airspeed

F11: Decrease autopilot reference altitude

F12: Increase autopilot reference altitude

V: Toggle autopilot V hold

Z: Toggle autopilot master

H: Toggle autopilot heading hold

L: Toggle autopilot flight level change

Ctrl-A: Toggle autopilot approach hold

Right Ctrl+=: Increase autopilot reference Vs

Right Ctrl+-: Decrease autopilot reference Vs

S: Autopilot airspeed hold

T: Arm autothrottle

[: Decrease heading bug

]: Increase heading bug

F: Flight director toggle

I have other controllers using the same commands, as often I may use a combination of keyboard and various controllers depending on if I am at home or on the road. Naturally these are just my personal choices that have worked well over the years for me. Once comfortable setting these up, you can choose anything you want. It will be easy and fast to configure.

Perhaps the most important buttons to assign in the entire program are “pitch trim up and down.” I use two buttons on my joystick for that, simulating the electric trim rocker found in most general aviation and jet aircraft of today.

Whether or not you have a simple or complex set of actual hardware to use, I would recommend attaching an Xbox 360 or Elite controller to the mix. It’s an inexpensive but very effective piece of hardware that in my case becomes a portable autopilot unit. The sim will take any number of hardware pieces running in harmony. This simple device can be used for basic flying, but I chose to disable all the default flight functions on my Xbox controller and have introduced many of the autopilot functions I just spoke about (see sidebar below).

Amateur, But It Works

In addition to either my joystick (THQ Airbus side-stick) or the Honeycomb yoke, I have my landing lights, strobes, nav lights, and taxi lights assigned for quick access. Speed brakes can be assigned to a joystick traditional throttle slider or fancier throttle quadrant unit.

Once you purchase your first set of controllers, MSFS2020 will by default load many of the most common functions, especially if using a name-brand throttle quadrant with panels and buttons built in. The Honeycomb system does just that, with obvious systems, such as landing gear, already mapped properly.

Now that hopefully you have set up your controls and views the way you like them, you are indeed ready to fly and explore the entire world in minute detail. Be sure to be safe, plan, and treat it like it is oh-so-very real.

One last necessary item I’d recommend is the added immersion you’d get by purchasing FSRealistic, available online. It adds the necessary vibrations, noises, head-shaking motions, and so on, that I myself as a real pilot find extremely necessary when flying the sim. By default, MSFS2020 is not that animated, but this add-on takes care of the necessary things I feel that I can not live without in a realistic flight sim environment. Give it a try.

Recommended Autopilot Functions On an Xbox Controller

On my Xbox controller, I have assigned the following:

LEFT FORWARD BUMPER: Flaps up a notch

LEFT STICK PUSH DOWN: Lower flaps a notch

RIGHT FORWARD BUMPER: Reduce throttle (used for engine reversers on jets if you don’t have a throttle system that specifically does this—normal throttle forward from any device will remove reverse thrust)

PLUS PAD UP: Heading hold

PLUS PAD RIGHT: Increase heading bug

PLUS PAD DOWN: Altitude hold

PLUS PAD LEFT: Decrease heading bug

RIGHT STICK PUSH DOWN: Gear toggle

Other buttons I have are dedicated to Autopilot master toggle, Flight director toggle, etc.

This article first appeared in the July 2023/Issue 939 print edition of FLYING.

The post Setting Up Your Sim appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Now with the advent of the “still kinda new” Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS2020), the default airliners seemed pretty good to me over the past few years, but not great. They are loved for their good looks and ability to travel to and from great expanses of the sim globe, but not much more. The default sounds were horrendous—and still are. Luckily, that was solved by a little company called FTSounds, which has redone many of the default aircraft sound sets to something far closer to the real thing. Now in addition to that, the default jetliners recently got a makeover in terms of systems modeling and avionics updates by the Working Title company. These free upgrades got pushed automatically by recent in-sim, mandatory updates, so by the time you see this, you’ll already have the newly enhanced heavy jets. 

• READ MORE: Your First Sim

I was thrilled to find out all this was integrated seamlessly and works so well. The newly done avionics fidelity didn’t cause any performance or dreaded frame rate reduction either. Now our default jets are looking and performing as they should, like a costly add-on. Until PMDG releases the upcoming 777 and 747, the default 747 and Boeing 787 complement the realism and fidelity of the currently available PMDG 737NG and BBJ lineups for MSFS2020.

To initiate an autoland in the airliners, you’ll need to make sure your FMS is properly set as in any flight, with the destination, runway selection, ILS chosen, speed performances, etc. Be sure to have spoilers armed and auto brake set to whatever you want. On a long runway like Denver International Airport (KDEN), where I did this example, I had auto brakes off completely and used full reverse to stop the jet (or at least to 60 kts per usual real-life stuff ). The FMS on the Boeing 747 and 787 auto select the frequencies, so you’ll not need to calculate or hunt those down. Once the airplane is on the initial approach, it will look similar to any ILS.

Once a certain distance is hit, it will proceed to LAND 3 or LAND 2 modes. LAND 3 will utilize all three autopilots and perform the entire event all the way to rollout with self steering and runway tracking to a stop. In this example, the autothrottle is on, holding a target landing approach or V_REF of 151 kts. It’s wild to see the throttles moving on their own, but they do. No matter the weather and wind, this thing works.

On short final, you may see a FLARE annunciation, but you’ll not need to do anything, as it will do that maneuver all by itself too. It will round out, hold the nose up, and allow a gentle sink rate onto the pavement. If you watch it closely, it’s almost a lesson on how to land a heavy jet with perfection each step of the way. As in real life, if you do this in zero-zero, you may never even see the runway at all. Maybe at night you’ll see the centerline lights, but the only indication you’ve landed is the spoiler snatch back, or touchdown sounds.

The slowdown and rollout with the gentle wobbling back and forth to keep the centerline was fabulous as I had not expected all this detail. In some autoland sim models, you’ll have to kick off the autopilot yourself since it’s not going to steer precisely. Now, I only fly a bizjet in real life, so I haven’t experienced real autolands or equipment at different runways—maybe they don’t all allow precision to a stop.

I have been practicing autolands in both Microsoft Flight Sim and X-Plane products over the years, and it’s especially rewarding in zero-zero. When I recorded these screenshots, I was using live weather and wasn’t sure how precise it would be or even if it would work correctly, so I was happy to have great weather. I now have no doubts that if you’re flying a default 747 or 787, it will perform just as perfectly when unable to see. Just remember the centerline may be easier to see at night in zero-zero than during the day. Autoland on jetliners has been around far longer than I ever knew, going way back to the 1970s when most airliners had that functionality built in. The great trijets, such as Lockheed L1011s and McDonnell Douglas DC-10s, used this technology just like the 747s and the Boeing 757s and 767s in the 1980s. 

For the real die-hards, I would recommend the plethora of YouTube videos or other online resources available on the subject. It’s amazing how much great material is available for the inquiring mind on real-world operation. 

The best website to totally geek out on is run by a friend of mine, Steve Giordano. 

Speedtapefilms.com and its associated YouTube videos present great HQ cockpit action from all around the globe as Giordano and his team ferry jetliners around for banks and various new owners.

The post Amazing Autolands appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In a level of coordination and political mobilization not that uncommon in the industry, what seems like the entirety of general aviation has rallied against the FAA’s proposed rules for training and certification of powered lift pilots. And it did it the old-fashioned way: by penning the agency a strongly worded letter.

The FAA’s 160-page Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), published in the Federal Register for comment in June, attempts to create a pathway to establish the initial cohort of pilots who will conduct advanced air mobility (AAM) operations using electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) and other emerging aircraft designs. Think air taxis, such as Joby Aviation or Volocopter.

But despite the clear amount of effort that went into the document, a collective of industry stakeholders spearheaded by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) fears the proposal falls short.

GAMA’s comments are supported by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA); Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA); Helicopter Association International (HAI); National Air Transportation Association (NATA); National Business Aviation Association (NBAA); and Vertical Flight Society (VFS).

Let’s start with the good. GAMA praised the “dedication and efforts” of FAA rulemakers, acknowledging the challenge of integrating an entirely new model of aircraft into the national airspace system. An accompanying comment from the NBAA highlighted a few provisions in the SFAR the groups support. These relate largely to the inclusion of powered lift instrument procedures, operations in remote areas, and extended permissions for pilot inspections.

But that’s about it. The bulk of GAMA’s letter criticized four key provisions in the SFAR, which the industry feels will impede AAM entry into service, restrict operations, and place undue burdens on pilots, instructors, and manufacturers.

Representing more than 150 of the world’s largest general aviation manufacturers, operators, service providers, and other stakeholders, GAMA has plenty of political clout on Capitol Hill. And with the added support of the NBAA, NATA, and others, chances are these comments will inform the FAA’s final rule.

So, let’s dive into the implications of the industry’s recommendations.

Where It All Started

Though GAMA highlighted the challenge of certifying an entirely new cohort of aircraft and pilots, many of the obstacles the FAA faces are of its own making.

Last year, the agency unexpectedly reversed course on eVTOL certification, opting to certify the aircraft as “special class” powered lift aircraft under FAR 21.17(b) rather than as normal category airplanes with special conditions under 21.17(a). This followed four years of communication that 21.17(a) would be the standard.

While some supported the reversal, it immediately drew criticism from eVTOL manufacturers and stakeholders, including GAMA, whose members “weren’t happy” with the change. A Department of Transportation audit of the FAA, released in June, alleges the rule change significantly impeded the agency’s progress on fostering the new industry.

Interestingly, the FAA cited pilot certification as the catalyst for its decision: “These regulations did not anticipate the need to train pilots to operate powered lift [aircraft], which take off in helicopter mode, transition into airplane mode for flying, and then transition back to helicopter mode for landing.”

But the new certification path may actually complicate pilot training and certification.

It has been brought up that the skills required to pilot two existing powered lift aircraft, the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey and the F-35B, are very different, though the FAA currently issues former military pilots of these aircraft powered lift pilot certificates with no distinction for these differences. The argument has been made that placing all powered lift aircraft in the same category in a similar fashion creates issues with the uneven distribution of privileges, which GAMA says can only be resolved by requiring additional type-specific training for all aircraft models.

Recommendation 1: Training Should Credit Existing Certificates

According to GAMA, the SFAR proposal “reflects the same path for new powered lift pilots as existing requirements for airplane and rotorcraft.” In other words, it’s largely hours based.

To operate powered lift aircraft, the FAA proposes that airplane and helicopter category pilot certificate holders first obtain a powered lift category rating by completing a certificate at the commercial level followed by a type rating. The add-on would require 50 hours of flight time in the category. This echoes the updated airline transport pilot (ATP) rule, which has been criticized by pilots and airlines for its arbitrarily high time requirement.

All applicants (including Flight Standardization Board pilots, who will likely be the first to fly these aircraft) must log at least 50 flight hours in the category.

This is “not a practical nor appropriate” pathway to certify initial pilots, GAMA says. It argues that airplane and rotorcraft category certificate holders are experienced pilots ready for type-specific training. In short, there is no added value or safety benefit from requiring them to train on generic powered lift aircraft—a category it contends does not yet even exist—before pursuing a type rating.

The agency itself acknowledged the lack of a generic powered lift category in the SFAR: “…The FAA has determined that, unlike airplanes and rotorcraft, it is not feasible to establish classes within the powered lift category at this time.”

In lieu of the two-step process, GAMA recommends the FAA allow a powered lift type rating to be added directly to an airplane or helicopter category pilot certificate, which would remove a big chunk of the hours requirement. This, the group says, aligns with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for certifying pilots for powered lift operations.

GAMA suggests that because the proposal seeks to qualify already-certificated pilots with plenty of experience, the curriculum should be based on training rather than hours. It points to the FAA’s removal of the requirement for military pilots to build time in unrelated training aircraft, which the agency says provides no added safety benefit.

“This requirement is not a training requirement but a time-building requirement,” GAMA wrote. “The economic realities of operating a large powered-lift will incentivize an applicant to build this time in a lower-cost aircraft that might not be relevant to the aircraft they intend to operate commercially.”

Instead of the time required for a powered lift category certificate, GAMA argues that minimums should align more closely with those for an instrument powered lift rating in 61.65(f) and the powered lift rating flight hour requirements in 61.129(e)(3) and 61.129(e)(4). Specifically, GAMA stated, “Industry questions the net safety benefit of § 61.129(e)(1), requirement for 50 hours in a powered-lift for which the SFAR proposes no alternate requirements. This requirement is not a training requirement, but a time-building requirement. The economic realities of operating a large powered-lift will incentivize an applicant to build this time in a lower-cost aircraft that might not be relevant to the aircraft they intend to operate commercially.” 

“GAMA and its members propose instead that the time required in a powered-lift should be linked to meeting the minimums specified in §§ 61.65(f), 61.129(e)(3), and 61.129 (e)(4), which are training-oriented requirements rather than mere time-building metrics.”

Stakeholders were particularly critical of the 50 powered lift flight hour requirement. Few, if any, FSB pilots hold powered lift category ratings at the commercial level and therefore cannot complete flight hours in a powered lift aircraft requiring a type rating. This, the industry argues, would place the burden on the aircraft manufacturer to provide FSB pilot flight hours.

By GAMA’s estimate, requiring a full 50 hours per pilot could extend the FSB process by as many as nine months. And with a growing number of manufacturers looking to enter the FSB process at the same time, that issue is not likely to go away.

The groups contend that the SFAR’s proposed requirement of an airplane or helicopter category rating and the similarities between maneuvering those aircraft and powered lift designs justifies credit toward the 50-hour requirement. It also recommended the FAA consider takeoff and landing operations as equivalent to a flight hour, similar to the way 61.159(b) allows certain night takeoffs and landings to count toward night flight hours. 

Further, the group suggests that after applicants complete an approved training course, the FAA should accept simulator flight training or supervised line flying (more on that later) as sufficient to approve newly rated powered lift pilots for commercial operations.

Recommendation 2: Ax the Dual-Control Aircraft Requirement

One unexpected piece of the FAA’s proposal would require AAM manufacturers to maintain a separate, dual-control variant of their design—or find a different model altogether—specifically for pilot training. The agency contends that before operating a model with single controls, pilots must show they can safely fly a dual-control design with an instructor.

Industry stakeholders have several qualms with this. For one, many powered lift models will not have dual-control alternatives in the near term, since most manufacturers have developed their designs with a single set of flight controls. The rule would also penalize manufacturers who have integrated advanced flight controls by proposing a single pathway for training. 

“These barriers are a direct consequence of FAA reversals on this rulemaking and the content of the proposed SFAR,” GAMA says.

The groups further contend that this “one-size-fits-all approach” could compromise safety, considering the dual-control training aircraft may have very different controls and performance compared to the real deal.

The proposal also fails to consider the safety benefits of simulator-based training, which is at the core of GAMA’s recommendation. It asserts that simulator tech has come far enough to offer realistic scenarios minus the risk, proposing the FAA allow applicants to complete training in flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) under approved training courses.

These courses should cover all maneuver training in certified FSTDs qualified for training, testing and checking the airman certification standards maneuvers outlined in recent FAA rulemaking. They should also conduct part of the practical test in an aircraft, GAMA says, which would eliminate pilot-in-command (PIC) and supervised operating experience (SOE) requirements on the applicant’s new certificate.

After qualification, the groups recommend a post-qualification program under Part 135 that would require supervised line flying in the NAS in order to codify flight experience within the training course.

Currently, the Department of Defense uses simulators, augmented flight controls, and endorsed solo flight experience to allow airplane pilots to operate powered-lift aircraft. GAMA suggests these procedures could serve as a reference point for powered lift training programs.

Taking things a step further, the industry asks the FAA to leverage existing precedent and acknowledge the experience gained in one category of aircraft (i.e. airplanes or helicopters) as “creditably similar” to the requirements for powered-lift qualifications.

Accordingly, it argues the agency does not need to require SOE for all single control aircraft, like the current SFAR proposes. Rather, it should allow for exemptions and open a pathway to awarding letters of authorization to manufacturers that can demonstrate their FSTDs meet the same standard.

As things stand, SOE is not required if a single control aircraft is capable of assessing the five maneuvers laid out in 61.64(f)(1). By creating an alternate pathway, the FAA could lower the number of requests for exemption from this provision, allow SOE to be done virtually or in a simulator, or exempt trainees from SOE altogether if the aircraft requires reduced skill or knowledge to operate.

Recommendation 3: Remove the Red Tape Around Flight Simulators

In the current SFAR, the FAA mandates that manufacturers publish powered lift FSTD qualification performance standards (QPS)—essentially, the agency’s curriculum for simulators—in the Federal Register for public notice and comment. But GAMA argues this requirement could delay entry into service beyond the initial cohort of powered lift aircraft.

Instead, it recommends the FAA allow manufacturers to pick and choose portions of the QPS as appropriate for each type of powered lift design. This, it says, aligns with the National Simulator Program’s approach, which recognizes exceptions for certain FSTDs.

As GAMA points out, many powered lift manufacturers and training partners have already proposed QPSs and had deviations approved. Under the current proposal, these firms risk having to go through the QPS process all over again.

The group adds that because the SFAR would amend FAR 60.1—effectively incorporating powered-lift aircraft into Part 60—the proposed requirement for public notice and comment is unnecessary. Since it would overlap with powered lift FSTD qualifications already outlined in FAA rules, all it would do is strain time and resources.

Stakeholders further ask the FAA to expand the types of simulators that can be used for training, which the SFAR limits to Level C or higher. They argue that new, lower-level technology can meet or even surpass safety requirements, as well as lower costs for the operator—which would make the Level C provision moot.

Recommendation 4: Treat Powered Lift Aircraft the Way They Want To Be Treated

While GAMA’s first three points of contention focus on pilot training and certification, its final criticism turns the spotlight on operations.

As written, the SFAR primarily applies airplane rules to powered lift operations, with few exceptions. That inherently limits the acceptability of rotorcraft rules, which in GAMA’s view fails to consider that many powered lift designs fly just like helicopters.

The core issue here is that the proposed operating rules are prescriptive: They place all powered lift aircraft under the same regulatory umbrella, despite the wide spectrum of capabilities and use cases they possess. Accordingly, the industry is clamoring for performance-based rules.

GAMA suggests the FAA apply operating rules for both airplanes and rotorcraft as appropriate, based on the performance characteristics of each powered-lift aircraft type demonstrated during type certification. Basically, it asks the agency to treat powered-lift as airplanes when they fly like airplanes and as helicopters when they fly like helicopters.

The FAA could do this by approving individualized operating rules based on each operator’s safety management system, training requirements or other factors, achieved through an operations specification for Part 135 air carriers or a letter of authorization for Part 91 operators. This would allow them to collect and share data about the suitability of rotorcraft operational rules for powered-lift and adjust current standards.

It would help the FAA accommodate the range of vehicle types and performance capabilities in the new category. The industry recommends the agency revisit its proposal and take inventory of operational data every two years in order to make necessary refinements.

There are a few specific operational requirements GAMA highlighted. Under proposed 91.155, powered lift aircraft would be subject to the same visibility requirements as airplanes. But since they can maneuver like helicopters, possess VTOL capabilities, and can operate safely at low airspeeds and altitudes, the group contends helicopter rules should apply.

It argues the same for minimum safe altitudes, asserting that powered lift designs have similar emergency maneuverability to helicopters and therefore should be allowed to fly below the safe minimum for airplanes. In the SFAR, the FAA counters that some powered lift aircraft lack the autorotation capabilities of helicopters and could lose altitude when transitioning from forward to vertical flight.

Overwater operations are one of the few areas the FAA proposed permitting helicopter rules for powered lift. But again, GAMA disagreed. This time, it argues that some eVTOLs glide on fixed wings like airplanes when carrying passengers over water. As such, the agency should apply airplane rules to these designs.

The industry’s final point of contention concerns fuel reserve requirements, which the FAA proposes should be time-based. But because powered lift aircraft can land vertically like helicopters to find runways when fuel is low and can operate in reduced visibility, stakeholders counter with a performance-based system.

That framework would instead account for mission- and aircraft-specific conditions. Through a mission-specific range and endurance hazard assessment that covers weather, air traffic, and airport conditions, mission planning, and other factors, the industry argues manufacturers could determine how much reserve fuel is needed.

Ball Now in the FAA’s Court

GAMA and the other groups have a few peripheral concerns. The biggest is the SFAR’s Regulatory Impact Analysis, which they say excludes key costs and resources and paints a misleading picture of the FAA’s ability to implement the new rules.

But really, the industry’s recommendations boil down to four key points:

1. Allow a powered lift type rating to be added to airplane and helicopter category pilot certificates.
2. Add language to create an alternative pathway to powered lift training beyond dual-control aircraft.
3. Grant deviation authority in the FSTD QPS process.
4. Add language like “unless otherwise specified” to operational provisions applying airplane and helicopter rules to powered lift operations.

These four changes alone won’t achieve the industry’s vision. But they would help shift powered lift pilot training and certification away from hours-based standards and toward a more practical, accessible, and cost-effective pathway. They would also allow early powered-lift aircraft to operate the way they were built to be operated.

After two months, the proposed SFAR this week officially closed for comments. Now, the ball is in the FAA’s court—and the pressure is on from all corners of the industry.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post GAMA and Other Industry Groups Cast Shade on FAA Powered Lift Pilot Proposal appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The story of this plane really begins in 1908, when Howard’s father, Howard Hughes Sr., patented a new drill bit that proved essential to the oil boom then sweeping Texas. The drill bit business generated money like a gushing oil derrick. Hughes Sr. moved his family to Los Angeles, where his brother (junior’s uncle) was a successful screenwriter for the fledgling movie industry, interested to get in on the action.

• READ MORE: The Effective, Long-Lasting MiG-21

But in 1924, Hughes Sr. suddenly died of a heart attack, leaving his 19-year-old only son, Howard Jr., with a controlling 75 percent share of the thriving company. Completely uninterested in drill bits, this young man had big dreams for how to use his new fortune. He launched an independent movie studio and began dating the city’s most glamorous actresses, including Joan Crawford, Ginger Rogers, Hedy Lamarr, Bette Davis, Ava Gardner, Olivia de Havilland, and Katharine Hepburn—which didn’t go over well with his first wife.

Meanwhile, he embarked on filming an insanely ambitious war epic that many believed would ruin him. Hell’s Angels, which Hughes directed himself, took an unheard-of three years and $4 million to complete. He assembled a private air force of more than 100 planes and pilots to portray the film’s realistic, action-packed dogfight scenes. When it was finally released in 1930, the movie was a huge hit, receiving an Academy Awards nomination for Best Picture.

In the process, Hughes became interested in learning to fly. He even worked incognito as a mechanic to learn the ropes from some of the best pilots and designers in the aviation industry. To gain experience, he secretly got a job with American Airlines as a pilot. He made a trip from Los Angeles to New York before his identity was discovered and he was forced to resign. He became interested in racing, and in 1934 founded a new company, Hughes Aircraft, solely to build a custom-made airplane that could set new world speed records—the H-1 Racer.

The H-1 was fitted with a Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp Junior radial engine, the same used by the Grumman F3F fighter. Normally capable of producing 700 hp, it could produce 900 hp when fed with high-grade 100-octane fuel. Unusual at the time, this later became standard for aviation gasoline (avgas). The drawback of an air-cooled radial engine, compared to inline pistons, was it creates drag. However, the H-1 minimized this with a bell-shaped cowling that streamlined the air around it.

The fuselage was constructed of strong, lightweight duralumin, an alloy consisting of 95 percent aluminum, 4 percent copper, 0.5 percent manganese, and 0.5 percent magnesium. Streamlining was an obsession for Hughes. Every rivet on its surface had its head partly sheared off so it was completely flush with the surface. Every screw was aligned so its grove aligned with the airflow.

The wings were made of plywood for lighter weight. Each was sanded into the perfect shape, then doped (painted) and polished to make its surface smooth as glass. For its initial flights, the wings were quite stubby, giving the H-1 a wingspan of only 24 feet, 5 inches, compared to a length of 27 feet, making it challenging to maneuver.

The H-1 featured retractable landing gear powered by hydraulics. The doors were carefully measured so when the gear closed, they were completely flush with the underside of the wing.

The H-1 also sported flaps to increase lift at slower speeds on takeoff and landing. While flaps and retractable landing gear were being adopted on airliners such as the Boeing 247 and luxury aircraft such as the Beechcraft Staggerwing, they were still fairly new innovations.

• READ MORE: The Rugged, Sleek Legacy of the Beechcraft ‘Staggerwing’

The H-1’s cockpit reflects the lack of standardized layout typical of that era. Designers were still experimenting to find an optimal arrangement. On the left side was a crank for the canopy and another crank for elevator trim, as well as switches for magnetos, battery, starter, and lights, plus two fuel selectors. At the pilot’s left hand is the throttle and mixture. While the pitch of the propeller appears externally adjustable, it does not appear to be controllable in flight.

On the right side are circuit breakers and a radio. Below it are two levers (one normal, one emergency backup) for raising or lowering the landing gear. Also on the right are a crank for operating the flaps and a pull-handle parking brake. At the right hand center of the panel is a gyroscopic attitude indicator (artificial horizon). To its right are the main engine gauges, including manifold pressure, RPM, oil pressure, engine temperature, and fuel pressure.

On the left hand of the forward panel are my main flight instruments: clock (left), altimeter (top), vertical speed indicator (below it), and altimeter (below that). At the left-hand center of the panel is a heading indicator. Under the fuel gauges at the bottom center of the panel are my rudder pedals and stick, for controlling the H-1 in flight, as well as a handle for carburetor heat to prevent intake icing.

Under the guiding hand of aeronautical engineer Richard Palmer and production chief Glenn Odekirk—who managed the aircraft fleet for Hell’s Angels—the H-1 took shape in a shed in Glendale, California, and was ready by August 1935. The plane had cost Hughes $105,000, equivalent to about $2.3 million today. On August 17, Howard Hughes gave the H-1 its first test flight for a short 15 minutes.

I’m here at the modern-day John Wayne Airport (KSNA) in Santa Ana, California, which is adjacent to the now-vanished dirt airstrip where Hughes and his team gathered a month later to challenge the world landplane speed record.

In 1931, the Gee Bee Model Z clocked an unofficial speed of 315 mph, but a follow-on attempt to make it official ended in a tragic crash. The standing record Hughes actually had to beat was 314.32 mph, set the previous Christmas Day by a French Caudron C.460.

The first trial on Thursday, September 12 ran too late for the cameras to properly record results. So it was on Friday the 13th that the 29-year-old Hughes—wearing the unusual outfit of “a rumpled dark suit, soiled white shirt, and tie”—took to the air again to challenge the world record.

The rules were as follows: To beat the world record, Hughes would have to make four consecutive passes averaging over 314 mph at an altitude no higher than 200 feet above sea level. Electronically timed cameras would—hopefully this time—measure the speed. Hughes could enter the timed passes in a dive but from no higher than 1,500 feet. And the plane had to land afterward with no serious damage.

To get a feel for the plane, I didn’t follow these altitude restrictions precisely and flew it around a bit. On the day of Hughes’ second attempt, however, famous aviatrix Amelia Earhart flew cover at 1,500 feet to make sure Hughes observed the limit.

I’ve started with my fuel gauges half full. To reduce weight and maximize speed, Hughes took off with just enough fuel to complete seven planned passes. He posted speeds that day of 355, 339, 351, 340, 350, 354, and 351 mph. The average of the best consecutive four was 352.39 mph, easily beating the previous record.

I made seven passes myself, at full throttle, and repeatedly reached a top airspeed of 310 knots—at which point I could feel the H-1 start to shudder from the turbulence. At first I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t come close to matching Hughes’ speeds. But then I realized my units were wrong and that in fact 310 knots equates to over 356 mph. So, mission accomplished.

After his seventh pass, Hughes’ fuel gave out, and the H-1’s engine sputtered to a halt. As onlookers watched in horror, he glided the plane silently to an emergency gear-up belly landing in a nearby beet field. Except for a few bruises and scrapes, Hughes was uninjured. Despite the crash landing, the airplane was considered intact enough to allow his world record stand.

Martin Scorsese’s 2004 film The Aviator, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, portrays Hughes’ successful speed record attempt in the H-1 Racer and the crash landing that followed. (It conflates the first test flight with the speed record run and gets a few details wrong. The real location was a lot flatter than portrayed in the film).

• READ MORE: Flying Back in Time on the First Civilian Passenger Airplane

The H-1 was flown so few times, there’s no formally tested approach or stall speed. But I felt it sinking around 100 knots and figured I better keep it above that, similar to a World War II fighter plane. That must be about right because I touched down without bouncing.

After Hughes smacked into the beet field and was informed he had just set a world record at 352 mph, he said: “It’ll go faster.I don’t see why we can’t use it all the way.”

“All the way” meant a nonstop, long-distance flight from Burbank, California, to Newark, New Jersey, to set a transcontinental record, beating the one Hughes already established. In January 1937, equipped with longer wings, larger fuel tanks, and an oxygen supply for higher altitudes, the H-1 again took flight. He crossed the country in 7 hours, 28 minutes, and 25 seconds, at an average speed of 332 mph, eclipsing the record set by Roscoe Turner—one of his stunt pilots in Hell’s Angels—by 36 minutes. He also set records from Miami to New York and Chicago to Los Angeles.

In July 1938, Hughes went on to fly a Lockheed Model 14, an upgraded version of the L-10 Electra, around the world. He made it in 91 hours (three days, 19 hours, 17 minutes), cutting Wiley Post’s previous record of 186 hours (seven days, 18 hours, 49 minutes) in half. Hughes was hailed as a national hero and received the coveted Collier Trophy and  a ticker-tape parade in New York City.

Of course, that wasn’t the end of Hughes’ career in aviation. He went on to sponsor the construction of the Lockheed Constellation and the gigantic H-4 Hercules, famously known as the “Spruce Goose.” 

• READ MORE: Inside the ‘Spruce Goose’

Hughes hoped the U.S. Army would take an interest in the H-1 Racer as a potential fighter plane, but that never materialized. Later, Hughes claimed the Japanese had based the design of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero on the H-1. Others speculated it inspired the German Focke-Wulf 190. But the designers of both World War II fighter planes denied any such influence.

As for the H-1 itself, Hughes kept it around but barely flew it. He sold and bought it back again. Shortly before his death in 1975, he donated the H-1 to the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, where it remains on display. It has a total of just 40.5 flying hours on it.

In 2003, Oregon aviator Jim Wright built a full-scale flying replica of the H-1 Racer. Sadly, it crashed soon after its unveiling, killing Wright. It was to have been used in The Aviator, and the film ended up using a scale model instead.

Though it is difficult to trace its immediate influence on future aircraft design, the H-1 Racer epitomized many key innovations that were transforming aircraft in the lead-up to WWII, and its records set a high bar for future performance. A wealthy playboy, daring aviator, or eccentric dreamer? Whatever he might have been, Hughes built an impressive machine that, for a time at least, made him the fastest man alive.

If you’d like to see a version of this story with many more screenshots and historical images, you can check out my original post here. 

This story was told utilizing the Hughes H-1 Racer add-on to MSFS2020 from HCG Digital Arts Ltd., as well as the John Wayne International Airport add-on from UK2000 Scenery.

The post The Daring Legacy of the Hughes H-1 Racer appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“Vienna is the ideal location for CAE’s new business aviation training center in central Europe,” said Nick Leontidis, CAE’s group president, civil aviation. “This new center will be a game-changer for business aviation training in the region, offering programs on the region’s most sought-after aircraft platforms in an immersive learning environment. CAE Vienna is another example of the significant investments we are making to bring business aviation training closer to where our customers operate their aircraft.”

In addition to the Global 7500 and Global 6000 full flight simulators, four other FFSs will be installed, their types yet to be determined. The 8,000-square-foot center will have the ability to flex up to accommodate nine FFSs total in the space.

The center is planned to open in the second half of 2024.

Other expansion plans were completed in 2022, with CAE Singapore launched in November with a Gulfstream G650 FFS. And in April, CAE opened its first center on the West Coast of the U.S.  in Las Vegas. Others set to open in 2023 include Lake Nona, Florida, and Savannah, Georgia.

The training and simulation company joins others in the industry in sharing its plan to reach net-zero emissions and sustainable aviation goals. Read CAE’s FY22 Annual Activity and Corporate Social Responsibility Report here.

The post CAE Expands Training Center Network to Austria appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The event, held in Memphis, Tennessee, on the weekend of November 12, brought together more than 400 educators and industry leaders to share information and discuss ways to apply STEM concepts using Redbird Flight simulation technology.

During the event, Redbird announced the creation of 25 new flight simulator lessons designed to supplement the 10th- and 11th-grade course material that is part of the AOPA High School Aviation STEM Curriculum. For several years, Redbird and AOPA have been working together to create what is essentially a multiyear ground school for high school students.

How It Works

Each flight simulator lesson includes a lesson plan and extension options designed to support the learning objectives of AOPA’s high school curriculum, which is currently in use at some 300 schools in the United States. This hands-on approach in the Redbird simulators can enhance the learning process.

“The lessons integrate seamlessly with AOPA’s curriculum, helping students connect classroom theory to the practical application of professional flight skills and aeronautical decision-making,” Redbird said. “For example, the simulator lesson titled ‘It’s Electrifying,’ which corresponds to the electrical systems lesson in unit eight of AOPA’s 10th-grade curriculum, enables students to explore how toggling various cockpit switches influences the operation of the electrical system of an aircraft. The tactile approach to learning helps students better understand that manipulating electrical switches does not impact engine operation.”

Redbird’s simulator supplement is a free digital offering for high schools that use AOPA’s curriculum. 

Simulation education is Redbird’s specialty. The Texas-based Redbird Flight was established in 2006 with the mission of making aviation training more accessible through modern technology. Redbird simulation devices range from desktop models (the Redbird TD-2) to enclosed-cab, full-motion Advanced Aviation Training Devices (Redbird FMX) and the Redbird Xwind crosswind trainer.

Redbird training devices and content packages are used in flight schools, colleges, universities, K-12 schools, and by individual pilots worldwide.

Many Careers Represented

The symposium was not just about recruiting future pilots, noted AOPA, adding that STEM-related careers include drone operators, aerospace engineers, scientists, technologists, and technicians. During the symposium, educators are encouraged to network and explore new ideas to take back to their classrooms to enhance the educational process.

The post Redbird Creates High School Flight Simulator STEM Lessons appeared first on FLYING Magazine.