It’s been the catch phrase used everywhere the last few years, and it has become the gold standard of top quality aircraft or those so realistic and so well designed that you could study them to obtain actual type ratings and pass an initial course.

Most add-ons are of simpler design and varying levels of quality, but over the years, these study level aircraft for the Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS20) and X-Plane 12 (XP12) platforms have grown in numbers.

I am old enough to remember the old fighter sim called Falcon 4.0 in the late 1980s and early ’90s. It came with a thick paper manual that felt like a novel. I miss those days of real boxes, manuals, and reading material.

Some of the most detailed aircraft add-ons come loaded with PDFs to study, and some have nothing at all, leaving it up to the customer to go online or just obtain the actual real aircraft’s study manuals. It seems lazy to not bother to publish a manual for an aircraft release, but then again, if it’s so realistic that the only PDF says “go obtain a real Airbus A320 POH” for more information, I’m sold. If something is that good and complete, then I think the developer is allowed to be lazy, or perhaps a bit big braggish.

Most commercial pilots, or experienced aviators in general, were dismissive of flight sims at home. Twenty years ago, I was embarrassed to come out of the sim closet for I’d be a victim of skepticism or at least a target of laughter. “No flight sim can do anything close to what ‘real pilots’ deal with in Level D sims,” I was often told. Or, I’d hear, “Oh, yeah, that little Microsoft Flight Simulator, I played with it once. It looked like a cartoon, so that won’t help anybody.”

• READ MORE: Turn Up the Heat in Sims With Density Altitude Games

This is what every older-and-bolder, gray-haired retired airline pilot said when seated to my left.

Now that I have gray hair, I am all too happy to encourage the younger generation to get active with sims when they aren’t flying the real thing. It’s also accepted among almost all real pilots I know as a really useful tool now that photorealistic graphics are everywhere and far exceed the quality of a $20 million sim the FAA approves. For as little as $2,000, you can rival those simulators at home.

I am not going to mention every study level aircraft available—that would require a book.

Yet over the years before and even right through MSFS2020 and XP12, several come to mind and most are quite famous and have been around for a long time:

Precision Manuals Development Group

The company has been around since the early 1990s. It’s the longest add-on group ever for any sim, and in my opinion, the finest. Everything about it is study level.

Its entire Boeing products are the gold standard of what an add-on should be, and nobody has rivaled it in producing a Boeing 737NG, 747-400, or 777. Now since the release of MSFS2020, we have been enjoying the entire 737NG set, including BBJ. Almost every system, failures, controls accuracy, autopilot, performance, switchology, sounds, visuals, etc. have all been reproduced perfectly.

• READ MORE: The Art of Simulated Long-Haul Flying

Years of development for just one airframe. You’d ace a type rating in the real aircraft after spending time with PMDG products. I wish I could go get a 737 type rating just to test this theory myself. I feel I know no other aircraft as well as this one, due to my years with PMDG 737s. Now, we are about to get its 777 finally after years of waiting patiently. It will be released this year and continue the outrageous quality and realism we all crave from a company that really only releases masterpieces.

Fenix

This company is a new entrant that stormed onto the stage just last year with its completely detailed A320 for MSFS2020. Upon release, it quickly became accepted as the most detailed Airbus for any sim platform.

In my opinion, the early release suffered from performance and frame rate issues as it couldn’t compare to the smoothness and fidelity of the PMDG lineup. But a year later, with all the refinements and the recent release of the update or Block 2, it is now a masterpiece. Detailed systems right down to individual circuit breakers are modeled. Engine modeling and accuracy is key. All that has been done, and now the IAE version is included, each with its own systems, sounds, and realistic performance.

• READ MORE: Taking Risks at a Trio of Mount Rainier Airstrips, Virtually

Some say it has blown past the PMDG. Whatever the opinion, I share the zeal. It’s smooth, precise, and many real airbus pilots online tout it as basically perfect. A true study level that you’d absolutely use during type rating school. I’ve enjoyed flying it now, as much as I have over the years with the PMDG lineup.

SimMarket

This company sells the Maddog MD82 for MSFS2020. I am not as familiar with the older airliners, so I will defer to the majority of sim fans online holding this up to the level of the Fenix.

For MD fans, this is also a real keeper. It represents a blend of systems modeling and accuracy all from the later ’70s to later ’80s replicated at a high level. In a battle for the top, this is often referred to as the best airliner ever made for MSFS2020. I’ll have to learn it better to give my own opinions, as I have used it little, never being a Maddog fan. But I see the reviews touting it as in the top few airliners ever released.

X-Plane

It has the outrageously in-depth Felis 747-200 series for the X-Plane sim. It is one of the most complete jetliner simulation add-ons I have ever used—from nose to tail. This is one of the reasons I still use XP12.

I cannot say enough about this masterpiece other than I wish it was available on MSFS2020 as well. You need to be three pilots at once to handle this beast. Setting up view points is key, as you’ll not only be pilot and copilot but flight engineer as well, often manipulating the systems as you sit sideways. You can feel the quality, heaviness, and momentum.

X-Aviation

The company sells the most renowned and sought-after bizjet for any sim, the Hot Start Challenger 650. This completely study level jet is once again simulating entire circuit breakers from head to tail. Setting the bar so exceedingly high, it’ll be what all future bizjets are compared to.

Sadly, only X-Plane 12 has it, but again, that’s another reason I still use it. The accuracy, realism, handling, etc. is all spot on. I fly a similar aircraft in real life and find this exceptionally close to the real thing. Again, it’s a type rating quality example to learn from. Many have called it the best jet ever designed for any sim, and it’s impossible to disagree. It certainly rivals the airliners above in total quality and experience.

Flysimware

It has a Learjet 35A that was recently released in “early access.” I have featured this in many an article so far, and it is well on its way to what I would call an honorable mention study level aircraft.

Its blueprint quality visuals, scaled parts, and cockpit clarity make this a winner right out of the gate. I’ve never seen such a beautiful reproduction in an early access or beta-style release. The flight quality, accurate avionics, sounds, and more make this a really promising product when the final version comes out.

It is the best pure bizjet built specifically for the MSFS2020 lineup so far. Let’s leave the jetliners behind now, as accuracy and study level can go down a category and be just as advanced.

A2A Simulations

The company has the 1960s Piper Comanche 250 featuring its coveted Accu-Sim 2.0 technology to bring a living, breathing aircraft to your desktop. This example must be run as gently as a real one, maintained and babied, or else face what real owners face: expensive repair bills.

You can damage and destroy the airplane if you’re a ham-fisted pilot. The aircraft requires a full preflight and walk-around inspection. You can test the fuel and do everything a real pilot would during a flight.

Continually monitoring its wear and tear, systems, and cleanliness is all part of this intensely realistic model that keeps its constant state alive, meaning it will remember its health on a continual basis, even if you fly something else in between on different days. You even get to perform an overhaul and other yearly tasks.

This airplane has quite a following and has been labeled by many as the best general aviation aircraft ever designed for any sim. I believe A2A is leveraging its AccuSim technology to future releases, and it certainly has captured the immersion of owning, operating, and maintaining a personal airplane like no other.

Conclusion

These are all my experiences with what I own and fly in the sim world. Your opinions may vary, especially when you get into the smaller airplanes as it’s much easier to simulate a simple single-engine in study level than an airliner.

In some ways, many of the default or add-ons for GA are close to this namesake already. A basic default Cessna will accelerate any new student pilot right to the top. The graphics of MSFS2020 and XP12 aircraft are good enough and photorealistic enough to permanently lodge in the brain of anyone learning to fly and stay current.

It’s a great time to study and learn in today’s flight sim environment. Compared to what we had in 1981, everything now is study level.

This feature first appeared in the Summer 2024 Ultimate Issue print edition.

The post Ultimate Issue: Taking Sim to a New Level appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Test rides on the six-axis simulator are meant to simulate the flight of electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft in order to help NASA study turbulence on planned air taxi services in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and elsewhere in the U.S. The data will be shared with AAM industry partners to help them develop passenger-friendly designs.

The space agency is working with several major air taxi developers through its advanced air mobility (AAM) mission, including Archer Aviation, Joby Aviation, and Boeing eVTOL arm Wisk Aero, to research the experience and safety of riders as well as onlookers on the ground.

“The experiments in the ride quality lab will inform the advanced air mobility community about the acceptability of the motions these aircraft could make, so the general public is more likely to adopt the new technology,” said NASA test pilot Wayne Ringelberg.

Ringelberg served as the passenger for the comfort experiment. The pilot recently flew a series of test rides on the new simulator at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, to help prepare it for trials with actual test subjects.

Ringelberg lifted off from a NASA-designed conceptual vertiport atop a downtown San Francisco parking garage, flying over the city to another virtual takeoff and landing site on top of a skyscraper. Sitting in a seat mounted on a six-axis platform that recreates the full range of motion of an air taxi ride, he wore headphones to simulate noise and VR goggles that gave him a view of the cockpit and the city below.

Following the flights, Ringelberg reported to NASA on how realistic and reliable the simulator’s movement and audiovisual cues were.

“This project is leveraging our research and test pilot aircrew with vertical lift experience to validate the safety and accuracy of the lab in preparation for test subject evaluations,” he said.

With Ringelberg’s work finished, the agency will soon begin testing with human subjects. They will similarly wear a VR headset and headphones, flying the same route as the NASA test pilot. During the flight, subjects will press a button to indicate discomfort.

The space agency will analyze those responses and try to match them to the user’s heart rate, breathing rate, and experience of motion or audiovisual stimulus. It will make that data available to air taxi manufacturers and other industry stakeholders to shape flight paths through cities, identify takeoff and landing spots, and guide air taxi design elements like window size and seat placement.

The air taxi simulator is the key component of NASA’s rider quality lab, but that project is itself only a tiny piece of the agency’s AAM mission.

It began using the term AAM in 2020 and has since worked with stakeholders across the industry on a wide range of projects. The initiative focuses on everything from air taxi safety and ride quality to travel time, automation, and infrastructure such as vertiports, preparing industries including healthcare, emergency response, and cargo delivery for the introduction of the novel aircraft.

Within the program is the Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP), which focuses on innovative aircraft designs such as Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology (RVLT). In addition to passenger comfort, NASA under the RVLT umbrella has studied air taxi batteries, noise, and traffic, particularly around busy airports like Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (KDFW).

Urban air traffic management and the integration of eVTOL designs into air traffic control operations and the national airspace system is a major part of the space agency’s mission. It aims to complete its research in time for the U.S. to develop a robust air taxi industry by the end of the decade.

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

The post NASA to Study Air Taxi Turbulence Using Human Test Subjects appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

If you haven’t yet explored this sector of the flight sim world, there are some intriguing options for developing skills, such as communications and procedures, from home. Among them is PilotEdge, a company that aims to provide a virtual air traffic control (ATC) network that is accurate and professional enough to be used for real-world pilot training.

Origin and Expansion

Founded in 2008 by Keith Smith, PilotEdge officially launched in 2011, offering service for the area covered by the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). According to Smith, the platform drew on early work done by hobbyists, building it out to form a network of controllers who operate almost exactly like their real-world counterparts.

• READ MORE: Survey: Home Flight Sim Helps Prepare Real-World Pilots

PilotEdge added support for the Oakland, California, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Denver, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, ARTCCs in 2016. Over the past decade, it has also expanded its feature set with highlights such as an ATIS engine based on real-world weather (which correlates on PilotEdge’s ATC scopes), the ability to trigger remote failures in X-Plane, and high-fidelity controller pilot data link communications (CPDLC) for clearance delivery.

In addition, the company has developed a way to mimic VHF radio interference based on line of sight, terrain, and signal modulation. “Never has so much work been done to make a radio sound so bad,” Smith said.

Rules of Engagement

To get started on PilotEdge, users need a compatible flight simulator such as Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, Prepar3D, or X-Plane 11 or 12, a headset, and a broadband connection. A PilotEdge account is required—monthly plans run from $19.95 to $34.90—and once an account has been set up, there is software to download. From there, log in, set the real-world frequency for the facility you want to contact, and communicate your intentions just as you would for an actual flight.

When it comes to operating in the PilotEdge environment, there are some rules in place to keep the experience realistic. Smith emphasized that the company’s virtual airspace is not designed for inexperienced flight simmers to test out unfamiliar aircraft. It is, fundamentally, a space for those who are comfortable with their simulator and aircraft model they will be flying to build proficiency.

• READ MORE: Flight Sims for the Win: It’s All About Repetition and Drill

“Contrary to what a new client might think when signing up, PilotEdge is not…designed for pilots to give it a try and see how it goes,” Smith said. “Filing IFR from LA to [Las] Vegas, direct, in a Boeing 737 that you don’t know how to fly, without any working knowledge of IFR procedures, is going to work out about as well as it would in the real world.”

For those who don’t or can’t fly at a realistic level for the type of operations they are simulating, the company focuses on providing education. This includes encouraging the use of its library of training programs.

Training Scenarios and Benefits

By simulating real-world scenarios, PilotEdge seeks to address some common challenges faced by newer pilots, such as mastering the nuances of navigating different types of airspace and proper communication. It also provides an environment where more experienced pilots can improve their skills without the cost of fuel and aircraft rental.

Not getting into the myriad scenarios that are possible on the network, there are two main ways to make use of the space. First, you can just fly your own flight, be it VFR or IFR, communicating with appropriate ATC facilities or via CTAF frequencies as applicable. Again, the whole point is for it to follow the same flow as any similar real-world venture.

• READ MORE: Healthy Obsession: What Flight Sim Has Done for Me

Second, for those looking for a more structured challenge, PilotEdge offers a series of 31 graded training flights. Covering both VFR and IFR skills, each flight is designed to build upon the previous ones. For those looking for encouragement and support while attempting to grow their skills, there is an online community where training scenario results can be shared and discussed.

“PilotEdge’s IFR training programs are known to offer considerably more exposure to a wider range of procedures than is found in traditional real-world training,” said Smith. “Pilots who have completed their IFR training in the legal minimum time have reported to us that their CFII and DPE wanted to know ‘their secret’ as to how they managed to learn so much about IFR flying. These are not isolated incidents either. They are almost becoming the norm on the network. This speaks to the fundamental benefits of self-paced training that offers a high volume of exposure to flying in the system rather than any abilities of any specific pilots.”

That said, Smith acknowledges that those looking to use their simulator-learned skills in the air should pay close attention to where sim training shines—areas such as procedures and communications—and where it differs from real-world flying.

“The secret to getting the most benefit from a simulator is realizing that it’s not your airplane,” he said. “The controls will not feel the same since there isn’t 100-200 mph of wind blowing over the control surfaces, and the visuals are different in a number of ways. As such, even though flight models have come a very long way, and graphics are constantly improving, it’s important to realize what tasks are well practiced in a sim versus what is best left for the airplane.”

Controller Training

PilotEdge brings in its controllers from a variety of backgrounds. Their ranks include real-world controllers alongside those with virtual-only experience. Everyone controlling for the company goes through an 80-plus hour training program that pairs them with a trained PilotEdge controller. The purpose of the program is to refine any previous experience they might have, fill any gaps, and teach how to apply it all on the network. The company uses real-world FAA procedures and manuals as the basis for its controller training.

Unexpected Applications

Like all the best training environments, PilotEdge is far from being serious all the time. It regularly hosts workshops and events, not the least of which is its annual SimVenture. As the name might imply, SimVenture simulates arrivals to the yearly EAA AirVenture fly-in convention in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The experience allows pilots to practice event arrival procedures before attempting them in person and getting a feel for what’s in store when flying into the extremely busy airshow environment. Much like the real deal, the company reports that it has had more than 100 aircraft show up to fly into KOSH.

There have also been a few unexpected uses of the PilotEdge network, one of which involved a short field landing competition. It was won by a 737-200, which raises a whole host of questions perhaps best left for future exploration. Another is that the network has been used by an aerospace manufacturer for human-factors testing on new aircraft designs as part of FAA and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification processes.

“Of late, we’re even seeing applications within avionics manufacturers who are now able to more thoroughly test new designs before the real hardware has even been finalized,” said Smith. “We hope to be able to speak less generically about these events in the future.”

Looking to the Future

While it has expanded quite a bit since launch, PilotEdge isn’t done yet. The company is actively developing its services and hoping to announce its newest project later this year.

This feature first appeared in the April 2024/Issue 947 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post PilotEdge Offers Opportunity to Hone Key Flight Skills From Home appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Having been a flight sim enthusiast in the decade before, but inactive since Microsoft Flight Simulator X and X-Plane 9, I decided to launch into building my own home flight simulator with the goal of pairing it with the freshly launched Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS2020). My goal was to create a cockpit that featured the avionics equipment that I wanted to learn when I could eventually go back to flying in real life, and I wanted my simulator to replicate all the switches and buttons found in most GA aircraft. After three years of building and customizing, my flight simulator reflects the missions and aircraft I like to fly while also allowing the practice of basic maneuvers and procedures at home. 

When the opportunity came to review the Yawman Arrow, I was apprehensive about an all-in-one hand controller designed for a mobile or minimalist home flight sim setup that seemed a world away from the cockpit I had purposefully built. 

The Yawman Arrow team took on the audacious challenge of condensing all of the major flight controls that flight sim pilots have in their home cockpits down into a single hand-held controller. It features two Vernier-style sliders on the bottom center. On the bottom left of the controller is a trim wheel. All the way to the right side are two conventional throttle sliders. Above them is the “six-pack” of black buttons. On the top left of the face is a thumb stick used for the yoke. Directly below and in the center-left position is a five-button switch, and a multidirectional hat switch sits in the center-right position, directly below the six-pack of buttons. At the very top of the controller is the most novel component of the Yawman Arrow—two rudder controls operated by each of your index fingers that are linked together like the rudder controls of a real airplane. When you depress one side, the other side moves in the equal and opposite direction. Two additional buttons near the rudder controls can be assigned to various tasks like the parking brake or for changing Yawman Arrow menus so that more than one function can be paired to a single button. 

While plugging in the controller and jumping into a quick flight is possible, I recommend spending time getting acquainted with the controller’s default button assignments. The Yawman Arrow website has pre-built these so you can print them out, or you can keep them on a second screen as a helpful reference for your first flight. Note that it is best to double-check the button assignments in the control options menu in MSFS2020 (and the equivalent location in X-Plane 11 or 12). I found that some default control assignments differed from the printable document available on the Yawman website. 

To effectively fly with the Yawman Arrow, I needed to spend time sitting in my home flight sim cockpit seat, looking at my controls and then making a plan to determine what assignment to give the most important buttons and sliders. Sitting in my cockpit allowed me to make a visual inventory of the controls, assign them, and then verify the assignments in the MSFS2020 control options menu to make sure I completed the process correctly. It went quickly once I had determined what controls I wanted to assign to the Yawman Arrow. I kept as many of the default settings as I could, only editing what I needed. 

• READ MORE: Setting Up Your Sim

For my first flight, I loaded into the Cessna 172 at KPWM and planned for some basic maneuvers out over the waters of Casco Bay, east of the Portland International Jetport in Maine. I used standard weather and light winds to minimize external factors influencing the aircraft. Preflight and taxiing were no problem once I set the necessary buttons for wheel brakes, parking brake, and flaps. Taxiing using the rudders was enjoyable. The linked rudder controls were my favorite feature of the Yawman Arrow. As a habit, I squeezed both rudder controls at the same time to bring the airplane to a stop near the end of the taxiway before remembering that I needed to use the braking button I had previously mapped. 

Takeoff proved to be more challenging than I anticipated. As I am used to using a realistic, full-size VirtualFly yoke, I needed to acclimate to the relatively small control deflection offered by the thumb stick of the Yawman Arrow. Add to that the effects of P-factor on the aircraft when under full power during takeoff, and my fingers were dancing between the action of rolling the trim wheel, pulling back the yoke hat switch and moving the rudder controls. It was an exercise in small movement motor control, which didn’t take long to get used to. In subsequent takeoffs, I spent time dialing in the yoke/hat switch control sensitivity settings and keeping an eye on my Air Manager display to double-check how much trim control I was using. I was challenged to find the control harmony on takeoff and believe there is more work to be done between dialing in the default sensitivities “out-of-the-box” in MSFS2020 on the Yawman Arrow and simply spending more time getting used to the way aircraft must be flown using the controller.  

Once airborne over the practice area, the 172 was stable, and I found the control harmony between the yoke and rudder controls on the Yawman Arrow was sufficient for slow flight and recovering from power-on and power-off stalls. Satisfied after completing a few basic maneuvers, I returned to the airport to practice a visual approach to a full-stop landing. I set up for a 5-mile, straight-in approach to Runway 29, having flown it before as an active private pilot in real life. I enjoy coming in over the waterways surrounding the city of Portland and MSFS2020 provides some great visual landmarks. 

On a 2-mile final, I set the power for the remainder of the descent and focused on fine-tuning the pitch using the trim wheel. Backing up my trim inputs again visually using the trim display instrument on Air Manager definitely helped. Setting the trim is a critical ingredient of a stabilized approach, and being able to do this consistently is key to making the Yawman Arrow an enjoyable companion or primary controller. The landing was satisfactory, and I felt that I had adequate control authority. Landing provided a good place to try the controller, as it combines relatively slow air speeds with a need to have your fingers near the trim wheel, on the yoke, on the throttle, and up at the rudder controls. This is easier than it sounds given the controller’s natural position in the hand and the thoughtful location of the aforementioned controls. It made me curious to see what a larger version of the Yawman Arrow would feel like, with just a bit more room for hat switch, trim wheel, sliders, and buttons. 

Yawman Arrow founder Jon Ostrower and I discussed the trim wheel in one of our exchanges, and he recommended using it when flying most GA aircraft but to then map the electric trim controls to the second hat switch if flying an aircraft that primarily uses electric trim controls—such as a Cirrus or any small, medium, or large jet—to better simulate how those controls would be moved in the real aircraft. It didn’t occur to me that the trim wheel could be set as a dial for other control uses, such as changing the settings of the autopilot or tuning radio frequencies. It was a reminder that the Yawman Arrow can be set to control nearly any function you need. Other buttons can serve as menu buttons that can be held so that the same button can have more than one function. Here’s where spending time with the default button layouts from the Yawman Arrow website and manual, watching a few how-to videos for tips, and really working through your own customized setup will pay dividends in terms of finding the correct controls at your fingertips when you need it. 

Since I mainly fly GA aircraft in my flight simulation adventures, I loaded up a few of the landing challenges in MSFS2020 that didn’t feature strong crosswinds, so I could better acquaint myself with the Yawman Arrow as a primary controller for jet aircraft. The Aspen, Colorado, and Jackson Hole, Wyoming, landing challenges are favorites of mine and served as good test flight profiles as controlling airspeed is the primary objective once the aircraft is lined up correctly on short final. If flying jets will be your primary use for the Yawman, be sure to set controls for the landing gear, speed brakes, flaps, thrust reversers, and other key controls that you’ll need to execute your landings.

Final Impressions  

Overall, I believe the Yawman Arrow controller is a good value for the cost—especially if you’re the type of user who must have a minimalist cockpit setup based on your budget, or you’re someone who travels a lot and desires a portable sim solution. Like any new flight sim equipment, I continued becoming more comfortable as I flew with it, even though I wish I had spent a bit more time with button assignments. I never managed to get the takeoff behavior harmonized to my liking, but I recognize that we’re still in the early days of the Yawman Arrow, and I know that the team behind its development and the flight sim community will begin sharing their collective knowledge to help tune the sensitivity of the yoke and trim settings and make it a bit more intuitive right out of the box in MSFS2020. Note that I limited my testing to MSFS2020 as I currently don’t use X-Plane 11 or 12, so controller sensitivity and differences in the aircraft’s flight model behavior can vary widely between both flight sim software titles. 

Although this is just a nitpick, I would have preferred a grippier outer surface and potentially a larger form factor, like an “XL” size. Given Ostrower’s deliberate design choices, I am sure these factors were given considerable weight, and they amount to subjective personal impressions of my time flying with the Yawman Arrow. Also, I suspect that the controller would pair well with popular head tracking units, such as TrackIR or Tobii Eye Tracker, which would allow those small glances around the cockpit to check the trim and flaps settings. Using them compliments a minimalist setup and would increase immersion. I relied on my copy of Air Manager running on an adjacent screen to help me verify my trim wheel inputs. 

Although the Yawman Arrow won’t be my primary controller, it does offer even the most hardware-obsessed among us the chance to break it out for quick, casual sightseeing flights. It also provides a chance to use your flight simulator while you’re traveling and  to do more intense jet flying with it if you’re committed to learning the control bindings. It is priced at $199.99 and available at Sporty’s Pilot Shop. That price is $79 below that of a Honeycomb Alpha yoke and about in the middle of the cost range of popular joystick HOTAS options. 

Default settings for Yawman Arrow can be found here. 

Pros:

• Best feature is connected rudder controls.
• The Trim wheel is  a novel addition to the hand controller. 
• There are two options for throttles (vernier style or slider).
• Basic camera movement and autopilot controls worked effectively.

Cons: 

• Since there is no wireless function, it must be plugged into your PC or laptop.
• Yawman Arrow does not work with Xbox. 
• A grippier outer material and potentially larger form factor would be preferable.

The post Taking a Virtual Flight with the Yawman Arrow 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.

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.

That’s the premise out of the 14th Redbird Migration, the annual conference designed for the users of Redbird Flight simulation technology, from the desktop-mounted Jay for home and classroom use to the Redbird AMS, a full motion, highly immersive, cockpit-specific, FAA-certified Advanced Aviation Training Device (AATD) for turbine aircraft.

Registration is now open for the event, which will take place March 5-6 at the Lone Star Flight Museum in Houston. The event moves around the country to allow more people an opportunity to attend.

Each migration brings in keynote speakers from the aviation industry to address aviation educators, K-12 STEM teachers, flight instructors, and flight school owners. Breakout sessions are conducted on topics as diverse as using the Redbird as a marketing tool, best practices for CFIs in the Redbird, and using the devices for school children to enhance lessons.

• READ MORE: Simulation Technology, Not Just for Airlines

According to Josh Harnagel, flight instructor and vice president of marketing at Redbird, the conference is free to attendees, but there is a space limitation of 350. This year, speakers include James Viola, president and CEO of Helicopter Association International, and Bob Hepp, chief CFI of Aviation Adventures.

“We also plan to have someone from the National Transportation Safety Board as well as representation from the other aviation alphabet groups,” Harnagel said. “In addition, this year at the breakout sessions there will be a wider range of folks. On the Monday before Migration begins, there will be a continuing education event for teachers that will demonstrate how to use the sims in the classroom and use of our classroom management tools.”

One of those scheduled to present is Harvey Madison, director of instruction, design, and content at Redbird. One of his skill sets is working with nonaviation teachers to help them better utilize the Redbird in their classrooms.

“You learn so much more by taking concepts from a lecture and applying them on the sim, building that muscle memory,” said Madison. “The sim is the lab part of the class—like in chemistry class where you had the lecture, then in the hands-on part [where] you mixed the chemicals. You use the sim in the classroom for the lab practical part of the lecture.”

About the Lone Star Aviation Museum

Redbird is especially excited about this year’s host venue, as the Lone Star Flight Museum is one of the finest aviation and aerospace facilities in the country. Among its exhibits is the space gallery with a shuttle cockpit and a MaxFlight FS-VC interactive simulator that literally puts you in the pilot’s seat.

For more information or to register, visit migration.redbirdflight.com.

The post Registration Underway for Redbird Migration appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Months before this flight, I added the Reality Expansion Pack (REP) plug-in by SimCoders to the default X-Plane 11 Baron. For $19.99, the plug-in brings additional aircraft systems to life in X-Plane 11 and improves upon the default version. This “study-level” simulation requires precise management of the engines and other aircraft systems, and models additional parts within systems that can be set to fail randomly or at specific intervals. As a result, flying with the reality expansion pack makes the sim pilot responsible for more of the digital aircraft and can increase the workload.Unbeknownst to me, a random failure was lying in wait, destined to alter my flight this particular evening.

The air at cruise was calm, and the digital sun—almost fully set—turned the horizon orange except for a thin layer of clouds building up over the mainland above my cruising altitude. The VFR conditions forecasted in the preflight weather briefing were holding. I had been looking forward to this night’s flight all month as I would be joining up with other flight sim pilots in the live airspace over KPVD. This was my first chance to participate in a “showcase” event hosted by my flight sim club, and was the last fly-in event scheduled for the month. One feature of a showcase event is that volunteer air traffic controllers fully staff the airspace around the Boston area (ZBW), giving all sim pilots a chance to do multiple realistic frequency changes during the course of the arrival to the destination air- port. Similar to the real world, Boston Center would hand off flights to Providence Approach, and then to Providence Tower for landing—with ground, clearance delivery, and departure controllers available for aircraft departing KPVD.

Crossing over the mainland just south of New Bedford (KEWB) in Massachusetts, I was now 10 miles southeast of the Class C airspace and expecting my handover to Providence Approach at any moment. Listening to the traffic on the frequency, I could hear many pilots on IFR approaches and was glad to have opted for VFR flight following. The radio chatter reminded me of flying in the ZBW when I was an active private pilot in the real world. It was exciting to feel like I was back in the big show again. Many of the sim pilots sharing the digital skies with me really know their stuff, flying the airspace competently on IFR flight plans and using professional radio work. It was motivating to be part of the group, and I wanted to bring my best when it was my turn to squeeze the push-to-talk button.

Using my call sign, Boston Center got my attention and provided my handoff instructions. Upon checking in with Providence Approach, a friendly controller greeted me with a right turn to 040, setting me up on a 5-mile left downwind for Runway 23. Moments later, the same controller was in touch with some in-sim traffic for me to see and avoid. I could hear the other sim pilot receiving his see-and-avoid instructions, and by looking out my windscreen to the left, I could make out his aircraft, a Citation, in the distance, lining up for final approach a few miles ahead. I couldn’t see the shape of the aircraft yet, but I could see the nav and strobe lights marking his position, which I cross-checked on the MFD of the G1000. The workload of aviating, navigating, and communicating was keeping me fully in the zone. I love the challenge of the arrival phase of flight, complete with its many variables to manage, and the crowd of sim pilots and controllers on frequency really added to the immersion. Although orderly, it was a virtual rush hour within the KPVD Class Charlie as the fly-in was set to close within the next 30 minutes.

With the landing Citation traffic in sight, Providence Approach turned me onto an extended left base for 23 and handed me off to the tower. I repeated the correct tower frequency but didn’t write it down on my kneeboard. When I dialed in what I thought to be the correct frequency, my call was met with silence. I tried one more time, but realizing that I must have mistyped it, I quickly punched the COM flip-flop button to ask Approach for the correct tower frequency. I felt a sinking feeling in my stomach, knowing I had started to fall behind the airplane in a critical phase of flight. With the correct frequency, I radioed Providence Tower, but my delay caused me to fly past the left turn for final. I sheepishly reported my position to the tower, and the controller took it all in stride, patiently giving me instructions to turn 180 degrees and set up for a right base for 23. Once turned around, I double-checked my airspeed and lowered my landing gear. I took a deep breath so I could focus on the next steps of the arrival.

I needed to settle in and concentrate on the next steps of the approach, but something with the airplane didn’t feel right. I checked my gear lights and had three green. Next, I checked my flaps, and they were retracted. However, I was putting unusual pressure on my yoke to keep my wings level. Immediately, I added rudder to keep the nose on the horizon, and I was now cross-controlling the yoke and rudder to keep the nose level. Not good.

I immediately checked the MFD and backup engine instruments and determined I was not experiencing a powerplant issue. Oil pressure, rpm, and manifold pressure were where they should be for the selected power setting. A few weeks before, I added an additional monitor to my sim cockpit to serve as a backup instrument panel. I attached a suction cup mount to my Stay Level avionics panel that houses my G1000 PFD and MFD. The monitor hosts additional indicator lights, gauges, and controls. With just a glance, I could see critical information about the Baron’s systems that would be available to me if I was flying the airplane in the real world.

One specific gauge caught my attention: The aileron trim position indicator was showing it was rolling uncommanded from full left deflection to full right deflection and back. I quickly clicked the aileron trim controls on the yoke to arrest the trim’s movement but to no avail. Immediately my face felt hot and my heart rate picked up as this problem quickly became an in-flight, in-sim emergency. My chance to land at KPVD with my fellow sim pilots was dissolving rapidly, like my altitude, airspeed, and ability to control the aircraft.

Since I am not a Baron pilot in real life and have not had real-world multiengine training, I predicted the landing would be a challenge. However, this situation provided a great opportunity to work out the problem using what I knew about aircraft systems and emergency procedures. Having never experienced a runaway trim issue in real life or in the sim before, I decided to use the rest of the flight as a test to see if I could survive the emergency. With no physical or monetary consequences, if I failed, it was a very low-stakes learning opportunity. Challenge accepted.

To minimize drag, I raised my landing gear, hoping it would improve controllability. Letting the tower know I was experiencing a flight-control problem, I was cleared to fly south toward the edge of the Class C. So as to not interrupt any fly-in arrivals or departures, I communicated my intentions to the tower and disconnected from the live air traffic control service. I was alone in X-Plane 11 now, and I was running out of troubleshooting ideas. The control of the Baron had not greatly improved with my gear up, and my mind was racing to identify a solution. With both feet and hands working the flight controls, I kept working on the problem mentally. Was I fighting the autopilot? It was definitely possible that I had engaged the AP by mistake. A quick glance at the G1000 and back down to the AP controls confirmed that autopilot was off.

Next, I gripped the yoke tightly—not knowing how the Baron would respond—and activated the autopilot into heading mode to see if that would stop the aileron trim’s maniacal cycling. I recalled that X-Plane 11 has extensive and programmable failure modes. Back in 2021, I had enabled the failure mode to randomly select one failure per 60 hours of flight time and, although I had only flown the Baron about 20 hours in the past 12 months, I realized the runaway trim condition was most likely caused by this programmable setting lurk- ing in the background of my previous months of sim flying, and was now showing itself.

I used the manual in-cockpit camera controls to zoom into the circuit breakers to see if I could pull the appropriate one with a click of my mouse. I knew some X-Plane aircraft modeled circuit breaker behavior but wasn’t sure if my REP Baron was included. When no circuit breakers responded to my rapid-fire mouse clicking, I zoomed in on the base of the throttle pedestal to see if I could manually stop the aileron trim wheel from turning. My mouse was unable to click the control wheel and stop it from continuing to turn. At this point, I was out of options to diagnose and but- tons to click, and still struggling to keep the aircraft under control.

Fortunately, my path south of KPVD led me to the western edge of the Class D for KOQU. Having attended a real-life air show there in 2012, I recalled the main runway of 16/34 would be my best shot at an emergency landing location. I was due west of KOQU by about 2 miles, flying at 170 kts at 600 feet agl, but I had Runway 16 in sight. I dropped the gear and swung the nose toward the runway. It was an ugly short approach over the western side of the airfield, and I did my best to line up with 16, all while fighting the aileron trim and losing altitude in the process. I was coming in fast, at roughly 130 kts, but the directional control seemed to worsen at lower speeds. My best option was to get the wheels on the ground and salvage the best landing possible. Since I would be the only witness in-sim to the outcome, there wasn’t anything to lose. I had flashes of aviation legend Bob Hoover’s sage advice go through my mind as I committed to the touchdown: “If you’re faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash as possible.”

Thanks to the aileron trim, keeping on the centerline of 16 was nearly impossible, so I floated messily down the runway, slowly reducing the throttles and trying to maintain control. I tried touching down on the mains at roughly 120 knots, about halfway down the 7,500-foot runway, but I swiftly bounced into the air. I pulled back on the yoke to try to arrest the inevitable follow-up contact with the runway and bounced again. I would not attempt a go-around in this condition, so I reduced the throttles to idle and did what I could to minimize the impact of the final bounce. The digital propellers departed both engines with the impact, but the gear stayed connected to the undercarriage, and I skidded to a stop off on the left side of 16, just past the intersection with Runway 5/23.

I unclenched my hands from the yoke and enjoyed the silence in my gaming headset as I switched off the avionics, lights, batteries, and mags. Sitting in my flight sim cockpit in the quiet of my basement, I let my heart rate settle and reflected on how real moments of the flight had felt—especially the last 10 minutes as I was troubleshooting the aileron trim malfunction while trying to keep the Baron under control. Although there were areas for improvement, I flew the surprise emergency to the best of my abilities and enjoyed the mental workout. I never made it to KPVD, but the fidelity of the entire experience will keep me coming back for more.

The post To Providence or Bust, in Simulated Flight appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Hazy Skies

Let’s start with my favorite on X-Plane 11 (XP11) that concerns the never-ending “hazy sky” issue that has plagued the sim forever. Now, you can purchase some great weather add-ons that will enhance sky and cloud quality, but I wanted to share a two-second fix that can bring back bluer skies easily.

Even by manually setting the weather and associated visibility sliders to well above the default of 10, XP11 is still too hazy. Just go to the “Developer/Sky Color” tabs and select the bullet for either orbit or hialt to get a rich, blue sky. Done! It will stay that way until you exit and restart. Just note that at sunset you must go back to the bottom bullet point to get back to default. Otherwise the night texturing will get strange, so this tip is a daytime-only feature. 

Landing Stutters

Now in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS2020), I kept noticing a stutter or pause when touching down or about to land. This annoyance was occurring randomly in spots and with any aircraft. I read on some forum that MSFS2020 loads in external “extras” such as tire smoke, skid marks, etc., that can actually stop the sim while loading. This is a painful reality I had thought was gone years ago, but apparently not. I tried out this tip myself and it works like a charm. 

First, locate your “Asobo/Base” folder using Windows Internet Explorer. Then find two lines to edit—the “SmokeLanding” small and large effects. From there, simply enter with a mouse click and add something in front of each effect name, such as, in my example below, “off_”.

Next, find your “Legacy/Effects” folder and do the same for three more entries concerning touchdown effects. Name them “OFF_” as shown in the yellow highlight box below.

Once all of this is accomplished, you should not have any more touchdown stutter or pausing. I was astounded by how well this worked for me, even flying various aircraft where it had previously been a problem. One caveat, however, is that on external views you may no longer see smoke, dust, or snow kicked up while landing. If you have a powerful system, you won’t have to use this trick, but for those who have an annoying pause on touchdown, this is well worth sacrificing that visual effect.

Settings to Tweak for General Smoothness

I’m not entirely sure if this is “snake oil”, but I have been running the sim on my laptop in “Developer Mode” for quite some time now. It seems to produce far fewer sudden slowdowns or frame-rate reductions than when I don’t have this option enabled. I am not alone, as many on forums have seen this too. It absolutely doesn’t harm or reduce performance, so why not?

Also, no matter how powerful a system you have, it seems everyone is advising sliding back the “Terrain Level of Detail” and “Objects Level of Detail” sliders to 100. In addition, after somewhat exhausting tweaking comparisons, I have found some performance enhancement by reducing “Buildings, Trees and Grass and Bushes” to “Medium.” They all look just as good as on “Ultra” but knock frame rate down quite a bit in crowded, urban, or perhaps very woodsy backcountry locations. Try it!

You may notice somewhat slightly blurrier panels and CRT fonts on the instrumentation, but things run smoothly and slightly faster than on the max quality “Anti-Aliasing” modes. Asobo really put a lot of work into this mode, and it makes everything run quite blazingly fast on my laptop. A powerful desktop PC can probably just use TXAA at the maximum toggle for absolute clarity and quality.

Simulating Realistic Consequences

I found out that enabling “Crash Damage” and “Aircraft Stress Damage” provide more realistic consequences for poor piloting or ignorance. If you should make a rough, off-airport landing, or actually crash your airplane, it will remain in place, skid, roll off a mountain, etc., in a much better fashion than just receiving an annoying message saying you crashed and instantly forcing a reset of your flying session. This keeps the sim running and is a lot more useful when it comes to visualizing the mess you’ve gotten yourself into. I have made some horrendous mountainside “crash” landings in small bush airplanes, only to have gotten blown upright by the winds near summits, and was able to fly again. With crash enabled, you won’t get an unrealistic second chance to fix that kind of mistake.

Controller Options

Assigning common autopilot commands, such as “Hdg Sel,” “Heading Knob,” “Alt,” “VS,” “On/Off”, etc., to an Xbox 360 or Xbox Elite controller is easy. I also have flap handles and gear attached to buttons. This is all in addition to the primary joystick and throttle quadrant I carry with me or the fixed hardware at my house.

Viewing Height

Proper viewing height, “pilot’s-eye view” or pilot’s chair height, is my biggest pet peeve among flight simmers! In order to properly see the world outside, you must readjust the default “far too low” views that the developers have set. I cannot figure out for the life of me why all these sophisticated developers place the default viewing height as if it’s seen from the perspective of a 6-year-old. The fix is very simple, and I have discussed it in previous articles.

You must assign a keyboard key function to “Increase Cockpit View Height,” and “Decrease Cockpit View Height” in the “Cockpit Camera” section. I like “[RIGHT SHIFT] + [UP]” and “[RIGHT SHIFT] + [DOWN].” Just like in any real aircraft, a proper seat height that allows you to see over the panel and down to the runway is the best for flaring. Unfortunately, in a flight sim we don’t get the full 3D effect, so we must compromise a bit by fiddling with the viewpoint before locking it into a memorized viewpoint you can refer to instantly via a keyboard or controller button. I usually base it all on being able to see a small portion of the VSI unit to aid in takeoff and landing. This pretty much lines up with my real eyeballs.

I hope you’ll find these tips and tricks handy and helpful. As always, no flight is complete without using a great set of controls. I would recommend the folks at Sporty’s Pilot Shop, with my first choice being the “flight sim starter set” featuring HoneyComb hardware. 

Also, check out my beginner’s guide on setting up your simulator for the first time.

The post Tips and Tricks for Flight Sims appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The flight I’ll be taking will be from Miramar (KNKX), the former location of the Top Gun academy outside San Diego, to Joint Base Andrews (KADW) outside of Washington, D.C. If I do everything right, the 2,000-mile trip should take just 25 minutes.

The airplane in the movie was roughly based on the Lockheed SR-72, which is supposedly in development, though all the details about it—including whether it truly exists or not—are top secret. According to reports, at least, the SR-72 is meant to be the replacement for the SR-71 Blackbird, which was retired in 1998 and was the fastest operational airplane in the world.

• READ MORE: Crossing the English Channel in a Blériot XI

Lockheed’s famous “Skunk Works” actually worked with the filmmakers of Top Gun: Maverick to ensure the full-scale mock-up they constructed looked like a realistic hypersonic airplane, similar but not identical to the SR-72. There is a story—perhaps true, perhaps not— that when the filmmakers produced their version of the Darkstar, China repositioned a satellite to fly over and take a closer look, believing it was real.

Because of the wind, I’m taking off to the west and will need to turn around to head east. That will add some time to my flight. Rotating from Miramar’s runway at 180 knots, with afterburners on, I pitch up 10 degrees and raise my landing gear, accelerating toward Mach 0.9.

Once I reach Mach 0.9, I stay below the speed of sound by raising pitch to 20 degrees, while turning to the east. That’s San Diego Harbor below me.

To break the sound barrier and accelerate quickly, I invert the airplane to go into a dive. The reason I invert is to avoid excessive negative G-forces by pulling back instead of pushing forward on the stick to nose down. I’ve just broken Mach 1.0.

Now that I’m supersonic, I quickly roll back upright and resume my 10-degree climb, gradually accelerating to Mach 3.0. I’m already over the California desert, nearing the Salton Sea ahead. Until I reach Mach 3.0, I’m still using my conventional jets with afterburners.

A normal jet engine works by compressing air through a series of spinning blades then adding fuel to burn it and make it expand rapidly out the back. Before it exits, the hot air turns a turbine that powers the compressor in front. At extremely high speeds, a compressor isn’t needed because the ramming force of the oncoming air itself is sufficient to compress it. A ramjet dispenses with both the compressor and the turbine to drive it.

• READ MORE: Canada’s Rugged, All-Metal National Airplane

In a ramjet, however, the air is slowed inside the engine to below the speed of sound. In a scramjet—or supersonic ramjet—the air flowing through it remains at supersonic speed and can produce much higher speeds as a result. A scramjet, however, needs to be already moving at a very high speed to work. So once I reach Mach 3.0 (I’m at 2.81 and rising), I can flip the switch and ignite the scramjets.

The exhaust ports for my red-colored afterburners close, replaced by the white-hot heat of my scramjets. The airplane accelerates very rapidly now.

I’ve also climbed very rapidly. I level off at 135,000 feet, a little higher than I planned, but no matter. I’m nearing Mach 6.5 now, over 4,800 mph.  I think I’m over Arizona, but to tell you the truth, I’m not 100 percent sure. I’m just following the magenta navigation line on my screen. You can see the nose and edges of the airplane heating up from the friction of moving so fast.

I’ve leveled off again at 127,000 feet and reached Mach 9.1, my cruising altitude. It’s possible to reach Mach 10 by going higher, but I’ve got enough on my hands already.

The flight is going very quickly. I’m already over the Great Plains. You can easily see the curvature of the Earth.

The mission of the SR-72, like the SR-71 and the U-2 before it, would be to conduct reconnaissance at an altitude too high and speed too fast for anyone to catch or shoot down. While these missions are now mostly performed by satellites orbiting the Earth—or, more experimentally, by high-altitude balloons—some argue that a high-altitude, high-speed “spy plane” is still needed to fill gaps in coverage at a moment’s notice.

• READ MORE: A Fanciful Flight in the ‘Spruce Goose’

I haven’t been able to recognize very much along the way, but I’m pretty sure St. Louis is about 24 miles below me.

How hot does the airplane get? That’s classified. But the skin of the SR-71, traveling at a mere Mach 3.0, reached an average of 600 degrees Fahrenheit. The cockpit window of the SR-71 was made of quartz and 1.25 inches thick to survive these temperatures.

About 200 miles from my destination, I turn off the scramjet, pull the throttle back to idle, and begin my slowdown and descent. I’m dropping through 75,000 feet here and slowing to Mach 4.4, basically just gliding down with minimal power.

The first time I flew the Darkstar, I waited too long to begin decelerating. As I descended into the thicker atmosphere, I was going too fast and the airplane broke up from the stress (oops, sorry taxpayers). This time I overcompensated in the other direction and began my deceleration a bit too early. So I ended up skimming over the Appalachians at a slower speed, adding about 15 minutes to my flight time. Better than disintegrating, I suppose.

My approach speed should be between 150 and 200 knots. To fly level at these low speeds, the Darkstar has to keep its nose pitched up about 10 degrees. As I cross the Potomac River with Washington, D.C,. in the background, just to my north, I’ve lowered my wheels for landing at Andrews Air Force Base.

This is a little tricky. I have no forward view and can barely see out my side windows. I have to rely entirely on the digital image on my screen to land on the runway. The little airplane marker on the screen shows my current trajectory. I need to keep it pointed near the start of the runway, while keeping my speed around a steady 150 knots.

It wasn’t the softest landing, but I ended up safe and sound. My total time across the country by scramjet was about 50 minutes. Taking off to the west added about 10 minutes, and beginning my slowdown and descent too early cost me another 15. Still not bad from coast to coast.

Some hope that scramjets can someday be used for passenger transport, putting any destination in the world within a 90-minute flight. But for now the applications remain purely military. Hope you enjoyed the flight.

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

This story was told utilizing the official Top Gun Maverick Expansion Pack for MSFS2020, along with airports and sceneries produced by fellow users and shared on flightsim.to for free.

The post Taking a Transcontinental Flight in the Hypersonic Darkstar, Virtually appeared first on FLYING Magazine.