What's the point? (Of the Simulator, not the blog)

An obvious question!

Given the cost of installing a flight simulator with any level of fidelity for home use, you might ask why anybody would want to spend so much money on something that has no practical value?

Although some self builders have tried to "moneytise" their simulators by offering paid for "flight" time to the public, I will not be doing that. This is only ever going to be a hobby for me, purely for my own, and possibly friends & family's, enjoyment.

So, why do it?

Well, the short answer is, "because I can" !

The longer answer is that I have always been interested in flying, but never actually took the opportunity to learn to fly. As a poor substitute for the real thing, I have used Microsoft Flight Simulator on an off for many years, probably starting with Version 2, and upgrading through most releases, to FSX.

For added “realism”, I bought a few hardware add-ons along the way, including a Saitek control yoke, throttle quadrant and rudder pedals.

All of this resulted in a nice user experience, giving a basic “feel” for flying, but it still felt very much like a game - albeit, a very good one. Even with multiple (2 or 3) monitors, the visuals in particular were very restrictive - I needed something better!

My first experience of a "real" flight simulator was when I was lucky enough to “fly” the full motion Sikorsky S-61N (you might recognise it as the Sea King) simulator owned by British International Helicopters in Aberdeen. At the time, the system was quite dated, but featured realistic motion and impressive "wrap around" projected graphics. The experience got me dreaming of owning a full function simulator like those used for pilot training - obviously that was not something that was ever going to happen - those things cost millions of dollars, not to mention the ongoing support costs.

When the internet came along in the early 90's I began to see that a "home cockpit" was feasible and the number of home cockpits that popped up on the burgeoning internet reinforced that thought. The options were many and varied, from guys buying up real aircraft cockpits to build simulators using a mixture of real and simulation hardware to guys building ever expanding "sim pits" in bedrooms and garages, aided by the number of suppliers of affordable simulation hardware that have sprung up in recent years.

The most common simulators were built to represent the ubiquitous Boeing 737 and there are an increasing number of "entertainment" simulators springing up around the world that are based on this aircraft, though in recent years, wide bodied jet simulators are starting to appear. I have had a number of "flights" in 737 type entertainment simulators, all of which were based on the 737NG (Next Generation). Introduced in 1997, the NG featured a "glass" cockpit which almost completely replaced traditional flight instruments that used mechanical gauges and warning lights. A glass cockpit can obviously be replicated at much lower cost than traditional mechanical instruments, and as an added bonus, they look exceptionally cool!

I should also say that I decided early on that I would be simulating a Boeing aircraft. I wasn't constrained by the "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" mantra - rather, I was not keen on the sidestick controller used by Airbus for their aircraft.

When I started to seriously look at a suitable simulator for my home, it was a 737NG that I began to target. With the recent change to my personal circumstances, I did start to weigh the pros and cons of a 737 vs a wide bodied alternative.

The 737 has a number of advantages for "home" installation, including the number of simulation component manufacturers, but most crucially, the size. For my personal circumstances, the cockpit size is a potential issue though, the 737 cockpit is pretty compact (read small) and access to the crew seats is quite restricted. The crew seats in real aircraft (and often in simulators too) are on "J" rails which slide the seats away from the central pedestal to provide more access for the pilots. However, there is not a large amount of lateral movement for the seat and access is still tight.

The cockpit of a larger twinjet such as the 777 or 787 would provide more room for access but would obviously require a larger room. In addition, although wide bodied parts are becoming more available, they are still not as common as parts for the 737.

I also considered where I was likely to want to fly. Apart from popular destinations, such as the famous Kai Tak and other major airports, I expected that I'd want to be able to fly to regional airports that I knew well. Those airports tend to be relatively small and unsuitable for wide-body "heavies" such as the 777.

For these reasons, I was pretty much set on a 737NG . . . .

The cockpit of a 737-800 (NG) from Wikipedia, showing the 6 x 7.1" Display Units, 2 each for the Captain and First Officer's Primary Flight and Navigation Displays and a further 2 centrally located for engine and system data.

But then of course, Boeing released the 737MAX.

The MAX has 4 new 15.1" displays that replace the 6 on the NG, note the absence of the two central displays - their functionality is included in the larger displays.

When I first saw the difference, I actually preferred the layout of the NG with the larger number of smaller displays but I have come around to the MAX deign which closely resembles the 787. The MAX will also remain current for longer as Boeing phases out the NG in favour of the MAX.


So, a 737MAX it will be!