Further to my post above on the simulation of post stall behaviour, and at the risk of thread drift (this thread has evolved into a very interesting discussion on simulator fidelity), may I offer the quote below from Captain William Wainwright's paper entitled "Airplane Upset Recovery, a test pilot's point of view".
QUOTE:-
USE OF SIMULATORS
We manufacturers were very concerned over the types of manoeuvres being flown in simulators and the conclusions that were being drawn from them. Simulators, like any computer system, are only as good as the data that goes into them. That means the data package that is given to the simulator manufacturer. And we test pilots do not deliberately lose control of our aircraft just to get data for the simulator. And even when that happens, one isolated incident does not provide much information because of the very complicated equations that govern dynamic manoeuvres involving non-linear aerodynamics and inertia effects.
The complete data package includes a part that is drawn from actual flight tests, a part that uses wind tunnel data, and the rest which is pure extrapolation. It should be obvious that firm conclusions about aircraft behaviour can only be drawn from the parts of the flight envelope that are based on hard data. This in fact means being not far from the centre of the flight envelope; the part that is used in normal service. It does not cover the edges of the envelope. I should also add that most of the data actually collected in flight is from quasi-static manoeuvres. Thus, dynamic manoeuvring is not very well represented. In fact, a typical data package has flight test data for the areas described in Table 1.
Table 1 Sideslip Angle of attack
SLATS OUT
All Engines Operating Around neutral Between 0°and 22°
Between + 15° and -15° Between 0° and 12°
One Engine Inoperative Between +8° and -8 Between 5° and 12°
SLATS IN, LOW MACH
All Engines Operating Around neutral Between 0° and 12°
Between +10° and -10° Between 2° and 9°
One Engine Inoperative Between +8° and -8° Between 2° and 8°
SLATS IN, HIGH MACH
All Engines Operating Around neutral Between 0° and 5°
Between +5° and -5° Between l° and 3°
One Engine inoperative Between +2° and -2° Between 1° and 3°
In other words, you have reasonable cover up to quite high sideslips and quite high angles of attack (AOA), but not at the same time. Furthermore, the matching between aircraft stalling tests and the simulator concentrates mainly on the longitudinal axis. This means that the simulator model is able to correctly reproduce the stalling speeds and the pitching behaviour, but fidelity is not ensured for rolling efficiency (based on a simplified model of wind tunnel data) or for possible asymmetric stalling of the wings. Also, the range for one engine inoperative is much less than the range for all engines operating and linear interpolation is assumed between low and high Mach numbers.
Wind tunnel data goes further. For example, a typical data package would cover the areas described in table 2. In fact, this is a perfectly adequate coverage to conduct all normal training needs. But it is insufficient to evaluate recovery techniques from loss of control incidents. Whereas, the training managers were all in the habit of demonstrating the handling characteristics beyond the stall; often telling their trainees that the rudder is far more effective than aileron and induces less drag and has no vices! In short, they were developing handling techniques from simulators that were outside their guaranteed domain.
Table 2 Sideslip Angle of attack
SLATS OUT From +18° to -18° From -5° to 25°
SLATS IN, LOW MACH From +18° to -18° From -5° to 12°
SLATS IN, HIGH MACH From + 8° to -8° From -2° to 8°
Simulators can be used for upset training, but the training should be confined to the normal flight envelope. For example, training should stop at the stall warning. They are “virtual” aircraft and they should not be used to develop techniques at the edges of the flight envelope. This is work for test pilots and flight test engineers using their knowledge gained from flight testing the “real” aircraft
END QUOTE
Captain Wainwright is Chief Test Pilot of Airbus Industrie. I quote from his full paper because I think sometimes we expect too much from simulators when it comes to manoeuvres at or beyond the edge of the flight envelope.
Simulator training in severe crosswinds is good up to a point, it can certainly be used to develop the correct technique even though the simulation of all the sensations experienced in the real aircraft may be lacking in some areas (as noted by some contributors in previous posts on this thread). However, I have grave concerns about simulator training post stall for the reasons Captain Wainwright has stated, hence my concern over ZFT's remarks about this.