Frasca Bristow S92 Sim

[Ground flight]

Hopefully a moderator can tidy this up a bit .


Google Image Result for http://www.frasca.com/body/S92extweb.gif (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.frasca.com/body/S92extweb.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.frasca.com/web_pages/brochures/Full%2520Flight%2520Simulators%2520brochure.htm&usg=__aFq9Z7LzO1joVwksEKcymqOMT-o=&h=426&w=400&sz=73&hl=en&start=3&sig2=jjAAkQQa6gynGQ5gUZoKVQ&um=1&tbnid=jD6jCXxtzUufEM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dec225%2Bfrasca%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client% 3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1&ei=vrs3Sv7-NIGe-Abo5omkDQ)

I think its impressive for Frasca to pull this off . Honestly thought they were out of their league .

HC how are the sims coming along?

[TiPwEiGhT]

At least the seats look a hell of alot better then the aircraft. Interested to see how it compares to the likes at FSI.

TiP

[Aser]

Looks good!
http://www.frasca.com/body/S92panel.gif
http://www.frasca.com/body/S92extweb.gif

This is the only frasca product I've flown:
http://www.rotorfx.com/helicopters_for_sale/images/Frasca_125H_Simulator_0003.jpg

:E

Regards
Aser

[HeliComparator]

Ground Flight - I think they will be good. They are both complicated projects and perhaps more complex than Frasca first envisaged, but they are determined to give us a good product in the end. Bearing in mind the quality of the current level D sims, it will not be too hard to beat them in many areas. They are certainly better already in some areas (runway texture, weather radar returns for all coastlines, replication of N Sea platforms) but will always have some limitations compared to the Level Ds - eg projected display rather than collimated, less total travel on the motion. Overall they will be fantastic training assets to have in Aberdeen.

HC

[SASless]

HC,

What kind of checkrides and training will be done in the new Frasca's?

Is it possible to do a full conversion course in the Sim along with the checkrides or must one continue to use the aircraft for part of the flying/checks?

[Ground flight]

Thanks for the update HC , I would have to agree with you in relation to the current level D sims , they have some room for improvement but still better then nothing I suppose . Its good to see all the alarms going off !

[HeliComparator]

SAS - I am no expert in this area but I believe it depends on what it granted when the CAA do the approval. We are hoping to be able to do pretty much what we can do in Helisim / FSI, namely the complete conversion course in the sim followed by some Sim to Aircraft adaptation in the aircraft - maybe 2 hrs or so (4 for OGP?). For the recurrent training, we may be able to do it all or we might have to do something in the aircraft, for example the CAA might say that we have to do rejects or whatever in the aircraft once a year. But we are hoping they will allow us to do all the recurrent training in the Sim, as we can currently do in Helisim / FSI, since we hope that the Frasca sims will be as good or better in everthing except the designation.

HC

[Ground flight]

How come this Sim only received level B ? Thought Bristow were aiming a bit higher .

[212man]

It depends in how you interpret 'higher'! I think it will be a very good product. I'll be interested to see what you think of the Cuesim L2 when it arrives, HC. I gather they put the screens at 3m to reduce/negate the effects of head movements.

[detgnome]

That's if the L2 FTD ever actually works and cuesim finish it....

[SimFlightTest]

The sim was qualified under JAR FSTD-H as Level-B/FTD3. This was the original and only qualification level applied for.

[LastMinute]

How come this Sim only received level B ? Thought Bristow were aiming a bit higher .
It didn't - it also received FTD 3. In many ways FTD 3 is more demanding than FS B, particularly with regard to the fidelity of the aircraft handling. The step from FS B to FS C is quite big as it requires more complicated modelling of aerodynamic and ground handling effects, more detailed visuals and a bigger motion platform. Beyond that, FS D is mostly about faithful replication of aircraft sounds and vibrations. The costs associated with all that may be seen to be prohibitive compared to the benefits.

That's if the L2 FTD ever actually works and cuesim finish it....
We're getting there...

[Staticdroop]

It will be interesting to see how the Bristow sim will compete against EC sim when that comes online, are they going to compete or will Bristow train their own crews only.

[HeliComparator]

Lets see now, this thread is about the S92 sim so I am inclined to think that it will not compete against an EC sim. Or maybe you know something I don't about EC buying out Sikorsky?

HC



Oh alright then, I know what you meant! I think the Bristow EC225 sim will benefit from having been developed by a helicopter operator as opposed to a manufacturer. You have only to look at Helisim to see what the quality of a (Level D) sim can be when its developed by people who don't operate the aircraft. Whether other companies choose to come to us or to EC is of course for them to decide.

[SimFlightTest]

The step from FS B to FS C is quite big as it requires more complicated modelling of aerodynamic and ground handling effects


With the exception of autorotational landings to a touchdown, an FFSB/FTD3 is equivalent to an FFSD with regards to matching reference data. The same objective QTG tests are required and they must pass the same tolerance criteria. Inspectors might also opt to evaluate autorotational landings to a touchdown for a FFSB/FTD3 device against the FFSD tolerances, which was the case on the Bristow S92.

Essentially, it's a device with FFSD aero/rotor/flight-controls/ground-reactions/engine/AFCS modeling.

As previously mentioned, the difference between the Bristow FFSB/FTD3 and a FFSD device is with regards to motion, sounds, and visuals.

[outhouse]

Hi all, any chance of an update on how the device is performing and general feelings from them using it.
Many thanks,
:ok: