Flight Sim

In 1910, the first ground training aircraft for military use were built on the initiative of French commanders Clolus and Laffont and Lieutenant Clavenad. The "Tonneau Antoinette" by the Antoinette company is considered a precursor to flight simulators. During World War I, ground-based simulators were developed to teach air gunnery skills, such as deflection shooting, to new pilots.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the Flying Scooters originated as a flight training device, later becoming an amusement ride. It was developed by Alvin Bisch and Ralph Rocco, who applied for a patent in 1929. The best-known early flight simulation device was the Link Trainer, created by Edwin Link in Binghamton, New York, starting in 1927 and patented in 1929. The Link Trainer was a basic metal frame simulator, often painted blue, with a pneumatic motion platform providing pitch, roll, and yaw cues. Ed Link, a pilot and familiar with player piano components, built it to provide ground-based training without weather restrictions or aircraft availability. Initially, aviation flight schools and the U.S. Army Air Force showed little interest. However, after several Army pilots were killed flying postal mail in bad weather in 1934, the Army Air Force purchased six Link Trainers, marking the beginning of the world flight simulation industry.

During World War II, the Link Trainer was the principal pilot trainer, with approximately 10,000 units produced to train 500,000 pilots from Allied nations. Almost all US Army Air Force pilots were trained using it. Another type of trainer from this era was the Celestial Navigation Trainer of 1941, used for night navigation by stars.

From 1945 to the 1960s, advancements continued. In 1954, United Airlines purchased four flight simulators from Curtiss-Wright for $3 million, which included visuals, sound, and movement, representing the first modern flight simulators for commercial aircraft. A helicopter simulator, the Jacobs Jaycopter, was also developed to reduce training costs, later sold as a funfair ride.

Today, simulator manufacturers are consolidating, with training offers showing double-digit growth. CAE Inc. is the largest manufacturer, holding a 70% market share and $2.8 billion in annual revenues. CAE has been manufacturing training devices for 70 years and moved into training in 2000 through acquisitions, now generating more revenue from training than from simulator production. L3 CTS entered the market in 2012 by acquiring Thales Training & Simulation's manufacturing plant. TRU Simulation + Training, created in 2014 by Textron Aviation, focuses on simulators and developed the first full-flight simulators for the 737 MAX and 777X. FlightSafety International is the fourth largest, focusing on general, business, and regional aircraft. Airbus and Boeing have also invested in their own training centers.

In June 2018, there were 1,270 commercial airline simulators in service, with 85% being Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) and 15% Flight Training Devices (FTDs). CAE supplied 56% of this installed base, L3 CTS 20%, and FlightSafety International 10%. North America accounts for 38% of the world's training devices, Asia-Pacific 25%, and Europe 24%. Boeing aircraft types represent 45% of all simulated aircraft, followed by Airbus with 35%.

Most flight simulators are primarily used for pilot training, from practicing basic cockpit procedures and familiarization to instrument flight training. More advanced simulators can credit flight hours towards a pilot license. Simulators are also used for obtaining type ratings for specific aircraft. During the aircraft design process, "engineering flight simulators" can replace actual flight tests, reducing risks and costs. Flight simulators can also include training tasks for other crew members, such as gunners or hoist operators, and for tasks related to flight, like aircraft evacuation. Aircraft maintenance simulators are also becoming increasingly popular.

Before September 2018, manufacturers submitted a Qualification Approval Guide (QAG) to the FAA for ATD model approval. The current procedure involves submitting a Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG) 30 days prior to the qualification date to all Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs). This document, specific to a unique simulator, contains objective, functional, and subjective tests to demonstrate the simulator's representativeness compared to the airplane. Results are compared to Flight Test Data provided by aircraft OEMs or Proof Of Match (POM) data from development simulators.

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) categorizes training devices. Aviation Training Devices (ATD) include FAA Basic ATD (BATD) for Private Pilot Certificate and instrument rating, and FAA Advanced ATD (AATD) for Commercial Pilot Certificate and Airline Transport Pilot Certificate. Flight Training Devices (FTD) range from FAA FTD Level 4, which does not require an aerodynamic model, to FAA FTD Level 7, which is model-specific and requires a visual system and vibration system. Full Flight Simulators (FFS) range from FAA FFS Level A, requiring a motion system with at least three degrees of freedom, to FAA FFS Level D, the highest level, requiring a six-degrees-of-freedom motion platform, a 150-degree collimated visual system, and realistic cockpit sounds and effects.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also defines categories. Basic instrument training devices (BITD) are for airplanes only. Flight Navigation and Procedures Trainers (FNPT) replicate cockpit functions, with levels ranging from EASA FNPT Level I to EASA FNPT Level III for helicopters. Multi-crew cooperation (MCC) has additional requirements for FNPT Level II and III. EASA FTDs range from EASA FTD Level 1, which may lack a visual system, to EASA FTD Level 3 for helicopters, requiring model data based on validation flights. EASA FFSs range from EASA FFS Level A, with a motion system of three degrees of freedom, to EASA FFS Level D, which includes characteristic cockpit vibrations and realistic noise levels.

Flight simulators are human-in-the-loop systems, where continuous interaction with a human user occurs. Inputs include primary flight controls, instrument panel buttons, and the instructor's station. The internal state is updated, and equations of motion are solved to display the new state through visual, auditory, motion, and touch channels. For cooperative tasks, simulators can be suited for multiple users or connected in a "parallel simulation" or "distributed simulation" for scenarios like wargames, utilizing standards such as SIMNET, DIS, and HLA.

The central element of a simulation model is the equations of motion for the aircraft, solved 50 or 60 times per second to achieve fluent movement. Forces are calculated from aerodynamical models. For human users, real-time simulation is necessary, as low refresh rates can reduce realism and increase simulator sickness. Simulators typically use databases of pre-calculated results and real-flight data rather than full computational fluid dynamics models. Models are often separated into a modular architecture for organization and ease of development.

All classes of FSTD require some form of cockpit replication. Cockpit controls are crucial for skill transfer and must closely match the real aircraft, sometimes making it cost-effective to use actual certified parts. Lower-class simulators may use springs to mimic control forces, while many are equipped with actively driven force feedback systems and vibration actuators. Instrument panels are another form of tactile input. While displaying instruments on a screen is sufficient for basic simulators, most certified simulators require physical buttons, switches, and inputs to operate as in the actual cockpit. Research into virtual reality interactions is ongoing, but lack of tactile feedback affects user performance.

The visual system provides the outside view, essential for navigation. The field of view varies by simulator type, from a single forward view to almost a full sphere for fighter aircraft or 180 degrees for helicopters. Visual systems often use multiple projectors on cylindrical, spherical, or ellipsoidal screens, requiring calibration for distortion and brightness. Advanced simulators employ cross-cockpit collimated displays to eliminate parallax. Virtual reality simulators with head-mounted displays offer a complete field of view and smaller simulator size. Visual simulation science from flight simulators was a precursor to three-dimensional computer graphics and Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) systems, with early systems influencing modern graphics technologies. Many computer graphics visionaries began their careers at companies like Evans & Sutherland and Link Flight Simulation.

The motion system initially used separate axes, but the Stewart platform led to simultaneous operation of all actuators, with some FFS regulations requiring "synergistic" six degrees of freedom motion. Due to limited range, a separate model approximates cues to the human vestibular system. The motion system is a major contributor to simulator cost. While six-degrees-of-freedom motion-based simulation was long believed to provide better training outcomes, recent studies suggest that technologies like vibration or dynamic seats can be equally effective.

The largest flight simulator globally is the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) at NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California. It features a large-throw motion system with 60 feet of vertical movement and 40-foot rails for lateral movement of a simulator cab. This design allows for quick switching of different aircraft cabins and has been used for simulations ranging from blimps to the Space Shuttle, including investigating a pilot-induced oscillation on an early Shuttle flight.

For disorientation training, companies like AMST Systemtechnik GmbH and Environmental Tectonics Corporation (ETC) manufacture simulators with full freedom in yaw. The Desdemona simulator at the TNO Research Institute in The Netherlands, manufactured by AMST, is a complex device with a gimballed cockpit mounted on a framework that adds vertical motion and allows for sustained G capability up to about 3.5.

This article is based solely on the supplied corpus. No external sources were consulted; claims that could not be substantiated against the corpus were omitted under the drop-the-claim rule.