Military trainers
Discussion
JxJ Jr. said:
SF-260? Seems to have been used by Italy, Turkey and Zimbabwe for ab-initio training.
Irish Air Corps too - who found it a bit hot - especially compared to the Chipmunks they replaced.
The Boulton Paul Balliol was fitted with the Merlin, which made it a bit racey for beginners -
The Harvard was not always the easiest plane to fly either.
CanAm said:
I would have said the Jet Provost.
Depends on what the OP means by 'complex' - certainly the JP has a far higher performance than piston ab-initio types, but whether coping with a nice single power lever and relatively easy to start engine, vs dicking about with throttle / RPM / cowl flap / carb heat / priming controls (as well as understanding the rudder pedals aren't just foot rests) makes operating the JP a less complex task is debatable.However, if your goal is to train students to fly jets, then training them in the arcane arts of piston engine operation is a bit of a waste of time anyway, but obviously if you have a large initial training programme then using cheaper piston types to winnow out the chaff to begin with might be advisable. The Soviet's used the Yak-52 for this - the RPM being displayed as a percentage rather than as an absolute being a nod towards the students heading on to jets, the systems are complex enough to weed out the obvious muppets early on, and the wooden prop and protruding gear which protects the underside when retracted meaning that if a young budding Mig pilot decided to land without lowering the gear first all they had to do was jack it up, stick on a new propellor (shock loading? meh), explain to the budding Mig pilot that he was now had an exciting new career in peeling potatoes, and carry on as before.
This guy obviously didn't get the message -
Fast forward to 2.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOV3GvH3yTA
Fast forward to 2.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOV3GvH3yTA
Eric Mc said:
This guy obviously didn't get the message -
Fast forward to 2.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOV3GvH3yTA
Aircraft defect rather than pilot error?Fast forward to 2.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOV3GvH3yTA
eharding said:
Depends on what the OP means by 'complex' - certainly the JP has a far higher performance than piston ab-initio types, but whether coping with a nice single power lever and relatively easy to start engine, vs dicking about with throttle / RPM / cowl flap / carb heat / priming controls (as well as understanding the rudder pedals aren't just foot rests) makes operating the JP a less complex task is debatable.
However, if your goal is to train students to fly jets, then training them in the arcane arts of piston engine operation is a bit of a waste of time anyway, but obviously if you have a large initial training programme then using cheaper piston types to winnow out the chaff to begin with might be advisable. The Soviet's used the Yak-52 for this - the RPM being displayed as a percentage rather than as an absolute being a nod towards the students heading on to jets, the systems are complex enough to weed out the obvious muppets early on, and the wooden prop and protruding gear which protects the underside when retracted meaning that if a young budding Mig pilot decided to land without lowering the gear first all they had to do was jack it up, stick on a new propellor (shock loading? meh), explain to the budding Mig pilot that he was now had an exciting new career in peeling potatoes, and carry on as before.
I ask this question because I don't know, rather than by trying to be pedantic:However, if your goal is to train students to fly jets, then training them in the arcane arts of piston engine operation is a bit of a waste of time anyway, but obviously if you have a large initial training programme then using cheaper piston types to winnow out the chaff to begin with might be advisable. The Soviet's used the Yak-52 for this - the RPM being displayed as a percentage rather than as an absolute being a nod towards the students heading on to jets, the systems are complex enough to weed out the obvious muppets early on, and the wooden prop and protruding gear which protects the underside when retracted meaning that if a young budding Mig pilot decided to land without lowering the gear first all they had to do was jack it up, stick on a new propellor (shock loading? meh), explain to the budding Mig pilot that he was now had an exciting new career in peeling potatoes, and carry on as before.
Was the Jet Provost really used for ab-initio training? As in, zero-hour, zero-experience aircrew recruit/cadet/student (I don't know the correct term), turning up straight from the end of the initial selection process, and the first aircraft they ever fly was a JP?
It certainly makes sense, if you're training people for jets and I know there's no reason why you couldn't make a jet suitably docile and resiliant, but it just surprises me as it's still a pretty big initial hurdle. No time in a Chipmunk or a Bulldog? Then why did the RAF operate them alongside the JP for so many years?
I can absolutely see the JP being a good Basic trainer, but Basic assumes quite a lot of skills already in place from ab-initio/primary. I'm just remembering how hard (mentally, mostly) it was when I did my hours (partially) learning to fly on a PA-28, where everything happens a great deal more slowly (I imagine!) than a Jet Provost.
But then, the PA-28 is designed for teaching people who have just walked off the street, not been selected, filtered and assessed by the RAF before they even get anywhere near an aircraft so, again, I can see the logic.
I'm just freewheeling here but I'd like to know
2xChevrons said:
I ask this question because I don't know, rather than by trying to be pedantic:
Was the Jet Provost really used for ab-initio training? As in, zero-hour, zero-experience aircrew recruit/cadet/student (I don't know the correct term), turning up straight from the end of the initial selection process, and the first aircraft they ever fly was a JP?
It certainly makes sense, if you're training people for jets and I know there's no reason why you couldn't make a jet suitably docile and resiliant, but it just surprises me as it's still a pretty big initial hurdle. No time in a Chipmunk or a Bulldog? Then why did the RAF operate them alongside the JP for so many years?
I can absolutely see the JP being a good Basic trainer, but Basic assumes quite a lot of skills already in place from ab-initio/primary. I'm just remembering how hard (mentally, mostly) it was when I did my hours (partially) learning to fly on a PA-28, where everything happens a great deal more slowly (I imagine!) than a Jet Provost.
But then, the PA-28 is designed for teaching people who have just walked off the street, not been selected, filtered and assessed by the RAF before they even get anywhere near an aircraft so, again, I can see the logic.
I'm just freewheeling here but I'd like to know
I bet a lot of trainee pilots had probably had a bit of flying experience in the ATC or University Air Squadrons etc, but in theory, yes. Don't forget the Jet Provost was basically the Percival Provost basic trainer with a jet engine stuffed in the back.Was the Jet Provost really used for ab-initio training? As in, zero-hour, zero-experience aircrew recruit/cadet/student (I don't know the correct term), turning up straight from the end of the initial selection process, and the first aircraft they ever fly was a JP?
It certainly makes sense, if you're training people for jets and I know there's no reason why you couldn't make a jet suitably docile and resiliant, but it just surprises me as it's still a pretty big initial hurdle. No time in a Chipmunk or a Bulldog? Then why did the RAF operate them alongside the JP for so many years?
I can absolutely see the JP being a good Basic trainer, but Basic assumes quite a lot of skills already in place from ab-initio/primary. I'm just remembering how hard (mentally, mostly) it was when I did my hours (partially) learning to fly on a PA-28, where everything happens a great deal more slowly (I imagine!) than a Jet Provost.
But then, the PA-28 is designed for teaching people who have just walked off the street, not been selected, filtered and assessed by the RAF before they even get anywhere near an aircraft so, again, I can see the logic.
I'm just freewheeling here but I'd like to know
I went through RAF training at Cranwell on the Jet Provost Mk 3 and 4 in 1970 on a university graduate course. I had done about 180 hours on the Chipmunk on a university air squadron (UAS), so much of the JP training was ground being covered for the second time, albeit at a greater speed! The JP 4 climbed at 200 knots; the Chipmunk at 70. However, there was a real skill/knack needed to land a Chippy with its tailwheel undercarriage. It was a great weeder-out of less skilled students. I never recall having any difficulty at landing a JP; not so the Chipmunk.
For those of us who had completed UAS training, our JP course was about 150 hours. We had one guy who hadn't done so and he, like the ab initio pilots there, did 200 hours on the JP. At that time, as far as I remember, there was no Chipmunk or Bulldog lead-in. That was later changed.
The original post asked which was the most complex type used for ab initio flying training. The JP was a step up in speed from the Piston Provost, but it could hardly be rated as complex. Easy to fly, rugged, reliable and, in the case of the Mk 4, plenty of power. The Mk 3 lacked power and conversion to that was done after several hours on the Mk 4. The Mk 3 had a slow engine response, so a screwed up approach could lead to an even more interesting go-around, as the engine took its time to wind up.
Although I don't know for sure, I cannot believe students flew the Balliol as their ab initio trainer. So I suppose the JP, at the time, was the indeed most complex ab initio type.
However, in the 70s, the really big step in complexity and performance came in advanced flying training on the Gnat. But that's another story - and probably even further off-topic than I have already gone.
Happy Days indeed!
For those of us who had completed UAS training, our JP course was about 150 hours. We had one guy who hadn't done so and he, like the ab initio pilots there, did 200 hours on the JP. At that time, as far as I remember, there was no Chipmunk or Bulldog lead-in. That was later changed.
The original post asked which was the most complex type used for ab initio flying training. The JP was a step up in speed from the Piston Provost, but it could hardly be rated as complex. Easy to fly, rugged, reliable and, in the case of the Mk 4, plenty of power. The Mk 3 lacked power and conversion to that was done after several hours on the Mk 4. The Mk 3 had a slow engine response, so a screwed up approach could lead to an even more interesting go-around, as the engine took its time to wind up.
Although I don't know for sure, I cannot believe students flew the Balliol as their ab initio trainer. So I suppose the JP, at the time, was the indeed most complex ab initio type.
However, in the 70s, the really big step in complexity and performance came in advanced flying training on the Gnat. But that's another story - and probably even further off-topic than I have already gone.
Happy Days indeed!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff