Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trainer aircraft progression: What is ideal?

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Y-20 Bacon
    Senior Member
    • Apr 2013
    • 2176

    Trainer aircraft progression: What is ideal?

    Swiss
    Simulator -> pc-7/9 -> pc-21 -> FA-18D or F-5B?

    Israel
    Simulator -> Grob-> Texan -> M-346 -> F16B or F-15B?

    Singapore

    Simulator -> Pc-21 -> M-346 -> F-5T?

    Saudi
    Simulator -> Pc-21 for all until 2 seat converter

    there's a lot of options.. sometimes used differently. Singapore PC-21 is considered basic while in Swiss it seems more advanced (correct me if this is wrong)
  • Ozair
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2015
    • 821

    #2
    Originally posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post

    there's a lot of options.. sometimes used differently. Singapore PC-21 is considered basic while in Swiss it seems more advanced (correct me if this is wrong)
    RAAF in aircraft form is below.

    CT-4 -> PC-9 -> Hawk 127 -> Hornet

    In more detail is

    CT-4 (25 weeks basic @ BFTS Tamworth) -> PC-9 (37 weeks awarded wings @ RAAF Pearce)-> Hawk 127 (lead in jet, 14 weeks @ RAAF Pearce) -> Hawk 127 (A2A/A2G training 20 weeks @ RAAF Williamtown) -> Hornet conversion ( 6 months @ RAAF Williamtown).

    Total process usually takes about four years from start to finish. RAAF are changing slightly with PC-21 coming soon to replace both CT-4 and PC-9.
    Last edited by Ozair; 2nd February 2017, 07:13.

    Comment

    • Yama
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Feb 2012
      • 633

      #3
      Finland: Vinka/Grob -> Hawk -> Hornet.

      Comment

      • halloweene
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2012
        • 4342

        #4
        Originally posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
        Swiss
        Simulator -> pc-7/9 -> pc-21 -> FA-18D or F-5B?

        Israel
        Simulator -> Grob-> Texan -> M-346 -> F16B or F-15B?

        Singapore

        Simulator -> Pc-21 -> M-346 -> F-5T?

        Saudi
        Simulator -> Pc-21 for all until 2 seat converter

        there's a lot of options.. sometimes used differently. Singapore PC-21 is considered basic while in Swiss it seems more advanced (correct me if this is wrong)
        Swiss PC-21 are very sophisticated combat simulators (up to 4 vs 4 fights eg. )

        Comment

        • Y-20 Bacon
          Senior Member
          • Apr 2013
          • 2176

          #5
          Originally posted by halloweene View Post
          Swiss PC-21 are very sophisticated combat simulators (up to 4 vs 4 fights eg. )
          would a PC-21 be sufficient for all phases of training? (less types, easier logistics)
          or still a 3-4 type progression is better?

          Comment

          • ocay84
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2008
            • 182

            #6
            Turkey:

            Now:

            Cessna T41D >SF-260 > KT-1T > T-38M

            2019-2020:

            Super Mushak > KT-1T and TAI Hurkus-B > T-38M


            2025+

            Super Mushak > TAI Hurkus-B > TAI T-X

            Comment

            • Z1pp0
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Oct 2005
              • 206

              #7
              Sweden:
              Sk 60 (SAAB 105) -> JAS 39 Gripen.

              For some time now Swedish Air Force use only jet training. The reasoning is that it would be just a waste of time and money to re-educate prospective pilots in jet operations since the screening and selection process was so rigorous that they could cherry pick the best and there was/would be very seldom any drop outs. It's only a handful of new pilots each year. Maybe a dussin max.

              IMHO this seems to be the ideal way for a smaller sized air force. Hardly suitable for large numbers of new recruits. Like USAF, or countries like Germany, UK, France etc.
              Last edited by Z1pp0; 2nd February 2017, 19:49.
              Latencia Profecionalis

              Comment

              • Ozair
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2015
                • 821

                #8
                Originally posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
                would a PC-21 be sufficient for all phases of training? (less types, easier logistics)
                or still a 3-4 type progression is better?
                The move appears to be PC-21 as the start with some form of lead in, hawk m346 etc, to fast jets.

                Comment

                • Marcellogo
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2014
                  • 1829

                  #9
                  Italy: SF-260T, M-345 (actually Mb-339D), M-346.

                  Rationale is using a more advanced primary trainer to eat hours to basic training, while using the M-345 for the rest of basic to first half of advanced one instead of MD339 so to spare money and the second half of advanced and a consistent part of operational conversion actually made with two seat versions of service aircrafts using the M-346 lead-in trainer instead.
                  Last edited by Marcellogo; 3rd February 2017, 01:59.

                  Comment

                  • halloweene
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2012
                    • 4342

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
                    would a PC-21 be sufficient for all phases of training? (less types, easier logistics)
                    or still a 3-4 type progression is better?
                    Pilatus claims so. See here an interview we did of a PC21 pilot at PAS 2013 https://www.portail-aviation.com/201...rview-dun.html

                    However, if one stay on the classical progression line (learn fly basics, than fighter flights systems than fast speed), Pilatus is perfect for 2nd part, but too expensive for part 1 and too slow for parrt 3 (despite PC21 able to "emulate" fighter speed for simulated missions) well... That's my view. I remember Pete Collins telling me during an interview that, considering the importance of weapon systems etc. nowadays it might be more sensible now to teach taht part first to every pilots (not only fighters), than to dispatch them according to basic flight results. He also said that transsition from PC21 to Rafale should be easy, but we are talking of a pilot that was qualified on over 170 tupes of planes.

                    Comment

                    • sandiego89
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Feb 2008
                      • 353

                      #11
                      I agree with Z1ppo and Halloween that the classic multiple type (3+) progression is preferred. Fewer steps for small air forces might work. There are some aircraft that would be perfectly well suited for novice students stick and rudder wise, but would be too expensive to purchase and operate in large numbers. I have seen several instructors claim the Cessna Caravan would make a great trainer, but is a bit more pricy that a clapped out C-150.

                      Comment

                      • TomcatViP
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Nov 2011
                        • 6058

                        #12
                        Piston trainer are great to teach early student flight coordination. Their inherent low kinetic flight characteristic unmask any error and are more forgiving at this early stage than a faster evolving turboprop.
                        Grob makes an excellent range of early/advanced trainer that in some case can step on the feet of more classical turboprops like the PC7/9.
                        The problem of the all jet training is that it doesn't lead to a natural joke/rudder culture that a fighter pilot will find useful again in the high alpha birds of tomorrow.

                        Comment

                        • halloweene
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2012
                          • 4342

                          #13
                          TP 120 is an excellent trainer, and instructors love the side by side and the 4 dividable and programmable screens. About jet feelings, there is one french pilot that followed swiss cursus and he found the transition from PC21 to Rafale "hot".

                          Comment

                          • Y-20 Bacon
                            Senior Member
                            • Apr 2013
                            • 2176

                            #14
                            Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                            TP 120 is an excellent trainer, and instructors love the side by side and the 4 dividable and programmable screens. About jet feelings, there is one french pilot that followed swiss cursus and he found the transition from PC21 to Rafale "hot".
                            hot in what way

                            Comment

                            • Yama
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Feb 2012
                              • 633

                              #15
                              FAF fighter pilot training transitioned to 3-plane model in the '70s, Saab Safir->Fouga Magister-> MiG-21/Draken. Since Fouga was basically a sailplane powered by two hairdryers, last transition was pretty 'hot'. "Fouga airspeed indicator scale ended before MiG-21's began".

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse

                               

                              Working...
                              X