Best basic trainer?

[DirtyProp]

Alright, calling out all the old, nostalgic farts on this one. As a civilian driver who always dreamed of becoming a military one, which one is in your opinion the best basic trainer and why?

PS: "because it looks good" doesn't count.

[Lonewolf_50]

What is youir criteria for 'best?' There are a lot of factors. For example, does one need to be able to do instrument flying in one?
The T-34B was a nice initial trainer for many years.
The nose heavy T-34C was one that also allowed for some instrument training, but was a touch more expensive to operate.

[DirtyProp]

I would say best all around, everything considered. I did not set any criteria to let people debate and discuss about all aspects.

[421dog]

Beech sport 180.
It is docile when handled appropriately, and will behave like a bitch if you abuse it. It, and its iterations are the only primary trainers that will proceed to a real, fully developed spin if you stall and don’t behave somewhat appropriately.
They will recover within a couple of turns once there with appropriate inputs regardless of how deep you are.
Certified in the utility category with two occupants and half tanks.

Saved my ass on my first idiotic pseudoaerobatic excursion on a solo cross country 30 years ago.
and on a couple of occasions since with idiots who tried to kill us both😎

[BEagle]

Jet Provost T Mk 5A without the shadow of a doubt!

[mcdhu]

Not much wrong with the Mk 4 either Beags. Bit short of nav kit, no pressurisation, but went really well!

mcdhu

[wiggy]

I agree with Beags but given I flew the JP 5A as a student and then again later instructing and then again again instructing instructing I may be biased...

Side by side seating - great for watching Blogg's head/eyes through a Stall turn.. No nasty vices for the basic stuff..Straight and Level One, Straight and Level Two, Straight and Level ..I'm bored now but it would dependably do all the Power+attitude+Trim stuff until the cows came home.

Then move forward umpteen hours on the course and the same aircraft could blast around at low level at (?) 240 IAS with enough fuel to do so for a decent low level navex but also not quite enough to mean Bloggs could ignore the fuel gauges.

Good (by 60's/70's ergonomic slum standards) instrument fit, including raw ILS.

A good spinner - no vices with incipient spinning - for full spinning- usually no probs if you played it straight with a basic Bloggs (though I did see one high rotational..it did , as per the pilot's notes straighten out OK eventually :ooh:) ..OTOH it could deliberately be made into a very entertaining spinner ( as in oscillatory - "that thump you hear is your helmet hitting the canopy" ) if you wanted it to be so for the benefit of the big boys/fast jet customers we used to spin for famil purpose at CFS.

I thought it was a really good solid fundamentally honest basic jet training platform...

If you want some gripes..Not great in icing (icing let-downs ring a bell?) - a bit of an issue in the UK winter but then again what basic trainer is ? The mighty JP3 was a better aeros machine at low altitude - lighter aileron forces and the tip tanks gave a better reference in the vertical...and the land away personal kit stowage - a tin container about the size of two shoe boxes) was dire...

[PPRuNeUser0131]

I'm with the thread starter, colour blind so never even had a chance to apply & get rejected ... but was inverted spinning on the menu for military basic training?

[Ascend Charlie]

was inverted spinning on the menu for military basic training?

umm.....no. Inverted spins were an uncommon byproduct of a normal spin entry, and were to be recovered from as ASAP as possible, so to speak. Sometimes the recovery was via the Martin Baker Departure Lounge.

[rotorfossil]

I was instructing on Vampires when the changeover from Piston Provost to JP3 was happening.We noticed an immediate drop in skills. When we went to fly the JP we realised why, it was too easy to fly. Basic trainers need to be sufficiently challenging to identify those with inadequate skills, or they just fail more expensively further up the line.
i met the same problem when instructing-on helicopters on the change over from Sioux/Whirlwind to all through Whirlwind, particularly when the requirement to do all exercises with manual throttle was eliminated. Nobody failed! They just failed at the OCU stage on Wessex or Puma.
I think that was what made the Tiger Moth a good trainer. It was (and is) not the easiest aircraft to fly well. I’ve flown those as well. It’s successor the Chipmunk was an excellent grading trainer for sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

[kenparry]

the JP we realised why, it was too easy to fly. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]

Yes, the JP3/4 were too easy. Another problem was the course construction; in the mid 60s the demanding instrument flying was placed towards the end of the syllabus and produced the majority of student failures. So, they were expensive failures. Both were fixed, after my time as a JP QFI, by introducing the JP3A/4A with a slightly improved instrument fit that included ILS, so increasing the workload on the student pilot, and bringing forward the IF to an earlier stage of the course.

[Fareastdriver]

I am with rotorfossil. I trained on the Provost T1 and when I went to Advanced on Vampires the rest of the course was ex JPs/UAS types. As time went by I was the first to solo and when we reached the instrument stage I got a White Card against an Intermediate Instrument Rating.

What rororfossil missed out on was the Bristol Sycamore. That was undoubtedly the best trainer of all time.

If you could fly a Sycamore you could fly ANYTHING!

[l.garey]

As has been said already, it depends what you mean by "best". Ab initio surely it must be the Tiger Moth. I was lucky enough to have that good fortune. Not difficult to learn on, but you needed to fly it, a skill that is, it is said, getting rarer today. I recall my old friend Tony (Blenheims and Baltimores in WW2, later B-24s with the RAAF) saying that he, like me, started on Tiger Moths and that was one reason he survived. In the meantime he instructed on Cornells and says that they were too easy and led to fatalities. You can't compare a Tiger Moth with a JP, of course.
If I'm allowed a second choice, then I'd say Chipmunk. My favourite aeroplane, but next to the Tiger as a trainer.
Sorry, just saw rotorfossil's post no 10. I agree with you!

Laurence

[PaulH1]

I was on a UAS when the switch from Chipmunks to Bulldogs started. I was lucky enough to start the course on the Chipmunk and finish off on the Bulldog. The latter was undoubtably easier to fly and returned better (on paper) results. Whether the pilot was better was never really established. I think that the Chipmunk was certainly a better aircraft for learning the basics of flying though.

[ciderman]

umm.....no. Inverted spins were an uncommon byproduct of a normal spin entry, and were to be recovered from as ASAP as possible, so to speak. Sometimes the recovery was via the Martin Baker Departure Lounge.


From my training days in the sixties, you treated an inverted spin as you would a normal one, that is the turn needle still worked the right way. That's all I can remember about it, never trained for it and never heard of anyone getting into one until my old chum Jim Alexander got into one in a Pitts and left it in a quarry in the Midlands somewhere and walked home with his parachute under his arm and went to work.

[staircase]

I would agree that the JP was a good trainer, but then all my 'learning' and instructing was on the JP. So with nothing to really compare it with, my opinion is not really worth much. All I would add is to remind some of us of the shear joy of a 07.30 solo weather trip on a frosty clear morning, bliss.

I too did some spinning the big boys when I worked for CFS, and found that it was fairly easy (but prohibited!) to flick it into a spin. Confided to my mate what i had done, and then on the next sortie sat 4 or 5 hundred yards away whilst he tried it in his jet. After watching what happened to the aeroplane I never did it again!

As for the lack of luggage space. I well remember landaways with the lounge suit on a coat hanger, hanging on the outside of the seat. I wonder what would have happened it we had to jump out? The only occasion I crossed the Channel in a JP, I came home with the litre of Southern Comfort in that little 'pocket', the one where you placed the pitot cover, and thinking if I have to eject I would have to leave it there. The innocence of youth. But it was all nearly 50 years ago........

[medod]

I think that was what made the Tiger Moth a good trainer. It was (and is) not the easiest aircraft to fly well. I’ve flown those as well. It’s successor the Chipmunk was an excellent grading trainer for sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

Just what was the successions of ab intio trainers in the RAF? Tiger Moth, Chipmunk, Piston Provost, Jet Provost, Bulldog, Tutor, Prefect?

Can anyone add the years when transition from one to another was more or less completed? E.g. I believe Tutors replaced Bulldogs in 2001.

[pr00ne]

medod,

You are mixing up ab initio with basic.

On the ab initio, or primary as the RAF called it, later elementary, the Tiger Moth was replaced by the Percival Prentice with the Chipmunk only going to the reserve schools and UAS's. The reserve schools were phased out in 1953 and a large number of Chipmunks were declared surplus. When the Provost T1 came along, (the Piston Provost) it carried out primary AND basic until the advent of the Jet Provost T3, which did the same. At various stages of the RAF flying training system they have introduced, withdrawn, re introduced, withdrawn and reintroduced an ab initio, or primary, stage on the Chipmunk when it became too expensive to discover that someone was unsuitable half way through the Jet Provost stage. Re introducing a primary stage on a simple piston type solved this.
The Bulldog replaced the Chipmunk in the UAS's in 1973/4 but I don't think was ever used by the RAF as a genuine primary trainer, apart from the period when the UAS's were used as the elementary stage. The RAF did use it in the RNEFTS to train potential RN helicopter pilots. Complicated this training business isn't it.

Then the Tutor replaced the Bulldog as a genuine elementary trainer and as a UAS/AEF platform, which it still is but this has again been complicated by the introduction of the Prefect which appears to be used as an elementary trainer as well as the Tutor...

[medod]

Thank you.

At various stages of the RAF flying training system they have introduced, withdrawn, re introduced, withdrawn and reintroduced an ab initio, or primary, stage on the Chipmunk when it became too expensive to discover that someone was unsuitable half way through the Jet Provost stage. Re introducing a primary stage on a simple piston type solved this.

The Bulldog replaced the Chipmunk in the UAS's in 1973/4 but I don't think was ever used by the RAF as a genuine primary trainer, apart from the period when the UAS's were used as the elementary stage. The RAF did use it in the RNEFTS to train potential RN helicopter pilots. Complicated this training business isn't it.

Then the Tutor replaced the Bulldog as a genuine elementary trainer and as a UAS/AEF platform, which it still is but this has again been complicated by the introduction of the Prefect which appears to be used as an elementary trainer as well as the Tutor...

Complicated indeed — but quite fascinating as the decision-makers must’ve thought they were doing the right thing each time they changed approach.

Did the first trainer a new non-UAS entrant flew stick with being with the Chipmunk while the JP was around, once introduced, or did that actually come and go?

[beardy]

I agree with Beags but given I flew the JP 5A as a student and then again later instructing and then again again instructing instructing I may be biased...

Side by side seating - great for watching Blogg's head/eyes through a Stall turn.. No nasty vices for the basic stuff..Straight and Level One, Straight and Level Two, Straight and Level ..I'm bored now but it would dependably do all the Power+attitude+Trim stuff until the cows came home.

Then move forward umpteen hours on the course and the same aircraft could blast around at low level at (?) 240 IAS with enough fuel to do so for a decent low level navex but also not quite enough to mean Bloggs could ignore the fuel gauges.

Good (by 60's/70's ergonomic slum standards) instrument fit, including raw ILS.

A good spinner - no vices with incipient spinning - for full spinning- usually no probs if you played it straight with a basic Bloggs (though I did see one high rotational..it did , as per the pilot's notes straighten out OK eventually :ooh:) ..OTOH it could deliberately be made into a very entertaining spinner ( as in oscillatory - "that thump you hear is your helmet hitting the canopy" ) if you wanted it to be so for the benefit of the big boys/fast jet customers we used to spin for famil purpose at CFS.

I thought it was a really good solid fundamentally honest basic jet training platform...

If you want some gripes..Not great in icing (icing let-downs ring a bell?) - a bit of an issue in the UK winter but then again what basic trainer is ? The mighty JP3 was a better aeros machine at low altitude - lighter aileron forces and the tip tanks gave a better reference in the vertical...and the land away personal kit stowage - a tin container about the size of two shoe boxes) was dire...

Agree with all of that. I'm from a similar background, but also had the chance, on exchange to fly both piston and jet tandem seating basic trainers. Sitting next to the student has real advantages, but can be off-putting for them.

I don't subscribe to the theory that a basic trainer has to be challenging to weed out the incompetents. The syllabus and goals have to be challenging.

[ancientaviator62]

Am I right in assuming the Balliol was intended to replace the Harvard ? How did it compare and was it a suitable trainer as it did nor seem to last very long in service ?

[pontifex]

Of all the trainers I have flown as a student, QFI and TP I believe that the JP is the winner. It could take any manner of mishandling and still recover. Although inverted spinning was prohibited is would recover as easily as from the errect version (provided the appreoved technique was employed). However my favourite was, and will always will be, the Harvard. If you could fly that you could fly anything. As a TP I had to prove that once with another type! The best trainer the RAF never had was the PC9 - streets ahead of anything else on offer. I wish I had flown the Tiger, I am sure it would have come close to the top.

[Fareastdriver]

On the ab initio, or primary as the RAF called it, later elementary, the Tiger Moth was replaced by the Percival Prentice with the Chipmunk only going to the reserve schools and UAS's

Nos 4 and 5 FTS in Rhodesia went from Tiger Moth to Chipmunk in 1952, then on to Harvards. As a kid I used to play in the Tiger Moths in the dump at Heany.

[flyingorthopod]

Can I place a vote for the humble Cessna 150/152?

Much less interesting to fly than Tiger Moth, Chipmunk, Bulldog or Tutor. Not really intended as a military trainer.

But they are simple, robust, stand up to endless abuse and being flown overloaded; easy to fly adequately but reward good and accurate flying; stable enough for instrument flying; can be used in aerobat form for (very) basic aerobatics and upset training.

They've probably trained more people to fly than anything else and are so hard to find a replacement for in general aviation that they command ridiculous prices.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Was the beneficiary of basic training on the JP3A, with no elementary training prior to this. I found it invaluable to be able to watch the instructor during his demo, and he was always able to see where my scan was breaking down during IF. The 3A appeared to conform to one definition I have since heard of a good basic trainer: "easy to fly, challenging to fly well" (my speed/height control in the circuit being prime examples of straightforward tasks that took a while to master). The syllabus and the required standards can then take advantage of these attributes.

Regarding helis: the Whirlwind syllabus I experienced (hi, Oldbeefer!) certainly included some Spanish Fuel (Manuel Throttel) exercises; I'm not sure if flying everything that way was the reason students succeeded on the OCU (neither Puma nor Wessex having collective-mounted throttles). Mastering skills that aren't required on front-line aircraft is an unnecessary distraction, even if it allows for students to demonstrate capacity and dexterity (although as the collective is held by the left hand, 'dexterity' is possibly not the correct word). The wastage-rate on the OCUs was partially addressed by introducing the advanced phase at 2 FTS, initially using borrowed RN Wessex HU5s.

In many ways the Whirlwind was an ideal basic helicopter trainer - the one type allowing all the basic exercises (nose-up slopes being a particular challenge) plus the relatively-advanced stuff like trooping, winching and underslung loads. A whole generation of Gazelle-trained individuals missed-out on throttle skills, which became evident when many moved on to civilian flying and struggled with the likes of the MD902, EC135 and B212/412.

[Dan_Brown]

Harvard, without doubt. Failing that, any aircraft with a conventional U/C. Why? you are taught to use your feet near the ground. The basics are the same, whether it be a light, median or heavy aircraft. Why does the basic trainer need to be a jet? The only difference making it a jet is the power plant, is it not?

How many airline pilots these days can land the aircraft properly in a max demonstrated cross wind or max limited cross wind? Properly meaning, touching down, with the aircraft on the center line, with the heading and track the same as the runway heading, wings level, or ideally slightly into wind wing down?? Not many. A conventional U/G aircraft will give the student some idea. The modern trained airline pilot and few ex military have "no idea", in general.. Not their faults, as they haven't been trained.to do just that in basic training.

I am aware what the book states referring to a lot of heavy aircraft. Basically arrive, with no corrective action. This of course is legal ass covering, which absolves the manufacturer of any responsibility in a screw up in the case of incompetence.

[DirtyProp]

Can I place a vote for the humble Cessna 150/152?

Much less interesting to fly than Tiger Moth, Chipmunk, Bulldog or Tutor. Not really intended as a military trainer.

But they are simple, robust, stand up to endless abuse and being flown overloaded; easy to fly adequately but reward good and accurate flying; stable enough for instrument flying; can be used in aerobat form for (very) basic aerobatics and upset training.
.......
Indeed they are, but for rather tall guys like myself they can be a bit uncomfortable. After 1, 1.5 hrs sitting in that thing I can't wait to get out of it...

[Baldeep Inminj]

I'm with the thread starter, colour blind so never even had a chance to apply & get rejected ... but was inverted spinning on the menu for military basic training?

Yes it was. I went through basic training on the Tucano in the early 90’s and it was a part of most sorties - speed around 120 kts, pitch up, roll inverted and push until she stalled whilst standing on a pedal. She went in willingly, the spin was stable if rather unpleasant for some, and she recovered quickly and predictably.

To answer the thread however, it has to be the AS350 Squirrel formerly used by the UK Forces, to train their biggest component by far of frontline war fighting aircrew.

...or did you not mean helicopters🤔

[ASRAAMTOO]

Judging from the types listed here there is a clear age demographic to this forum!

I have flown and instructed (civvy and military) Tiger Moths, Chipmunks, Bulldogs, Fireflys, JP 3,4 and 5. Of these technically only the JP is a basic trainer although as mentioned above it essentially doubled up when the RAF did "straight through "jet training before reintroducing a grading system.

In my view the best iteration in recent years for RAF flying training was when a screening process took place on the Chipmunk at FSS (or on a UAS if they were members) followed by a 100 hour BFTS course then streaming to either Gp1 Phase 1 and 60 more hours on the JP or helicopters/multis. Sadly this was deemed too expensive.

To answer the original question, as a basic trainer I enjoyed flying the JP 5 more than its other variants. Lots quieter and somewhat slicker so although the 4 gave better initial acceleration once drag became a factor the 5 would pull away. That said the tadpole nose made it more difficult to aerobat than the 3 and 4, particularly as stall turns and their variants were such a big part of its repertoire. It was not particularly well harmonised though with stiff control forces and a relatively poor roll rate.

Of the primary trainers the Chipmunk would be my firm favourite and is quite simply a delight to fly.

Ok, that's all the old duffer stuff out of the way and everything I mentioned above was when flying training was designed to lead you to a front line aircraft that was DIFFICULT to fly. The theory of the day was that the better you were as a pilot the more spare capacity you had available to operate the aircraft. These days those aircraft are gone and we have aircraft that are relatively easy to fly but equipped with complex mission systems. So it could be said that the converse is true, we now need someone who is an ace at the mission systems but no longer requires the same level of basic flying skills.

So something that is fairly easy to fly but packed with screens and electronics may now be the way ahead?

[BEagle]

beardy wrote:I don't subscribe to the theory that a basic trainer has to be challenging to weed out the incompetents. The syllabus and goals have to be challenging.

Now sit down and prepare for a shock, beardy, but I agree entirely!

Teaching stick and rudder skills on Tigers or Chipmunks isn't all that relevant in today's RAF. It was when the Service flew things such as Hastings and Shacklebombers, perhaps. The JP was very strong, very as tough as old boot. Viceless and a great all round training aircraft. One thing I found pointless was the introduction of 300KIAS low level navigation trips, thanks to the pointy-jet heads at CFS. The aircraft bounced around like a pea on a drum, control loads were heavy, it drank fuel - but worst of all the standard technique for correcting time errors was almost impossible to achieve. At every turning point the speed washed up unless you went to full power in the turn and held it until you'd regained 300KIAS - this often meant exceeding max continuous and caned the engine.

The Lightning / Buccaneer / Phantom / Jaguar / Harrier era required Advanced Training on a complex, tricky aeroplane, so we spent much of the time making sure it didn't kill us with constant STUPRECC drills etc. Whereas once the Service moved to aeroplanes that had been designed to fly without difficulty, the Hawk was much easier to fly but the applied flying training became more relevant and demanding.

Solo GH consolidation in the JP over 8/8 cloud, with no navaids apart from Rebecca / Eureka and UDF was character forming even if the aeroplane was easy to fly.

Tucano inverted spinning? Why? No other front line aircraft was cleared for such a manoeuvre - if centralising didn't work then it was time for an M-B let down.

[jayteeto]

A good ab initio trainer should be forgiving, fairly easy to fly and quite difficult to fly well. That allows margin for error and allows the good pilots to shine. I have flown many SEP civvie aircraft plus military Chippy/Bulldog/Tutor/JP5
All offer advantages and disadvantages, but the Tutor is cheap and cheerful, quite forgiving and offers a good platform for the first 30-40 hours. IF not so good, but if you fly the techniques, it works

[pr00ne]

Thank you.



Complicated indeed — but quite fascinating as the decision-makers must’ve thought they were doing the right thing each time they changed approach.

Did the first trainer a new non-UAS entrant flew stick with being with the Chipmunk while the JP was around, once introduced, or did that actually come and go?

Yep, complicated. Not sure about your opinion of the decision makers, more likely a case of a new broom wanting to sweep clean and leave their mark, so all change!

The many changes to the pre basic phase came and went after the introduction of the Jet Provost. A non UAS entrant would have gone straight to the Jet Provost T3 in many cases, or, with the introduction and withdrawal of the primary phase, gone to either the Primary Flying Squadron or the Elementary Flying Training Squadron on the Chipmunk. Then there was another period when non PPL and UAS entrants went to the FSS, the Flying Selection Squadron, again on the Chipmunk.

[beardy]

The theory of the day was that the better you were as a pilot the more spare capacity you had available to operate the aircraft. These days those aircraft are gone and we have aircraft that are relatively easy to fly but equipped with complex mission systems. So it could be said that the converse is true, we now need someone who is an ace at the mission systems but no longer requires the same level of basic flying skills.

In the days when aircraft were difficult to fly the man who taught flying was one of the high priests and to become one there were trials and tests and initiation ceremonies (CFS). When aircraft became easier to fly the weapons became more complicated and a new set of cult leaders emerged with their own initiation rites (QWIs). Now we have 'Mission Specialists.' Each of these tribes require different attributes and different training environments. It can be argued (and is by some, but not on here) that, in the future, to be able to fully exploit the aerial dimension of warfare it may not be necessary to be a pilot at all and that being physically connected with the environment is not essential. Thus future generations of training tools may not fly at all or not be manned.

[pr00ne]

Nos 4 and 5 FTS in Rhodesia went from Tiger Moth to Chipmunk in 1952, then on to Harvards. As a kid I used to play in the Tiger Moths in the dump at Heany.


Yep, had forgotten the Rhodesian training, thanks for the correction Fareastdriver. But wasn't the Rhodesian FTS Group wound up around the same time as the RFS's went, 1953?

[pr00ne]

Am I right in assuming the Balliol was intended to replace the Harvard ? How did it compare and was it a suitable trainer as it did nor seem to last very long in service ?


The Balliol was originally intended to be a turboprop powered advanced trainer and to follow on from the Provost T1 in the training sequence, so in the RAF it would have indeed have replaced the Harvard. The RAF then changed their mind and had it re-engined with a piston engine. By the time it had done this the idea of a piston powered advanced trainer was passe with the widespread introduction of jets and it never equipped more than the one FTS and then only briefly before the widespread adoption of the Vampire T11.

I remember having a drink with an ex VSO many years ago who spoke in glowing terms of an intended training sequence of Chipmunk-Provost-Balliol-Vampire that never came to pass.

[trim it out]

Soon we will be seeing graduates of full glass cockpit trainers. Then they'll have to learn steam gauges on some FL types :E

[Baldeep Inminj]

[QUOTE Tucano inverted spinning? Why? No other front line aircraft was cleared for such a manoeuvre - if centralising didn't work then it was time for an M-B let down.[/QUOTE]

Honestly I think it was just because the QFI’s seemed to like doing them. Like so much I was taught at Linton, it was at the whim of the instructor!

[Caractacus]

Without a shadow of doubt the best aircraft to learn to fly on is the humble glider because:

a. It won't turn if you fail to coordinate the rudder with the aileron.
b. You are always on minimum fuel.
and
c. The penalty for misjudging the approach is always a solid obstacle.

I started on these as a teenager then did a short PPL on Cessna 150's. Horrible thing but the reward was many happy hours tugging on tail draggers. Again, if your basic stick and rudder skills are not up to it you will have a problem. E.g. tugging a student on a turbulent summers day.

Next stop for me was the JP3 where any bad techniques acquired in the aforementioned were brutally displayed and required to un learned and then re learned.

The skills I learned on that little pig undoubtedly saved by bacon more than once may years later in charter operations on the B757 and B767300ER.

So, for my money, the JP3 has to be the best - there was simply nowhere to hide and, frankly, the more terse, and cynical, the QFI the better!

Regarding the light twins and the civil IR that's hard to say as it was a quick 8 hours learning the numbers on something horrible like a Piper Seminole then parting with a fat cheque to CAAFU.

To wrap up, even in today's world I see no excuse for not equipping a pilot with a thoroughly sound set of stick and rudder skills and a healthy fear of terra firma and a glider is a great way to learn your a b c.

P.S. When this sodding lock in is over I'm going to get off Pprune and take a trip to my local gliding club to see if I can still remember it!

[medod]

The best trainer the RAF never had was the PC9 - streets ahead of anything else on offer. I wish I had flown the Tiger, I am sure it would have come close to the top.

The Texan II that has replaced Tucano is a development of the PC9

[sharpend]

I was on a UAS when the switch from Chipmunks to Bulldogs started. I was lucky enough to start the course on the Chipmunk and finish off on the Bulldog. The latter was undoubtably easier to fly and returned better (on paper) results. Whether the pilot was better was never really established. I think that the Chipmunk was certainly a better aircraft for learning the basics of flying though.

At this time I taught students on both Chippy & Bulldog, the Chippy was the better aircraft to learn on; the Bulldog was the better aircraft to teach on.

[old,not bold]

A good ab initio trainer should be forgiving, fairly easy to fly and quite difficult to fly well. That allows margin for error and allows the good pilots to shine.

Which is why those of us who learned to fly in Austers just knew that we were the only people who could really fly properly. The past tense is deliberate; most of us have by definition one foot in the grave, as do any Austers still flying.

[Yellow Sun]

Another vote for the JP in all its guises, it really just did what it said on the tin. The only other aircraft of the same class I flew in; very briefly; was the CL41 Tutor. A lot of similarities but just felt a bit less robust that the JP. I always wondered about the Fouga Magister, because it seemed such a different way of fulfilling the requirement for a basic trainer. I once asked someone had flown the Fouga on exchange what it was like? He thought for a moment, sucked his teeth and replied "French".

YS

[brakedwell]

My vote goes to the Piston Provost. As a young 18 year old in 1955 I found it difficult, but satisfying. The poor forward visibility when taxying was the start of the difficulties, it would swing quickly on the take off and landing run if not watched carefully, but was a very good aerobatic machine. After the Provost the Vampire was a peice of doddle!

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/876x1200/ternhill_provost_089073ebb789cb6df61a730955a9f1010b3fd93e.jp g

[NoelEvans]

All the way to Post #21 before the Harvard gets a mention!

Harvard, without doubt.
I fully agree!

My first solo was in one 47 year ago. It taught me a huge amount that I have been able to draw on time and time again in all those years.

[Saint-Ex]

I would suggest Tiger Moth followed by Harvard then anything you like with a set of notes only.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Surprised anyone thinks the JP 5 was better than the 4. Quieter yes, but lower t/w
ratio due pressurisation bleed and higher weight. 4 Far better for aeros.

Spinning on the 5 could be very oscillatory , look at the various tweeks on it to try and make it more predictable, ,leading edge roughness, strakes on the nose.

The JP 4 was very predictable in the spin, but I never managed on SCT to spin It inverted, not enough down elevator.

That said, a few of us, QFIs from SORF , did some spinning of Lightning pilots, which included partial control and mishandled recovery techniques with fuel in the tips, that DID get quite exciting but it DID eventually recover, once correct recovery action was taken and held for a few turns !

Aparently the Lightning and JP had similar spin techniques, recovery procedures, but the height loss , however , was in a different league !

But the JP as the best trainer for teaching aeroplane handling, not sure about that, my limited experience on the Harvard suggests not.

[ExAscoteer2]

Surprised anyone thinks the JP 5 was better than the 4. Quieter yes, but lower t/ d ratio due pressurisation bleed and higher weight.

Of course if you turned the pressurisation off...

[beardy]

Another vote for the JP in all its guises, it really just did what it said on the tin. The only other aircraft of the same class I flew in; very briefly; was the CL41 Tutor. A lot of similarities but just felt a bit less robust that the JP. I always wondered about the Fouga Magister, because it seemed such a different way of fulfilling the requirement for a basic trainer. I once asked someone had flown the Fouga on exchange what it was like? He thought for a moment, sucked his teeth and replied "French".

YS
I flew the Magister and concur. It was a robust metal glider, no ejection seat, very little drag and thrust, and a periscope to see out from the back seat. Fantastic spin entry, really slow with all the symptoms evident within one turn. Very low wing loading. Also an ergonomic nightmare.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Within reason the aircraft doesn't matter, what matters is how good the syllabus is and how good the instructor is.

Part of the problem is the legacy issue, that is I did maneuver X when i did my training so you must do it too. Or in general training informed by the concept "that's the way we have always done it".

The other issue is when bean counters put arbitrary limits on how much training they want to pay for

However that been said the best all around ab initio trainer I ever used was a Canadian Chippy ( ie with the blown canopy) that had been re-engined with a Lycoming. The only downside was the fact that the poor student was going to compare all subsequent aircraft he flew to the Chippy....... and find them wanting.

For advanced training the T 28 Trojan was pretty good. It was at heart pretty forgiving but still powerful enough to get the blood racing.

[Jackonicko]

What should the RAF have now, if 'best' was the criteria?

PC-21? M-311/M-345? T-6C?

[NutLoose]

As an engineer I found the JP a very simple and easy aircraft to maintain.

[EGDLaddict]

Given that the OP asked what the best basic trainer was, please N.B. the word "TRAINER".
He didn't ask which basic training aircraft was best to fly.

Surely the ideal basic trainer should be one that takes the student from the state of having had no training along to successfully start training on the next stage.
BFTS to AFTS.
For instance JP to Hawk.

[megan]

The only downside was the fact that the poor student was going to compare all subsequent aircraft he flew to the Chippy....... and find them wanting.Those in the know say the Chippy handles the same as Spitfire, just a pity about the power to weight ratio and noise. Soloed in an ex RAF Chippy, WB622, before COVID was counting the shekels for a Spitfire ride in the UK to find out.

[CoodaShooda]

Best Basic Trainer for an F35 Lead In (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLasBCsbvwc/hqdefault.jpg)

Single engine, all round vision, develops good basic stick and rudder skills and teaches the stude not to panic when the engine stops. :E

[brakedwell]

Best Basic Trainer for an F35 Lead In (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLasBCsbvwc/hqdefault.jpg)

Single engine, all round vision, develops good basic stick and rudder skills and teaches the stude not to panic when the engine stops. :E

The day we arrived at RAF Ternhill to start the Piston Provsost Course two aircraft collided after number one overshot from a low level practice engine failure after take off and hit another Provost from the under side which had just taken off. (4 killed).

[Treble one]

Nos 4 and 5 FTS in Rhodesia went from Tiger Moth to Chipmunk in 1952, then on to Harvards. As a kid I used to play in the Tiger Moths in the dump at Heany.

My chum Les (RIP) was on the last RAF course on the Tiger Moth at Heany. He went Tiger Moth, Harvard, Meteor. He then flew the Chipmunk later when he was an airline pilot.

[Mogwi]

Those in the know say the Chippy handles the same as Spitfire, just a pity about the power to weight ratio and noise. Soloed in an ex RAF Chippy, WB622, before COVID was counting the shekels for a Spitfire ride in the UK to find out.


My father said that. He soloed on the Chippy in the same week that I did (1968) whilst doing a RNR stint at Wyton. Most of his flying was on Seafires (North Altantic, Arctic convoys and Far East) but he also flew Swordfish, Hurricane, Hellcat and the odd Oxford - as you did in those days.

One of his Oxford trips ended in farce when he had to forced-land on the highway between Nowra and Melbourne because of an engine failure. He had enough power to taxi into a pub car park and was well pi**ed before the maintainers arrived. But that is another story.

Mog

[Fareastdriver]

The day we arrived at RAF Ternhill to start the Piston Provost Course two aircraft collided after number one overshot from a low level practice engine failure after take off and hit another Provost from the under side which had just taken off. (4 killed).

In 1960 at Ternhill the call when you did a practise engine failure after take off was "Fanstop" so as to warn those taking off behind you. Probably to avoid the same thing happening again seeing even then there was no radio calls once in the circuit.

[brakedwell]

The accident happened very early in January 1956 so the practise EFTO calls could well have been introduced after that. I remember the Station Padre, who flew Spitfires during the war, being very upset by the accident.

[exMudmover]

Hi Retired BA/BYJP4 Inverted Spins.

Never tried a full inverted, but used to do inverted flick rolls for a bit of fun, back in the 60s before the Mk 4 rudder posts started to crack up and all flick manoeuvres were banned.

Technique was to pull to the vertical and then, at about 120kt, full forward stick and full rudder. The aeroplane departs smartly, rolling in the direction of the applied rudder.. Recovery was interesting as you have to put recovery rudder on in the direction of the perceived roll.

Don’t think it would be a good idea for modern JP owners to try.

[Fareastdriver]

IIRC turn one way, ball the other; normal spin. Both the same; inverted.

[beardy]

Hi Retired BA/BYJP4 Inverted Spins.

Never tried a full inverted, but used to do inverted flick rolls for a bit of fun, back in the 60s before the Mk 4 rudder posts started to crack up and all flick manoeuvres were banned.

Technique was to pull to the vertical and then, at about 120kt, full forward stick and full rudder. The aeroplane departs smartly, rolling in the direction of the applied rudder.. Recovery was interesting as you have to put recovery rudder on in the direction of the perceived roll.

Don’t think it would be a good idea for modern JP owners to try.

I seem to recall a past winner of the Wright Jubilee Trophy doing something similar in his winning sequence that he went on to display that year in a Mk5a.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Only ever tried it ( only when a solo QFI ) inverting and slowly reducing speed to just before the stall, then applying full rudder, stick fully forward, but with ailerons neutral and trying both full aileron in both directions it just fell into a sort of wallowing spiral with the speed increasing. I guess it was not truly stalled.

Some time later I was walking through the hangar and saw a JP with the fin root fairings removed, revealing the three small bolts holding the fin on, made me very conscious of fin loading, never tried inverted spinning again.

Thought flicks on the JP were always banned, certainly since I first flew it in 1962, 3s and 4s.

Happy days!

[pontifex]

Beardy,

That was Ray Coates. He was a creamed off QFI. Went on to be the RAF Harrier display pilot and, the last I remember, flew with Virgin.

[beardy]

Beardy,

That was Ray Coates. He was a creamed off QFI. Went on to be the RAF Harrier display pilot and, the last I remember, flew with Virgin.
He may very well have done it, but I saw somebody else (who also went on to be a display pilot) do it.

[50+Ray]

Just to fill in one omission - the best EFT trainer I instructed on was the Firefly T67M260. I was originally taught on the Chipmunk - great fun. JP not fun. Bulldog - invisible tail brake chute and abysmal lack of nav aids/squawk. EFT for all three services was conducted on the Firefly, and I know it coped well in the desert. Tutor a real step backwards, and why the RAF purchased anything else from Grob baffles me. Anyone who saw Alan Wade winning the Wright Jubilee or showing at RIAT & Farnborough knew what the aircraft could do.
Ray

[beardy]

Just to fill in one omission - the best EFT trainer I instructed on was the Firefly T67M260. I was originally taught on the Chipmunk - great fun. JP not fun. Bulldog - invisible tail brake chute and abysmal lack of nav aids/squawk. EFT for all three services was conducted on the Firefly, and I know it coped well in the desert. Tutor a real step backwards, and why the RAF purchased anything else from Grob baffles me. Anyone who saw Alan Wade winning the Wright Jubilee or showing at RIAT & Farnborough knew what the aircraft could do.
Ray
I wasn't that keen on the Firefly. It's a nice little aircraft, slow roll rate, very low wing loading, doesn't wash off energy. But so slow. Once you have any number in one base it becomes wasteful with long transit times to a work area. The visibility was good but not that many good canopy reference points for teaching attitude flying. Fuel awareness wasn't critical.

[Dan Winterland]

My opinions: I'm going to risk uttering 'Jehovah' and sat the Tucano was better than the JP as a trainer. The JP was good, and perfect if your front line aircraft were Hunters and Lightnings, but when I trained on it, it was well past it's sell by date. It was too stable, it was thirsty and had severe range limitations. We could go on about tandem vs side by side (I prefer tandem BTW), but the JP's one instrument panel between the seats was a massive limitation. Having your head turned away from the centre-line is a disorientation inducer. Tucano improved on most of these faults, it produced better pilots for the aircraft they would be subsequently flying. And as for inverted spinning, because it could! And it was possible to get into one inadvertently - as one of my students demonstrated to me one day! The handling was very good, but had enough idiosyncrasies to make good pilots. I blagged a few PC9 rides and couldn't see any real difference between it and the Tucano, except the rear seat view was vastly better in the Tucano.

As for elementary trainers, at that stage, it's the handling aspects which are the most important at this stage, as you are trying to instil to create a good basis for the subsequent training. In my opinion, everything that replaced the Chipmunk didn't do any better and often were far worse. The Bulldog wasn't better than the Chipmunk, the Firefly was worse than the Bulldog. Don't know much about the Tutor, but having instructed in G115s, I don't hold up much hope. I'm sure the Prefect would be fine if the students could stop blowing up the engines and the tall ones fit in it.

[BEagle]

I only flew the T67A, but thought that it had a truly woeful roll rate. Generally the control harmony wasn't bad at all and it was OK for teaching stall/spin awareness and prevention. But I tried my Bulldog aeros sequence and gave up after the first half Cuban. Like the Chipmunk, watching prop rpm during aeros was essential; at least military versions had a constant speed prop.

As for Firefly displays, the one I saw at Farnborough involved mostly looping manoeuvres, but the abysmal roll rate meant that anything involving a roll used a flick entry....

Those who instructed on Das Teutor told me that it had an even worse roll rate than the Firefly. Its saving grace was that it had a better climb rate than the Bulldog, I understand.

During 1970, our UAS CFI went to fly various possible Chipmunk replacements. These were the Bulldog prototype, some Zlin, the SF 260 and a Pitts S-2. Beagle went bust, politics intervened and the Bulldog it was. Of which the RAF ordered 130....

[kenparry]

Bulldog it was. Of which the RAF ordered 130....

Actually, the RAF ordered zero. The whole order was paid for by the Department for Employment (or whatever is was that week) to provide jobs for Scotsmen who would otherwise have been out of work.

Tutor: yes, dismal roll rate, and a fine bounce-augmenting undercarriage.

[beardy]

Those who instructed on Das Teutor told me that it had an even worse roll rate than the Firefly


I only got just over 300hrs on the Firefly compared to over 600hrs on the Tutor. In my recollection the Firefly had a significantly slower rate of roll than the somewhat pedestrian Tutor. However, unlike the Tutor it didn't bleed energy in aerobatics, it was quite possible to complete an energetic sequence and gain altitude from 5000ft base height even with a significant use of - g. An outside loop was not difficult, my arms were too short for that in the Tutor which really bled energy.

None of which had much impact on its suitability as a basic trainer.

A much nicer basic trainer piston aircraft was the (unfortunately) tandem seated Socata Epsilon.

[AnglianAV8R]

Can anyone vouch for the SF260 from personal experience ? I've always thought it looked the biz and therefore, should be good.

As for my personal experience, the Piper PA-38 Terrorhawk puts hairs on yer chest :E

[LOMCEVAK]

There have been quite a few comments on inverted spinning. The Tucano was cleared for inverted spinning because during the release to service trials it was considered that if it spun inadvertently during aerobatics then the probability of the spin being inverted was about 40%. In fact, the first inverted spin that occurred during these trials was on a pilot currency sortie during which he let the navigator who was in the rear seat fly a few aerobatics. His attempt at a 1/2 Cuban 8 (rolling on an up 45 line) resulted in an inverted spin!

I once has a JP5 (no tip tanks) enter an inverted spin from a practise spin from a manoeuvre. On an up vertical line I closed the throttle then at 110 kts (max speed for spin entry) I applied full back stick and full left rudder. The aircraft rotated and started to tumble, generating a noticeable nose down pitch rate. I was about to say "This would be a great display manoeuvre" when it entered a fully developed inverted spin! The Aircrew Manual recovery was to centralise the controls so I tried this. However, there was severe aileron snatch and I could only maintain the stick laterally to within about half deflection. So saying, it recovered fairly quickly. I did some digging and discovered that an inverted spin trial had never been flown in the JP5 and that the advice in the Aircrew Manual was based on the JP4 trial! I did try this entry again and the departure was the same every time but I then recovered before it went fully developed inverted. I did hear stories that others had reported having it spin inverted but they had been told that they were wrong because it doesn't!

Back to the thread, the Harvard was originally an advanced trainer for piston engine fighters, although some Air Forces did use it subsequently as a basic trainer; I think that it is definitely the best trainer for tailwheel piston-engine fighters. With respect to what is/was the best basic trainer, every aeroplane has its good and bad points and they are all a compromise. The question is always then the best for precisely which aspect of flying? But I do have very fond memories of the Harvard, Chipmunk and JP5 - and the Tucano!

[JENKINS]

Beardy refers to the Tutor and short arms. I will acknowledge his short arms, but must step in with a comment that long pockets were not part of his manner.

[Prangster]

Those in the know say the Chippy handles the same as Spitfire, just a pity about the power to weight ratio and noise. Soloed in an ex RAF Chippy, WB622, before COVID was counting the shekels for a Spitfire ride in the UK to find out.

Megan you really need a ME109 as the Chippy wing was a direct rip off

[ExAscoteer2]

Back to the thread, the Harvard was originally an advanced trainer for piston engine fighters, although some Air Forces did use it subsequently as a basic trainer;

The give away is in the USAAC wartime name AT-6.

The Americans had Primary Trainers such as the PT-17 Boeing Stearman and the PT-19 Fairchild Cornell, as well as Basic Trainers such as the BT-13 Vultee Valiant (commonly referred to as the Vultee Vibrator).

The performace leap from PT to BT to AT wasn't considered particularly great. As a result, my Father, who trained in the USA in 1943/44 under the British Flying Traing Schools scheme, went straight from the Cornell to the Harvard.

[brakedwell]

Megan you really need a ME109 as the Chippy wing was a direct rip off

Really? We had a pair of Chipmunks to play with at Lyneham and I found them very tame. Our old Anson Mk 10 was much more fun!

[vmcdemo]

My vote, Dehavilland Chipmunk, but I might be bias!

[Prangster]

Really? We had a pair of Chipmunks to play with at Lyneham and I found them very tame. Our old Anson Mk 10 was much more fun!

Indeed brakedwell I remember a post on this forum outlining how DHC came to 'borrow' the 109 wing sans lift devices. Fancy all those years in Munks and not noticing! Rather like discovering that the famed Spitfire wing originated with Ernst Heinkel the lead aerodynamics guy at Supermarine Beverley Shenstone described the path trodden in several articles.Sorry to be off topic I'll shut up now

[megan]

you really need a ME109 as the Chippy wing was a direct rip offRip off in what way? Different airfoils, though taper is similar, could equally say they copied a P-51. Besides, whats a ME 109? ;) There's a Bf 109 - you'll need to be an anorak to understand, it's a common mistake in identification. Agreed Chippy was very tame, but a delight just the same.

[typerated]

Any Aussie have a thought on this?

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49840125956_0e7ccf9425_b.jpg

[OK4Wire]

Typerated,

Had I flown the Winjeel as my basic trainer, I'm sure I would have failed the basic flying course! Instead I squeezed through 1 FTS on the CT4, and enjoyed the Winjeel later on as a Forward Air Controller.

Lovely handling characteristics, really nice. Strong as a horse. Just that tailwheel was a bitch (sometimes).

[Clyffe Pypard]

Typerated,

Had I flown the Winjeel as my basic trainer, I'm sure I would have failed the basic flying course! Instead I squeezed through 1 FTS on the CT4, and enjoyed the Winjeel later on as a Forward Air Controller.

Lovely handling characteristics, really nice. Strong as a horse. Just that tailwheel was a bitch (sometimes).

The Prentice was as strong as a horse and after the Tiger Moth a first class basic trainer

[421dog]

The BT is one of the easiest airplanes I have ever flown. It’s utterly predictable, and telegraphs its intentions easily. It is dramatically easier to fly than a T-6/SNJ. I’m not sure that’s a good thing though, because a lot of the stuff you get away with in a BT would kill you in a T-6, Mustang or even a T-28.

[megan]

stuff you get away with in a BT would kill you in a T-6, Mustang or even a T-28Trained on the 28 and thought it a pussy cat, a Chippy with a bit more power, though any aircraft can bite and kill if you try hard enough.

[Ascend Charlie]

The Winjeel in post #81 is a lot like the piston Provost, but with a 450-hp radial under the bonnet. As has been said before, an easy aircraft to fly, but took a lot of effort to fly well. I never had any problems with the tailwheel, and a solo at 18 years old and 11.5 hrs shows that it was dead easy to fly, and I can state with no chance of contradiction that I did NOT fly it well.

[typerated]

Typerated,

Had I flown the Winjeel as my basic trainer, I'm sure I would have failed the basic flying course! Instead I squeezed through 1 FTS on the CT4, and enjoyed the Winjeel later on as a Forward Air Controller.

Lovely handling characteristics, really nice. Strong as a horse. Just that tailwheel was a bitch (sometimes).

I had heard the RAAF thought it too stable and wanted it redesigned - ended up being shorter to solve this

[megan]

The only change to the Winjeel that I'm aware of is moving the fin/rudder forward on the fuselage as the prototype was almost impossible to get into a spin.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x456/a85_364_raaf_sized_2c5a852c01a823ea7a05760c123ec3cb4fc232a9. jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x444/winjeel_a85_405_000_141_031_sized_b3245b9e577bedfb6e41680006 7c186455b9491a.jpg


A piston Provost I saw at a airshow in about 1957 at RAAF Mallala which was designed by Polish engineer Henry Millicer when working for Percival, he emigrated to Oz and designed the locally produced Victa, which in CT4 form became a RAAF trainer. Any idea why the Provost was in Oz, supporting RAF test work perhaps?


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/950x403/l082_23037661958008158eedb1d25eb6be630596fad8.jpg

[typerated]

The only change to the Winjeel that I'm aware of is moving the fin/rudder forward on the fuselage as the prototype was almost impossible to get into a spin.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x456/a85_364_raaf_sized_2c5a852c01a823ea7a05760c123ec3cb4fc232a9. jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x444/winjeel_a85_405_000_141_031_sized_b3245b9e577bedfb6e41680006 7c186455b9491a.jpg


A piston Provost I saw at a airshow in about 1957 at RAAF Mallala which was designed by Polish engineer Henry Millicer when working for Percival, he emigrated to Oz and designed the locally produced Victa, which in CT4 form became a RAAF trainer. Any idea why the Provost was in Oz, supporting RAF test work perhaps?


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/950x403/l082_23037661958008158eedb1d25eb6be630596fad8.jpg

Thanks - that what it was!

[Ascend Charlie]

Interesting undercarriage on the Percival, wheels inboard of the struts like it was going to be retractable?

[Fareastdriver]

It would have groundlooped even faster if they had been on the outside.

[Declan275]

Can anyone vouch for the SF260 from personal experience ? I've always thought it looked the biz and therefore, should be good.

As for my personal experience, the Piper PA-38 Terrorhawk puts hairs on yer chest :E

The Marchetti was a great trainer for the Irish Air Corps for years. It was tricky to get the landing right at flare height and a lot of people were cut pre solo, after that you had a reasonable expectation of getting through the course .

[Andrew Heard]

From the Airco DH.6 to the Hawk, each trainer was chosen to prepare the next generation of fighter pilots for the aircraft they will eventually fly. Any pilot will tell you, more frequently with advancing age, that their trainer was the most difficult to fly, and that modern pilots don't realise how easy they have it. I remember my first Sqn QFI telling me that I would never become a proper Tornado pilot because I didn't fly the Hunter, and that the Hawk was too easy.

What matters above all else is the quality of the instructor.

[Dan_Brown]

Agree with you there, having the right tools at hand is a big help.

One maybe the best and most knowledgeable person around. If they are unable to impart that knowledge in a simple manner the student can absorb, they shouldn't be instructing of course. A decent instructors course would weed it out. .As we all know, there is a great deal of psychology involved when instructing, to help attain the results required The same applies to Captaincy and CRM. IMHO.