RAF Flying Trg System - How good
You only ever get what you pay for..........
Personally I think that the 'old' Chipmunk/JP wings course, followed by AFTS on the Gnat/Pig/Whirlwind, then (for fighter pilots - we didn't use the silly term 'FJ' in those days) TWU on the Hunter was an excellent system. It was, however, expensive....
Now we don't have jet basic training, ME and RW pilots don't even fly the propeller-driven Tucano. Elementary training isn't even on military aeroplanes.......
You only ever get what you pay for.........
Personally I think that the 'old' Chipmunk/JP wings course, followed by AFTS on the Gnat/Pig/Whirlwind, then (for fighter pilots - we didn't use the silly term 'FJ' in those days) TWU on the Hunter was an excellent system. It was, however, expensive....
Now we don't have jet basic training, ME and RW pilots don't even fly the propeller-driven Tucano. Elementary training isn't even on military aeroplanes.......
You only ever get what you pay for.........
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
Elementary may not be on "mil" aeroplanes anymore, but depending on the cut of your cloth, the one you might fly is far more "military" in performance and ability than the more numerous "other" EFT version. Get my drift?
Rgds
Elementary may not be on "mil" aeroplanes anymore, but depending on the cut of your cloth, the one you might fly is far more "military" in performance and ability than the more numerous "other" EFT version. Get my drift?
Rgds
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many moons ago (more than I care to think of) did some comparison work on the curricula (curriculiums?) of the different air forces (lower case, includes navys) around the world. While this was curriculium only and didn't begin to get into the numerous other things that make a training program when you
compare French, British, Australian, Italian, Russian, German, USAF and USN curriclaa for tactical jets from ab initio to OCU/FRS/TRU whatever you call it the curricula were all remarkably the same in terms of total flying hours and proportion of hours spent in different subject matter areas.
The other thing that was good for a laugh was the USAF argument that the T-38 and whatever replacement there would ever be must be supersonic because of the curriculum requirement. When you looked at the flight sylabus they had 1 supersonic introduction hop (instructor drives, student watches) and 1 hop where the student drives and instructor watches) Of course this 3 hours in the whole program drives a heavier, thirstier, more maintenance intensive jet and costs mucho dinero over the life cycle. We decided to use a button to make the ASI go supersonic on instructor option and save the money to buy more aircraft and use them more.
compare French, British, Australian, Italian, Russian, German, USAF and USN curriclaa for tactical jets from ab initio to OCU/FRS/TRU whatever you call it the curricula were all remarkably the same in terms of total flying hours and proportion of hours spent in different subject matter areas.
The other thing that was good for a laugh was the USAF argument that the T-38 and whatever replacement there would ever be must be supersonic because of the curriculum requirement. When you looked at the flight sylabus they had 1 supersonic introduction hop (instructor drives, student watches) and 1 hop where the student drives and instructor watches) Of course this 3 hours in the whole program drives a heavier, thirstier, more maintenance intensive jet and costs mucho dinero over the life cycle. We decided to use a button to make the ASI go supersonic on instructor option and save the money to buy more aircraft and use them more.
ATD - I'm not sure which of the 2 glider-based civil aeroplanes with dismally poor roll rates you're referring to - the plastic pig which isn't allowed to fly IMC or the one with the cloth-covered ailerons which is......
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Jul 2002 at 13:40.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATD, not from this time next year. It was confirmed yesterday that JEFTS Church Fenton will close, the task being absorbed into two or more UAS Direct Entry flights. The Navy and Army will continue to be trained at Barkston/Cranwell and Middle Wallop but the RAF has decided to save a couple of quid to spend on the various well run programs that appear elsewhere in these forums. Time will tell.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I refer to the yellow of course! Whilst the roll rate may be disappointing the 260 does give our budding aviators a bit of grunt for a light piston to contend with and master. And IT never stopped flying in cloud...! 250' would have been nice for navs, but you can't win 'em all.
I refer to the yellow of course! Whilst the roll rate may be disappointing the 260 does give our budding aviators a bit of grunt for a light piston to contend with and master. And IT never stopped flying in cloud...! 250' would have been nice for navs, but you can't win 'em all.
Correct interpretation of Rule 5 would actually allow you to fly as low as you liked - so long as you were not less than 500' from people,vehicles, vessels and structures....e.g. in a suitable military low level training enclave.
That'll be the yellow peril based on the Fournier RF6 motorglider then. The same aircraft as the US withdrew from military flying training service........
Surely someone in UK plc can design a decent affordable military elementary trainer which isn't hampered by glider roll rates? Perhaps a development of the Europa might fit the bill?
That'll be the yellow peril based on the Fournier RF6 motorglider then. The same aircraft as the US withdrew from military flying training service........
Surely someone in UK plc can design a decent affordable military elementary trainer which isn't hampered by glider roll rates? Perhaps a development of the Europa might fit the bill?
The system can only be as good as the people in it. Fortunately, I firmly believe the QFIs (military & civil) are just as good as they ever have been---and I've seen many over the years. There are some shortcomings with the a/c but, as ever, economy rules and the studes will be taught behind a propellor for a long time yet.
So yes, the system is still fine; it will never be perfect but it's still pretty damned good.
So yes, the system is still fine; it will never be perfect but it's still pretty damned good.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What ARE you all worrying about?
Come Typhoon, UAS will be on the Commodore 64 or Amiga, EFTS on the PS2, TWU on the XBOX with ASDL datastream turned on and OCU will be on the BAE simulator.
Problem sorted
Training airfields can be sold for squillions for houses to be built on and we can all have a pay rise with the profits.
Come Typhoon, UAS will be on the Commodore 64 or Amiga, EFTS on the PS2, TWU on the XBOX with ASDL datastream turned on and OCU will be on the BAE simulator.
Problem sorted
Training airfields can be sold for squillions for houses to be built on and we can all have a pay rise with the profits.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standto may have a point. Perhaps we could export all fg trg to the simulator and only have a 'real-world famil' at the end of each course? Whither the 'pucker factor' of ****e wx, qfi patter, emergencies and ATC other ac interference?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, I try to bite my tongue and not rise to the bait but after a couple of libations it becomes very hard. What ARE you talking about? I assume from your various previous posts that you are well aquainted with EFT but, that being the case, exactly where in the syllabus is a roll rate of 360 degrees per second called for? The Firefly is used for elementary training and grading/selection, yes? What is the roll rate of the C130, the Merlin, the C17? Eh?
Alan Wade won the display sword at RIAT recently in a Firefly with his routine, so don't tell me the aircraft isn't capable. The same aircraft is fully IFR certified and airways equipped and will climb to 10,000 feet in as many minutes. The Firefly 260, for the job it has to do and the constraints placed upon it, is one of the best aircraft available. (To be fair the Grob, once its problems are ironed out, will be OK as well but the Firefly is better).
Your comment about the US Military does not show you in a good light. If you knew anything at all about the whole sorry saga you would not raise it in support of your argument; that you evidently do not means you would be better advised to hold your own counsel.
Yours always
Alan Wade won the display sword at RIAT recently in a Firefly with his routine, so don't tell me the aircraft isn't capable. The same aircraft is fully IFR certified and airways equipped and will climb to 10,000 feet in as many minutes. The Firefly 260, for the job it has to do and the constraints placed upon it, is one of the best aircraft available. (To be fair the Grob, once its problems are ironed out, will be OK as well but the Firefly is better).
Your comment about the US Military does not show you in a good light. If you knew anything at all about the whole sorry saga you would not raise it in support of your argument; that you evidently do not means you would be better advised to hold your own counsel.
Yours always
DB6 - a few points:
1. The increased availability of RAF QFIs due to better manning balance figures is the only reason that I postulate more becoming QFIs and hence more going to UAS DE flights with a decreased need for JEFTS. Nothing to do with any 'quality' issue concerning JEFTS FIs.
2. In my opinion, we do need to train pilots in a aircraft with good agility in roll. F260 might indeed have a big engine and high climb rate as a result (to give the Firefly which would have operated from C Springs the same performance as the F200 at sea level), but to achieve rapid roll rates does it not require autorotative manoeuvring in the roll plane? All the F260 display aerobatics I've seen seem to concentrate on vertical, looping and 'flick' manoeuvres. Nothing else we fly in the RAF requires 'flick' manoeuvring as part of normal manoeuvring - so such trick flying is somewhat irrelevant.
3. The T-3A had a poor history in the USAF; The T-3 fleet was grounded in July 1997, following an inexplicable engine failure in Colorado. Three instructors and three students were killed in crashes since the plane went into service in 1994. Two crashes were the result of pilot error, while a third occurred because of a stall condition from which the pilot was unable to recover. The predecessor T-41 had no fatal accidents in 30 years of flight, although the T-41 was incapable of performing the aerobatics and spins that were the hallmark of the T-3. The T-3's engine had failed 66 times at takeoff or landing, and the Air Force grounded 57 of the planes on 10 occasions due to problems with the engines, fuel systems and brakes.
4. I agree that the T67 F260 is a better aeroplane for its task than the plastic pig although I consider that a Bulldog 260 would have been better than either! It is the task it is being required to be used for with which I have concerns.
1. The increased availability of RAF QFIs due to better manning balance figures is the only reason that I postulate more becoming QFIs and hence more going to UAS DE flights with a decreased need for JEFTS. Nothing to do with any 'quality' issue concerning JEFTS FIs.
2. In my opinion, we do need to train pilots in a aircraft with good agility in roll. F260 might indeed have a big engine and high climb rate as a result (to give the Firefly which would have operated from C Springs the same performance as the F200 at sea level), but to achieve rapid roll rates does it not require autorotative manoeuvring in the roll plane? All the F260 display aerobatics I've seen seem to concentrate on vertical, looping and 'flick' manoeuvres. Nothing else we fly in the RAF requires 'flick' manoeuvring as part of normal manoeuvring - so such trick flying is somewhat irrelevant.
3. The T-3A had a poor history in the USAF; The T-3 fleet was grounded in July 1997, following an inexplicable engine failure in Colorado. Three instructors and three students were killed in crashes since the plane went into service in 1994. Two crashes were the result of pilot error, while a third occurred because of a stall condition from which the pilot was unable to recover. The predecessor T-41 had no fatal accidents in 30 years of flight, although the T-41 was incapable of performing the aerobatics and spins that were the hallmark of the T-3. The T-3's engine had failed 66 times at takeoff or landing, and the Air Force grounded 57 of the planes on 10 occasions due to problems with the engines, fuel systems and brakes.
4. I agree that the T67 F260 is a better aeroplane for its task than the plastic pig although I consider that a Bulldog 260 would have been better than either! It is the task it is being required to be used for with which I have concerns.
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Jul 2002 at 05:09.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear BEagle,
1) I was not aware that the manning balance figures had improved significantly. The UAS's are having to take on dedicated ground instructors to release QFIs in order to achieve something like the projected sortie rate that JEFTS currently manages. I believe they will have great difficulty and the projected financial economies will not materialise.
2) I don't agree. As a current competition aerobatic pilot (albeit at the bottom of the ladder at the moment) I would love a better roll rate from the Firefly, however it is not necessary at EFT level. Future FJ pilots will get all they need on the Tucano and onwards; rotary and multi are well served by the Firefly.
In one sentence you talk of requiring flicking for display flying and in the next imply that this is normal manoeuvring. Hmmmm.
3) Fine, so what does that have to do with its UK service? The (Lycoming) engine failures I understand have a lot to do with being operated at 7-8000 ft high airfields, not exactly Concern No.1 here. As you say, two cases of pilot error and one from which the pilot could not recover. I understand the latter case reflects more on deficiencies in the US training syllabus than on the aircraft. I've never flown the Bulldog but do you think our transatlantic cousins would have fared any better in a Bulldog 260? There have been no significant problems with the Firefly in UK service.
4) Opinions differ as to the task and I can't offer a first hand opinion on the Bulldog but I have spoken to several pilots who, while they rate it highly, prefer the Firefly 260 for the EFT task. A Bulldog 260....who knows, but it's not an option is it?
1) I was not aware that the manning balance figures had improved significantly. The UAS's are having to take on dedicated ground instructors to release QFIs in order to achieve something like the projected sortie rate that JEFTS currently manages. I believe they will have great difficulty and the projected financial economies will not materialise.
2) I don't agree. As a current competition aerobatic pilot (albeit at the bottom of the ladder at the moment) I would love a better roll rate from the Firefly, however it is not necessary at EFT level. Future FJ pilots will get all they need on the Tucano and onwards; rotary and multi are well served by the Firefly.
In one sentence you talk of requiring flicking for display flying and in the next imply that this is normal manoeuvring. Hmmmm.
3) Fine, so what does that have to do with its UK service? The (Lycoming) engine failures I understand have a lot to do with being operated at 7-8000 ft high airfields, not exactly Concern No.1 here. As you say, two cases of pilot error and one from which the pilot could not recover. I understand the latter case reflects more on deficiencies in the US training syllabus than on the aircraft. I've never flown the Bulldog but do you think our transatlantic cousins would have fared any better in a Bulldog 260? There have been no significant problems with the Firefly in UK service.
4) Opinions differ as to the task and I can't offer a first hand opinion on the Bulldog but I have spoken to several pilots who, while they rate it highly, prefer the Firefly 260 for the EFT task. A Bulldog 260....who knows, but it's not an option is it?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB6,
I think you will find that the introduction of a ground training instructor on UASs has very little to do with releasing QFIs to fly more hours. It has a little more to do with the fact that on UASs there are other branches representedas well as the pilots and the role of the UASs is to provide an element of officer and adventurous training too. In my experience, the QFIs do tend to provide this training at the moment but it is done in their own time rather than at the expense of flying.
Regards,
Whoosh
I think you will find that the introduction of a ground training instructor on UASs has very little to do with releasing QFIs to fly more hours. It has a little more to do with the fact that on UASs there are other branches representedas well as the pilots and the role of the UASs is to provide an element of officer and adventurous training too. In my experience, the QFIs do tend to provide this training at the moment but it is done in their own time rather than at the expense of flying.
Regards,
Whoosh
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: On a warm beach
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron City,
I went through T-38 training over 35 years ago. If memory serves me, I went super in the aircraft at UPT maybe once. Going super is no big deal but the handling characteristics of the T-38 were nearly identical to the several century series fighters I flew, albeit much more docile and light. Initial training in the T37 was much like flying a cessna 172, no big deal. Initial flights in the T-38 were quite different however. I later taught air to air in the T-38 against most of our then front line fighters. It represented itself admirably. Which aircraft is best for training? Beats me, but what a great time it was.
I went through T-38 training over 35 years ago. If memory serves me, I went super in the aircraft at UPT maybe once. Going super is no big deal but the handling characteristics of the T-38 were nearly identical to the several century series fighters I flew, albeit much more docile and light. Initial training in the T37 was much like flying a cessna 172, no big deal. Initial flights in the T-38 were quite different however. I later taught air to air in the T-38 against most of our then front line fighters. It represented itself admirably. Which aircraft is best for training? Beats me, but what a great time it was.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
We all know that you are involved with a Flying Training School / Club so would you like to tell us just which British built, 300 horsepower, all metal, 360 deg./sec. roll rate, +/- 9g aircraft you are using for training your ab initios.
Neither of the current aircraft are glider derived. Both are built by people who do or did make gliders, one still makes very good gliders, the other hasn`t made one in donkeys years, was always behind the times and usually had someone else design it.
The Grob is perfectly capable of IFR flight with the right instrument fit, as was suggested to the RAF by the manufacturer. Unfortunately, it seems that the RAF knows better and specified all electric instruments which they could have got away with if the a/c were RAF owned but is not acceptible to the CAA. Anyway, it is being put right now and some a/c have already been modified.
When are we going to get away from these archaic engines. Air and fuel cooled, magneto ignition, noisy, polluting (100LL). They`ve had sixty years to refine the design and they still fail.
Mike W
We all know that you are involved with a Flying Training School / Club so would you like to tell us just which British built, 300 horsepower, all metal, 360 deg./sec. roll rate, +/- 9g aircraft you are using for training your ab initios.
Neither of the current aircraft are glider derived. Both are built by people who do or did make gliders, one still makes very good gliders, the other hasn`t made one in donkeys years, was always behind the times and usually had someone else design it.
The Grob is perfectly capable of IFR flight with the right instrument fit, as was suggested to the RAF by the manufacturer. Unfortunately, it seems that the RAF knows better and specified all electric instruments which they could have got away with if the a/c were RAF owned but is not acceptible to the CAA. Anyway, it is being put right now and some a/c have already been modified.
When are we going to get away from these archaic engines. Air and fuel cooled, magneto ignition, noisy, polluting (100LL). They`ve had sixty years to refine the design and they still fail.
Mike W
Hi Sky4!
Horses for courses, I'm afraid. Regrettably I only need a relatively pedestrian trad-spamcan to conduct PPL training - although I'd really love to be able to have a fleet of bigger-engined Bulldog GTi s if we had the dosh and didn't mind the fuel burn!
Add to your list of observations about the ancient engines we have is their expense! The last one I bought cost us over £16K including the labour. What happened to that Avgas burning neo-diesel that was being proposed? It was supposed to be quieter, cheaper and far more fuel-efficient.
I'm glad to hear that the Grob is at last going to be equipped so that it can fly in IMC. Up through winter cloud to teach S&L 1 with a ruler straight horizon, then back down for a quick ILS. That's what we used to do in the British-built all-metal military trainer with a respectable roll rate when training UAS students - including a certain charming young lady geology student - at that aerodrome near where you live!
Horses for courses, I'm afraid. Regrettably I only need a relatively pedestrian trad-spamcan to conduct PPL training - although I'd really love to be able to have a fleet of bigger-engined Bulldog GTi s if we had the dosh and didn't mind the fuel burn!
Add to your list of observations about the ancient engines we have is their expense! The last one I bought cost us over £16K including the labour. What happened to that Avgas burning neo-diesel that was being proposed? It was supposed to be quieter, cheaper and far more fuel-efficient.
I'm glad to hear that the Grob is at last going to be equipped so that it can fly in IMC. Up through winter cloud to teach S&L 1 with a ruler straight horizon, then back down for a quick ILS. That's what we used to do in the British-built all-metal military trainer with a respectable roll rate when training UAS students - including a certain charming young lady geology student - at that aerodrome near where you live!
I don't recall any of them being charming.........
Well they were charming to their QFIs, but they probably weren't quite so charming to hormone-laden male undergraduates who were usually too pi$$ed to notice.......or care!