Best basic trainer?
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 ?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Sussex
Age: 86
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
.......
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.
.......
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🤔
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?
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?
beardy wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
[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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A posh villa in Rome
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.