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.

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

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....010b3fd93e.jpg

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

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.

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

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.

Of course if you turned the pressurisation off...

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Best Basic Trainer for an F35 Lead In

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.