Best basic trainer?
 

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.

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.

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

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😎

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

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

mcdhu

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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........

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.

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...

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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🤔

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[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!

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!

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

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.