Pick 6 a/c to build your AF at beginning WWII

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Well the a/c doesn't have to be run at full power you know, and as long as the instructor in the back can control the aircraft as-well there shouldn't be too many problems. But yeah a plane like the Go-145 & AT-6 would be better as trainers, no doubt about it.

The Ar-232 would be a good trainer as-well.

Why can't we pick 7 a/c ?

Hell I originally wanted only 5.. I do think trainer is a problem. I'm uncomfortable with the AT-6 as primary and Basic.. it is a hot little bird that you HAVE to fly- no attention deficit disorder on take off and landing!

A C-47 may actually be more forgiving in most ways.

I can not comprehend the difficulty of putting a student in a 51 from day one but the careful mentoring may get the instructor out alive with perhaps 70-100 hours of dual time gradually extending the complexity.. probably the same for the Fw but i'm more in Pb's camp on this one.

[Soren]

Agreed.

However I stand by my statement that the FW-190 S-5/8 would be sufficient most of the time. Like your point about the C-47 it would perhas be best having the first ever flights in an a/c be in the Ar-232, it being such a docile and forgiving a/c. (The millipede landing gear will for sure save lives & material in an accident!)

[Glider]

Fighters are by definition sensitive aircraft, designed not to be particually stable. It isn't just to do with speed.
Trainees lack co-ordination and it can take some time to just learn to fly straight and level and thats in a trainer. Trying to learn in a sensitive fighter would be very difficult.
Pilot Induced Oscillation problems are common with trainees and with sensitive fighters, put the two together and you are asking for trouble.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Glider

Fighters are by definition sensitive aircraft, designed not to be particually stable. It isn't just to do with speed.
Trainees lack co-ordination and it can take some time to just learn to fly straight and level and thats in a trainer. Trying to learn in a sensitive fighter would be very difficult.
Pilot Induced Oscillation problems are common with trainees and with sensitive fighters, put the two together and you are asking for trouble.

absolutely correct

[Soren]

I'm not just talking about speed, I'm talking about power applied at take off and in general flying as-well. Fighters are sensitive a/c no doubt, they have to be in order to be agile, and there's no doubt that a Go-145 & AT-6 would be better for that first flight. However there is a good amount of safety in the fact that the instructor can control the a/c himself and usually senses if things are starting to go wrong very early on. A good instructor usually knows from the onset of a maneuver if it's going to go wrong.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Soren

I'm not just talking about speed, I'm talking about power applied at take off and in general flying as-well. Fighters are sensitive a/c no doubt, they have to be in order to be agile, and there's no doubt that a Go-145 & AT-6 would be better for that first flight. However there is a good amount of safety in the fact that the instructor can control the a/c himself and usually senses if things are starting going wrong very early on.

Yes but a student pilot should be allowed to dig himself a hole and blunder his way out that s how you learn about flying abd using a 190 won't allow that as things occur to fast for a student. one reason the LW had success was the use of gliders it taught pilots how to fly well

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Yes but a student pilot should be allowed to dig himself a hole

(preferably not using the cowling or spinner as the proimary digging instrument!)

and blunder his way out that s how you learn about flying abd using a 190 won't allow that as things occur to fast for a student. one reason the LW had success was the use of gliders it taught pilots how to fly well

I thought more on my own experience and decided that you might not get through put and compress the training cycle as well as graduate a sufficient percentage of students without at least one no kidding trainer.. I would re-think the AT-6 as my choice and go with the BT-13. Easier to fly, less demanding but still plenty of hp to lead you into feel of power on take off, etc.

Then I might substitute the F4U-4 with a TF51D if I got latitude on carrier capability by modifying it to landing hook.

That means the TF51D with two pilots as Advanced trainer to replace AT-6, and a more vulnerable ground attack a/c. TFf1D as long range escort minus the 85 gallon tank, so shorter max escort range with 75 gallon externals, but long enough for Leipzig/Berlin, a stretch for Munich - have to use 110 tanks.

Good news here is no cg problem- better dog fighter. This would be ideal for another conversion, namely night fighter with radar operator in back.

I would still keep F7F as my (now) sole naval air asset for my carriers. Less space, long range, good payload, flexible payload, awesome performance air to air, multi role, fewer aircrew memebrs to put up more a/c... less deck and hanger space than SBD, SB2C and close or better than F4U.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Glider

Fighters are by definition sensitive aircraft, designed not to be particually stable. It isn't just to do with speed.
Trainees lack co-ordination and it can take some time to just learn to fly straight and level and thats in a trainer. Trying to learn in a sensitive fighter would be very difficult.
Pilot Induced Oscillation problems are common with trainees and with sensitive fighters, put the two together and you are asking for trouble.

Double absolutely correct.. I have no idea how a Fw flies but a 51 goes almost where you 'look'. It is not 'squirrely' but demands a light to medium touch on the stick and likes to be trimmed properly for the speed and altitude you are flying.

You can 'drive' a J-3 or Cessna 150 with a heavy hand.

I remember distinctly the oscillation issue until I learned the 'aha' of keeping my eyes on the horizon, then leading me back to 'feel' w/o using horizon as reference, only instruments.. needle and ball was another learning experience because of lag time before a slow manuever is displayed.

Excellent points Glider. I forgot what it was like the first time(s)

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

I'm not just talking about speed, I'm talking about power applied at take off and in general flying as-well. Fighters are sensitive a/c no doubt, they have to be in order to be agile, and there's no doubt that a Go-145 & AT-6 would be better for that first flight. However there is a good amount of safety in the fact that the instructor can control the a/c himself and usually senses if things are starting to go wrong very early on. A good instructor usually knows from the onset of a maneuver if it's going to go wrong.

One of methods when teaching pilots, is to let them make some mistakes and help/teach them to sort things out. In a fighter things would happen quickly and the instructor would have to step in quickly. This slows down the learning process, as the instructor dare not let the pupil make a mistake anywhere near the ground.
Also we come back to the visibility question. If you cannot see well then your ability to step in and save the day is very limited.

[magnocain]

Was the Ju 390 in production before VE day (EOW for Germany)

Mabey not production, but there was at least 2 aircraft made by early 1944. Produced but not in production.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by magnocain

Mabey not production, but there was at least 2 aircraft made by early 1944. Produced but not in production.

There weren't that many Ta 152H-1s either so why should I quibble, just have to take them in the operational (i.e all bugs that haven't been ironed out) state they were in. God knows the B-29 with 3350's were buggy.

So, assuming it worked the bugs out it was a very long range bomber (nearly 2x as B-29) same speed, but less payload (I think) for a 3,000 mile mission and had a ceiling of 19,000 feet.

Which country are you picking for mission profiles? And why pick an a/c that will be twice as vulnerable to heavy flak, particularly with the quality of proximity fuses, at 19,000 vs 33,000 ft? Or take 40% less time for interceptors to get to you - giving them more fuel to harass you?

Still a good choice for Germany if it had an atomic bomb

[Soren]

This slows down the learning process, as the instructor dare not let the pupil make a mistake anywhere near the ground.

Agreed completely, however with time comes experience, even though the process is slowed down.

The intructor would let the student have control at altitude and have him learn some of the basics there (You don't do that close to the ground), and after a certain amount of collected hours in the air plus an evaluation by the instructor it is decided whether or not to move on. This continues until the pilot gets permission to his first solo flight. Now this might very well take longer than if the Go-145 was the selected trainer.