Mooney_Driver wrote:
Even some GA planes have no 2 seat version.
I know. I have lots of hours in the Piper Pawnee (single seater). It was a bit intimidating the first seconds of take off roll, but once in the air it was all love and joy 
My Onex is also a single seater.
From there to the most sophisticated and advanced fighter jet ever made (the F-35) is a huge gap though From what I can tell, the F-35 is super simple to fly. It’s all the other stuff: Weapons, tactics, dogfight, the “battle field”, datalinks etc that is hard, or at least requires a decent amount of training before becoming efficient. That stuff is more like a sim anyway, perhaps not dogfight? I don’t know, they are all so super secret about their F-35s. But there are no 2 seat versions, and there never will be.
They say the gap from the F-16(A) to the F-35 is much larger than the gap from the Spitfire to the F-16(A). It for sure isn’t the basic gunfight dogfighting capabilities. Few airplanes (if any at all) will beat an early F-16 in a dogfight, certainly not an F-35. It has to be something, and I would guess that something is stealth, SA through radars, IR (infra read), datalinks and virtualization, counter measures, and of course weapons. All sim-stuff IMO It’s all modelled in DCS by the way, but I guess I’m just too old to be fancied with it. A bit like IFR, only an order or two more complex
alioth wrote:
Well, till you impact the terrain or fly through a thunderstorm, at which point the line is thrown into extremely sharp relief!
Agree 100%.
LeSving wrote:
People train to be good at what they are doing,
Well, I usually don’t train just to be good at something but to be good at using it. Sure, there are exceptions where the achievement itself is the goal. I’ve been into martial arts and I certainly didn’t do that in order to “use” it.)
LeSving wrote:
It for sure isn’t the basic gunfight dogfighting capabilities.
If I got it right, dogfighting abilities is not what counts these days, they are trying to kill their adversaries long before they ever see them. So it’s mostly electronics and tryig to avoid to be seen. Top Gun stuff is fun to watch but if it gets to that, it’s not really what the aim is.
Hence I wonder how good the F35 is for “policing” work, where you have to fly formation with airplanes you intend to identify. An FA18 is quite a presence and can do some really interesting stuff. Even a F5 can do air policing work.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well, I usually don’t train just to be good at something but to be good at using it
And the difference is?
LeSving wrote:
And the difference is?
You train to become good at something in order to then use it.
Training just to be good at it would be stuff you train for but never intend to use in anger. Most emergency procedures go that way. Or the training of most airforces or other military units.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If I got it right, dogfighting abilities is not what counts these days, they are trying to kill their adversaries long before they ever see them. So it’s mostly electronics and tryig to avoid to be seen. Top Gun stuff is fun to watch but if it gets to that, it’s not really what the aim is.
So you would think. But if both are stealth, they won’t be able to “see” the other part before actually within eyeball range, or at least IR range. It’s all reset to WWII, and dogfighting becomes important again. If both are non-stealth, it’s all a matter of having the best missiles, the best radars, the best counter measures, or simply having most missiles. If one is stealth, and the other is non-stealth, it’s a piece of cake. The advantage is humongous. If both are stealth, then the best dogfighter will always have an advantage, because it is the only advantage left.
As usual, airborne hits the nail on the head.
Flying an aircraft on instruments is not difficult at all. Flying an aircraft on instruments with precision while following procedures is quite difficult. That’s where simulator training shines. The advantage of simulators is that you can tailor the conditions to the training you want to do. Also you don’t need positioning flights.
Works well for initial and „refresher“ IFR training. Also testing it for random failures for structured abnormal/emergency situation handling. Nothing substitutes a real airplane, but it’s a great method for concepts and procedures.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
You train to become good at something in order to then use it.
This is just semantics. Let’s say I am a downhill skier. Then I would train to do it well in regional championships. I do, in several. Then I train to get into the national team participating in several national competitions. I also do that. Then I train for world chanpionships and Olympics. I win the Olympics
I haven’t trained to use anything at all. I am just becoming better and better in what I’m doing. The end result is lots of medals, including the Olympic gold medal.
The drivers license. My youngest son got it very cheap because where I live is the school that teaches driving instructors. They need people to train on. He had to do a whole bunch of driving (a factor 10 more than needed), but it was all free. He also came into a project (as a test subject) testing if simulators can be used, and how to best use them. This is a double up training, triple actually. He got lots of training for the license (way more than needed), and the instructor students also got a lot of training for their grade, and the school got a lot of training how to use the simulators. The end result is a driver’s license, a few grades for new instructors, experience with the sim.
With aerobatics it’s the same. I train a bit to become better at it (mostly because it is fun). I cannot use it for anything. It certainly makes me a better pilot, but that’s just a secondary thing (for me at least). I could train more, participate in national championships and so on, win some medals. But, that’s not why I’m doing it. Most people don’t ski to become Olympic winners either, but every single slope you do will make you a better skier.
The advantage of simulators is that you can tailor the conditions to the training you want to do
While ago I flew to Annecy with some low weather, I am glad I did few dry runs in simulator
It’s easy to mess up “the first time” and in real aircraft it’s likely “the last time”
Another great video of austin about airplane physics thanks to xplane modeling features.
Clears the first minutes of garbage…
