Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: W7LPNRICK on March 24, 2011, 11:53:24 PM
-
Hope you enjoy this. :salute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sB2ZA59KTM&feature=player_embedded#at=235
-
less and less skill needed the more electronic we get.
-
less and less skill needed the more electronic we get.
its sad yes. but you gotta admit, Lockheed made a BEAUTIFUL aircraft.
-
less and less skill needed the more electronic we get.
It's also a heck of a lot safer for the pilot.
-
*cry* Thats my baby....I wanted to go to the USAF and fly her :(
-BigBOBCH
-
less and less skill needed the more electronic we get.
Really?
You honestly mean to say that pilots these days aren't as skilled as pilots in, say, WWII?
Wow.
-
Flying a jet requires a different set of skills than flying a propeller driven aircraft of the 1940s. Comparing a modern day jet fighter pilot to that of a 1940s fighter pilot would almost be like apples and oranges.
-
Well, I'm guessing that the guy flying that F-22 could give many famous aces a run for there money in any plane.
BFM and ACM hasn't changed in many years.(Only difference is that we now have BVR capabilities.) They still teach it today.
-
MY only b1tch about technology, especially in the Aviation world, is what do we do when the technology fails? Say the on-board computer in the Raptor failed during his flat spin, God forbid, and he couldn't recover in time because of lack of knowledge and / or training due to dependency on those computers? As great as technology is...We still need to know how to do things the old way with our hands and brain. Bottom line.
-
MY only b1tch about technology, especially in the Aviation world, is what do we do when the technology fails? Say the on-board computer in the Raptor failed during his flat spin, God forbid, and he couldn't recover in time because of lack of knowledge and / or training due to dependency on those computers? As great as technology is...We still need to know how to do things the old way with our hands and brain. Bottom line.
Redundant systems, that's how.
-
MY only b1tch about technology, especially in the Aviation world, is what do we do when the technology fails? Say the on-board computer in the Raptor failed during his flat spin, God forbid, and he couldn't recover in time because of lack of knowledge and / or training due to dependency on those computers? As great as technology is...We still need to know how to do things the old way with our hands and brain. Bottom line.
If every computer failed on the F-22 even the redundant systems it would be un-flyable becuase as far as I know it needs its fly-by-wire. Such a failure probably means that either god is having a bad day and decided to make every backup system fail or you just got hit by a missile.
-
Hey, it takes skill to ride one of these too. :neener:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v457/Soccerplyr20/ACES-F16high.jpg)
-
Hey, it takes skill to ride one of these too. :neener:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v457/Soccerplyr20/ACES-F16high.jpg)
:rofl
If every computer failed on the F-22 even the redundant systems it would be un-flyable becuase as far as I know it needs its fly-by-wire. Such a failure probably means that either god is having a bad day and decided to make every backup system fail or you just got hit by a missile.
I'm not sayin every computer... I'm saying whatever computer negates the flat spin, unless of course that same set of computers helps the pilot with stick and rudder input...
NOTE: as far as in-flight computer systems go, i know nothign about them.
-
They probably had training and practiced to do thing w/o computer aid, just like most military stuff.
-
I'm sure they did Yenny...and I'm sure they contiously drill in that stuff God forbid it should ever happen, but theres a difference between drilling in a controlled environment and doing it in combat.
-
Really?
You honestly mean to say that pilots these days aren't as skilled as pilots in, say, WWII?
Wow.
Did I say that? No.
Did I say it takes less skill to fly these planes? Yes. (less and less skill is needed) :/
Like I told, ack ack (I believe) one day - decipher what I say, think about it and THEN reply.
Learning computers is much easier than learning the other necessary things to be successful in a prop aircraft.
Am I saying these pilots are not skilled? No - most of them are very talented individuals who have a passion for aviation, but with all the computers doing most of the workload for someone its easier to put a much less skilled pilot in it and have good results.
Wow...just wow...
Right?
-
Agree...
Randy Quaid proved that in Independence Day. ;)
-
Did I say that? No.
Did I say it takes less skill to fly these planes? Yes. (less and less skill is needed) :/
Like I told, ack ack (I believe) one day - decipher what I say, think about it and THEN reply.
Learning computers is much easier than learning the other necessary things to be successful in a prop aircraft.
Am I saying these pilots are not skilled? No - most of them are very talented individuals who have a passion for aviation, but with all the computers doing most of the workload for someone its easier to put a much less skilled pilot in it and have good results.
Wow...just wow...
Right?
Yeah, so you feel that pilots these days are less skilled than previous generations.
To that I say HOGWASH.
I didn't think they just stuck pilots in the seat and figured everything would be peachy because hey, "learning computers is much easier than learning the other necessary things to be successful in a prop aircraft."
As far as I recall, there is an intensive and rather expensive training regimen that prospective pilots must go through.
I could be wrong though..... so yeah, Wow.
-
Learning computers is much easier than learning the other necessary things to be successful in a prop aircraft.
Am I saying these pilots are not skilled? No - most of them are very talented individuals who have a passion for aviation, but with all the computers doing most of the workload for someone its easier to put a much less skilled pilot in it and have good results.
I disagree. Some of the basic stick and rudder stuff is easier, but the workload and physical demands are higher. We routinely wash out people who would probably have been fine WWII pilots, not because we don't need them or because someone else would be better, but because we are concerned that they have some lack of ability that would result in their early and pointless death, the death of a wingman, or (best case) result in the waste of millions of dollars trying to train someone who simply can't do the job.
I'll say that the F-15E is the "easiest" plane I've ever flown, IF you consider "flying" to be nothing more than takeoff, landing, and autopilot cruise. Using it effectively in combat is extremely demanding, and if we ever needed thousands of F-15E pilots I suspect we'd be dumbing down a lot of things because even with the thousands of highly motivated volunteers we get every year, we still wash people out throughout the entire pilot training pipeline, including some people who get to their fighter squadron and never really make much of themselves there, or worse, die from relatively basic mistakes that they've been trained to avoid from day one.
No, the computers don't "do most of the workload" in any modern aircraft. All they do is let the pilot work on other things. He's still engaged 100% in extremely difficult tasks, and the washout rate even when producing only a mere fraction of the pilots produced in WWII speaks volumes about how difficult it still is.
Plus... A modern fighter pilot is an athlete... Has to be, to be able to survive multiple tours in aircraft that can pull 9 Gs. The relatively wild lifestyle lived by many WWII pilots, however necessary at the time to cope with combat stress, would simply not be survivable nowadays unless the aircraft capabilities were grossly underutilized. You simply don't smoke and drink yourself to sleep night after night, then go up and fly 10 hr missions in a 9G aircraft. The best traits of old school bomber and fighter pilots, bombadiers, and navigators, must all be present in a modern fighter pilot because he's doing all of it. Yea the computers make it work since a fighter pilot can't whip out a slide rule during a SAM defensive maneuver when he's at the IP point and needs to recompute his weapons release parameters, but he's still doing 10 things at once while pulling 6 to 9 Gs, and failing in any of those tasks means he's not making it home from the mission.
It isn't easier... It's actually more complicated BECAUSE of the computers.
Heck, you might as well say that nasa astronauts have it easy because the computers do everything for them... Ludicrous. The computers simply make an impossible task possible, or make a difficult task possible to complete with a more effective result.
-
I disagree. Some of the basic stick and rudder stuff is easier, but the workload and physical demands are higher. We routinely wash out people who would probably have been fine WWII pilots, not because we don't need them or because someone else would be better, but because we are concerned that they have some lack of ability that would result in their early and pointless death, the death of a wingman, or (best case) result in the waste of millions of dollars trying to train someone who simply can't do the job.
I'll say that the F-15E is the "easiest" plane I've ever flown, IF you consider "flying" to be nothing more than takeoff, landing, and autopilot cruise. Using it effectively in combat is extremely demanding, and if we ever needed thousands of F-15E pilots I suspect we'd be dumbing down a lot of things because even with the thousands of highly motivated volunteers we get every year, we still wash people out throughout the entire pilot training pipeline, including some people who get to their fighter squadron and never really make much of themselves there, or worse, die from relatively basic mistakes that they've been trained to avoid from day one.
No, the computers don't "do most of the workload" in any modern aircraft. All they do is let the pilot work on other things. He's still engaged 100% in extremely difficult tasks, and the washout rate even when producing only a mere fraction of the pilots produced in WWII speaks volumes about how difficult it still is.
Plus... A modern fighter pilot is an athlete... Has to be, to be able to survive multiple tours in aircraft that can pull 9 Gs. The relatively wild lifestyle lived by many WWII pilots, however necessary at the time to cope with combat stress, would simply not be survivable nowadays unless the aircraft capabilities were grossly underutilized. You simply don't smoke and drink yourself to sleep night after night, then go up and fly 10 hr missions in a 9G aircraft. The best traits of old school bomber and fighter pilots, bombadiers, and navigators, must all be present in a modern fighter pilot because he's doing all of it. Yea the computers make it work since a fighter pilot can't whip out a slide rule during a SAM defensive maneuver when he's at the IP point and needs to recompute his weapons release parameters, but he's still doing 10 things at once while pulling 6 to 9 Gs, and failing in any of those tasks means he's not making it home from the mission.
It isn't easier... It's actually more complicated BECAUSE of the computers.
Heck, you might as well say that nasa astronauts have it easy because the computers do everything for them... Ludicrous. The computers simply make an impossible task possible, or make a difficult task possible to complete with a more effective result.
Sounds like someones flown a tour or two for the nation?
You brought up points I never considered with this.
-
Hey, it takes skill to ride one of these too. :neener:
Joining the Martin-Baker Fan Club is not generally regarded as the high point of a pilot's career...
-
Redundant systems, that's how.
Which is why an entire squadron had to return home when their navigation failed due to crossing the international date line...
And why a pilot was stuck in the cockpit for hours because it just wouldn't open...
-
Which is why an entire squadron had to return home when their navigation failed due to crossing the international date line...
And why a pilot was stuck in the cockpit for hours because it just wouldn't open...
To quote the Discovery Channel: Stuff happens
On the cockpit point, they could have gotten the pilot out, one way or another. The only problem is that it might have destroyed some rather expensive equipment in the process.
-Penguin
-
MY only b1tch about technology, especially in the Aviation world, is what do we do when the technology fails? Say the on-board computer in the Raptor failed during his flat spin, God forbid, and he couldn't recover in time because of lack of knowledge and / or training due to dependency on those computers? As great as technology is...We still need to know how to do things the old way with our hands and brain. Bottom line.
Modern fighters are built dynamically unstable. U loose the computer in instances like the flat spin. u loose the plane. It really takes the computer to recover it. F-18's have same set up.
-
On the cockpit point, they could have gotten the pilot out, one way or another. The only problem is that it might have destroyed some rather expensive equipment in the process.
The fire department finally cut him out, chopping a hole in the canopy. It filled the cockpit and covered the pilot with fine, abrasive plexiglass powder and of course destroyed a rather expensive canopy. The article didn't mention what they did to get the canopy to open later on.
-
The fire department finally cut him out, chopping a hole in the canopy. It filled the cockpit and covered the pilot with fine, abrasive plexiglass powder and of course destroyed a rather expensive canopy. The article didn't mention what they did to get the canopy to open later on.
I meant that he could have used the ejection seat, but WOW is your way cheaper.
-Penguin
-
sweet machine , but they really should do one of those Body Wrap jobs on it made out of the dollar bills in whatever denomination it would require to equal the cost of 1 plane...just to rub other countries noses in it of course. :ahand
-
Did I say it takes less skill to fly these planes? Yes. (less and less skill is needed) :/
Am I saying these pilots are not skilled? No - most of them are very talented individuals who have a passion for aviation, but with all the computers doing most of the workload for someone its easier to put a much less skilled pilot in it and have good results.
Wow...just wow...
Right?
Please re-read.
Physical demands on the body are not "skill". It's a tolerance.
Yes they take crazy G's and all that jazz, but that is another discussion entirely.
So I stand by my statement and wait for an answer that actually applies to my response.
The point STILL is - you can take a less skilled pilot and achieve the same results.
Planes rarely dogfight anymore so bringing it up is -ALMOST- pointless. I do not consider a launched missile from over a mile+ away dogfighting.
Do the pilots of today do a lot of extra crap while they fly? Yes. But this is not the point in question.
Topic topic topic. -_-
-
Joining the Martin-Baker Fan Club is not generally regarded as the high point of a pilot's career...
I used to work on those!! :salute
-
Please re-read.
Physical demands on the body are not "skill". It's a tolerance.
Yes they take crazy G's and all that jazz, but that is another discussion entirely.
So I stand by my statement and wait for an answer that actually applies to my response.
The point STILL is - you can take a less skilled pilot and achieve the same results.
Planes rarely dogfight anymore so bringing it up is -ALMOST- pointless. I do not consider a launched missile from over a mile+ away dogfighting.
Do the pilots of today do a lot of extra crap while they fly? Yes. But this is not the point in question.
Topic topic topic. -_-
Let's think about it Marine,
If you were to put a modern jet pilot in the cockpit of a P-51 vs. a P-51 pilot from WWII, the modern jet pilot will win.
Today's jet pilot's are taught a side of science of aviation combat that WWII pilots did not. WWII pilots were trained to basic dogfighting skills then released for combat. Today's jet pilots could probably fly a WWII prop fighter just as good or better than any WWII ace, just by the fact of today's training is more vigorous and requires a pretty intelligent individual to fly these planes.
You stated that physical well being is not a skill...ok sure, I might buy that when gas gets down to $1/gal. Put a fat boy in a F22 vs. this officer and see who gives up first.
Intellect & Fitness = Skills, my friend
-
That's a given. More knowledge ='s a better pilot.
This still doesn't have anything to do with skill, that's knowledge. These guys were learning on the fly. That's a lot different than having someone who got to sit in a classroom for years studying it.
-
I have a feeling that managing all of those flight and weapons systems takes more than a little bit of skill.
-
That's a given. More knowledge ='s a better pilot.
This still doesn't have anything to do with skill, that's knowledge. These guys were learning on the fly. That's a lot different than having someone who got to sit in a classroom for years studying it.
Method of learning does not matter in terms of skill, the fact that they learned is the important piece of the puzzle. Sucks that WWII pilots had to learn on the fly, that does not automatically make them a better skilled class of airmen.
-
im actually gonna have to agree with Marine on this one :headscratch:
I personally think if you could transplant a modern ACE into WW2 and he fought a WW2 ACE the WW2 ace would smoke him.
oh ya a modern ACE goes through rigorous training and are very skilled, no doubt they could fly the planes but they are trained to fly a Jet that shoots missiles, there is no "dogfighting" today, I would put my money on the WW2 ACE. especially if he was German :aok
-
im actually gonna have to agree with Marine on this one :headscratch:
I personally think if you could transplant a modern ACE into WW2 and he fought a WW2 ACE the WW2 ace would smoke him.
oh ya a modern ACE goes through rigorous training and are very skilled, no doubt they could fly the planes but they are trained to fly a Jet that shoots missiles, there is no "dogfighting" today, I would put my money on the WW2 ACE. especially if he was German :aok
Exactly. There is a difference in knowing how to do it and actually being able to do it.
Just like I know how to run 20 miles - but I can't do it in one go, but there are some that can.
Experience beats a book any day of the week. Ask any VETERAN of ANY branch.
Learning computers is much easier than knowing when to do all of the other things manually. It leads to much better awareness. Every pilot has good SA - or should - but I mean come on.
-
im actually gonna have to agree with Marine on this one :headscratch:
I personally think if you could transplant a modern ACE into WW2 and he fought a WW2 ACE the WW2 ace would smoke him.
oh ya a modern ACE goes through rigorous training and are very skilled, no doubt they could fly the planes but they are trained to fly a Jet that shoots missiles, there is no "dogfighting" today, I would put my money on the WW2 ACE. especially if he was German :aok
OK, by that token, let's take a WWII ace (German if you must) and put him in an F22. I'm guessing he couldn't get it off the ground. If he did manage to get airborne, he'd probably shat his pants as it passed the sound barrier. Then, make him engage another F22 flown by a modern pilot. The WWII guy would be dead in 1-2 turns. Guaranteed.
As far as not learning to dogfight anymore, that is ludicrous.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm184/BLackNAGA08/ORD_M61A2_for_F-18_lg.jpg)
I guess they just carry this thing around so that they can look cool huh? :headscratch:
That missiles only crap was found to be useless in the Vietnam era.
-
Interesting... But, maybe an apples/oranges comparison?
Really, both pilots were plenty busy, and had/have plenty on their minds. If either was placed in the others element I think it'd cause enough confusion to skew the fight.
Something as simple as navigation probably doesn't translate well... The modern guy forced to navigate as they did in WWII would probably be out of his element.
In order to lesser the effect, I think you'd have to allow a time-frame for either pilot to acclimate to the new equipment. If the WWII guy was tossed into a modern plane for a few months (or vice versa) would there still be such a large discrepancy?
I'm pretty familiar with how to drive to work, but if I had to do it on a horse-drawn cart I bet I'd look pretty uncomfortable for a while. But then again, with a little time and practice... Same goes for the Pony Express rider tossed onto a Harley...
-
OK, by that token, let's take a WWII ace (German if you must) and put him in an F22. I'm guessing he couldn't get it off the ground. If he did manage to get airborne, he'd probably shat his pants as it passed the sound barrier. Then, make him engage another F22 flown by a modern pilot. The WWII guy would be dead in 1-2 turns. Guaranteed.
As far as not learning to dogfight anymore, that is ludicrous.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm184/BLackNAGA08/ORD_M61A2_for_F-18_lg.jpg)
I guess they just carry this thing around so that they can look cool huh? :headscratch:
That missiles only crap was found to be useless in the Vietnam era.
that's exactly why they carry that thing around to look damn good :D seriously as far as I know and have read they Train in "dogfighting" that takes a back seat to everything else they have to learn, were as the WW2 guy that's the meat of his training.
and I would agree the WW2 pilot would not be able to fly the modern jets very easily, Ill even go so far as to say it would be harder for the WW2 guy to adapt to Jets then the other way around.
-
that's exactly why they carry that thing around to look damn good :D seriously as far as I know and have read they Train in "dogfighting" that takes a back seat to everything else they have to learn, were as the WW2 guy that's the meat of his training.
and I would agree the WW2 pilot would not be able to fly the modern jets very easily, Ill even go so far as to say it would be harder for the WW2 guy to adapt to Jets then the other way around.
Perhaps eagl would have something to say here. I'll call him over.
-Penguin
-
Interesting... But, maybe an apples/oranges comparison?
Really, both pilots were plenty busy, and had/have plenty on their minds. If either was placed in the others element I think it'd cause enough confusion to skew the fight.
Something as simple as navigation probably doesn't translate well... The modern guy forced to navigate as they did in WWII would probably be out of his element.
In order to lesser the effect, I think you'd have to allow a time-frame for either pilot to acclimate to the new equipment. If the WWII guy was tossed into a modern plane for a few months (or vice versa) would there still be such a large discrepancy?
I'm pretty familiar with how to drive to work, but if I had to do it on a horse-drawn cart I bet I'd look pretty uncomfortable for a while. But then again, with a little time and practice... Same goes for the Pony Express rider tossed onto a Harley...
Modern Pilots all learn how to navigate without GPS you have to remember that we haven't had GPS technology for very long relatively. I believe the first GPS satellite went up in 1989 or 1990 and we didn't have GPS over the entire world till a few years later.
Navigators before GPS they still used this bad boy...
(http://cdn.wn.com/pd/f4/18/86f315e6bc737ef91cff4e6f5c8f_grande.jpg)
Oh yeah that is a sextant in a KC-135.
-
Modern jet fighterz r teh EZ modez!
(http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k85/photobucketrich/F22_cockpit002.jpg)
-
Two points.
1. The selection pool is smaller, but the graduate numbers are very small, compared to WWII. In short, the small numbers of graduates we have ensures that even our worst graduate that gets to fighters nowadays is already very near the top of natural flying abilities. He's had to prove an ability to fly and think in 4 dimensions, as well as manage the systems of a modern jet aircraft. The focus in some areas is admittedly different (we provide more training pre-solo than the typical WWII pilot got, for example) but the mishap rate for students is extremely low and we don't train for things that used to be important but are no longer relevant. For another example, we don't spend much time training for needle and ball only instrument flight. The current thinking is that all aircraft now have at least 2 independent attitude reference systems, and if they both fail while in the weather, it's just not your day and you may as well eject, because the occurence rate of dual attitude reference system failure in the weather is vanishingly small and doesn't justify more training than an introduction in the simulator on how it can be done but it sucks so you'll probably never do it for real anyhow.
2. It is a myth that the modern fighter pilot is deficient in close-in dogfighting skills and training. In fact, the reality is that BFM has been picked apart into a science. The development of the E/M diagram and close examination of the physics and geometry involved in a BFM fight means that a modern day fighter pilot is far more likely to pick an optimum tactic against any particular opponent the FIRST TIME he ever meets that opponent in combat. If you read books written by WWI and WWII pilots, you find a lot of word of mouth truisms, but not a lot of specifics on why things work. Huge example, R. Johnson's book "thunderbolt". In one passage, he describes what appears to be a lag roll and offset turn-circle to "surprise" a german pilot into thinking that the P-47 had just turned tighter than he did. Johnson can't describe exactly what he did, and at the time it was word of mouth that a P47 with it's boosted ailerons could roll a heck of a lot faster than some of the german fighters, so that roll rate was used to advantage. But for me, having gone through extensive academic and flying training on BFM, even with me being just an F-15E pilot not nearly as focused on BFM as F-15C or F-16 pilots, I know exactly what he did and why it worked, even if he can't describe it.
Now I can teach stuff in primary flight training that a WWII pilot had to learn through trial and error. I can prove on paper why it's a dumb idea for a P-47 to do a flat turn with a 109, and because of the foundation in 4 dimensional flying provided in pilot training, I can tell a new fighter pilot exactly how to win EVERY TIME he takes a p-47 up against a 109 including the very first time, because the physics and tactics are proven and teachable.
Of course there are exceptions, as Bob Hoover and Chuck Yeager found out. Hoover could do things with a plane that most people thought was impossible, because he instinctively understood the physics and aerodynamics involved and could apply them to any plane he flew, on the first flight, with minimal instruction. So nobody is going to out-fly Hoover. But as he found out, a guy who is a good shot might blow him out of the sky before the merge... So there are always exceptions. But I would guess that on average, the average USAF fighter-bound pilot training graduate has been screened and trained to a higher overall skill level than the majority of new fighter pilots in WWII because of the natural evolution of pilot training methods, and the average operational fighter pilot is at least the match of most WWII fighter pilots in terms of pure BFM skills because we've distilled down the science to give each fighter pilot an advantage of tactic selection before he even gets to the merge. As an F-15E pilot, I know damn well I should never try to outrun a Mig-23. But I can turn with him no problem, so I can take him single or double circle and I get the first shot 99% of the time post-merge. With a mig-21, I might have an on-paper E/M advantage but the mig-21 has good low speed handling due to the delta wing so don't get into a low speed scissors or he just might get lucky and gun me stupid, so I should pick something else to do that takes advantage of my modern avionics and missiles, and the mig's poor rearward visibility.
I know that before I get to the merge, the first combat I ever see. And there is nothing "wrong" with my ability to maneuver in 4 dimensions, and I am physically conditioned to fly an extended period of time at 6 to 7 Gs without a G-suit, and up to 9 Gs with a G-suit, so without seeing one second of actual air to air combat, I have an edge that almost no WWII pilots with my zero hours of air combat time could match. Not only that, I have an education on aerospace physiology that was simply unknown except as vague rules of thumb back in the 1940s, which can make me more effective and less likely to suffer injuries over the long run.
Imagine an old-school barefist boxer going up against a modern MMA fighter... That bare knuckle fighter has probably been fighting his whole life without the benefit of modern training and medicine, so he's a total hard case and undoubtedly a good fighter. And it's very likely that one of those skinny Gracie brothers would bust him up in minutes, breaking every joint and bone in his body if he didn't give up. It's an evolution of the sport, and modern fighter pilots have the benefit of almost 100 years of fighter aviation history guiding their training. It's an unfair advantage no matter how well a WWII pilot might have flown his needle and ball instrument approaches, listening to the "dah" signal in his left ear and the "dit" signals in the right ear...
I will say one thing however... Aviation pioneers did have a significant advantage in their ability to think outside the box, using their knowledge to get things done in tight situations. Nowadays, the drawback to everything being a science is that the art of making things up as you go is nearly lost. As an example, I had a chance to talk to one of the P-40 "Burma Banshee" pilots a couple of years ago, and he explained his "instrument approach" procedure, that worked for up to a 4-ship formation. When the weather was as low as 100' ceilings but with tops no more than 14,000 ft, he would follow this procedure. Use basic navigation and radio homing to fly to a certain mountain peak. Cross the peak at a specific altitude and wind-corrected heading and airspeed. Count 30 seconds, then start a 2000 ft per minute descent straight ahead. Watch the altimeter (calibrated by flying past mountain peaks with known altituded). No lower than 500', you should break out over a wide river valley (with 10,000 ft mtns on both sides) near enough the river to fly up the river just below the clouds. After a sharp right turn where your wingman can shift from fingertip into trail formation, there is a sandbar in the middle of the river with a C-47 parked on it because the guy ran out of fuel and landed on a sand bar that was long enough to stop but not long enough to take off. After the C-47 in the river, you pass one narrow stream on the left and then you see a tree. Put gear and flaps down, climb up and turn hard left over the tree, and as you pass over the tree, chop the throttle to idle and flare because you're already over the short 3000' runway.
That sort of stuff isn't taught anymore because half of the WWII guys got smart doing that sort of thing, and the other half died trying. Nowadays, you do it the standard way and if that doesn't work we have very good ejection seats instead of hoping we don't kill ourselves inventing new stuff on the fly.
-
Marine has his opinion about how he sees it from his eyes. You can't & should try to convince him he's wrong. If we asked some of the old fighters what they think about it, I'm sure the answers would be very interesting. :salute
-
Planes rarely dogfight anymore so bringing it up is -ALMOST- pointless.
Yes the guy from the era before computers would not know how to get a modern aircraft to start. I didn't say anything about that. That's not even a possible comparison.
It's like getting a cowboy from way back when and dropping him into an F1.......
less and less skill needed the more electronic we get.
Like I said, today's pilots are talented, but they NEED - not HAVE - less and less skill to do the maneuvers.
They NEED less skill to do these things because a computer does it for them. I didn't say they don't HAVE the skill.
But we all know an experienced WWII German Ace would eat a modern pilot up. :aok
^Said out of spite. :devil
-
I don't see what the argument really is here.
Both WW2 era and modern day pilots have to deal with the same physics of flight. The ww2 pilots flew mostly mechanical control planes while the modern day pilots have electronics and hydraulics ... there is a big difference in thrust and aerodynamic shape of the planes... but all in all, both planes can stall, both planes can spin, both deal with friction and gravity.
If anything the modern pilot has extra workload because of the avionics... in WW2 a plane that would have the same capabilities a modern plane has now would require a 3 man crew: Pilot, radar+radio operator/navigator and bombardier/countermeasures. Electronics allow the one pilot to be all three and yes, the electronics do most of the work on those areas but the pilot still has to push a button to tell the machine to do it and THEN keep track of all that information that flows in...and he must be able to do it all while flying and fighting.
There's one thing I'd love to know... maybe Eagl can answer this one... why in the world do air forces today cram all that stuff into one aircraft? I mean, doing so increases the cost per plane, pilot training, plane maintenance and pilot workload and keep your airforce small.
Why is it better than having an air force that has A/C that are absolutely dedicated to one role? Aka one plane designed for air superiority (not bombing,etc), one for strategic bombing, one for air support, one for tactical bombing etc etc. RL examples would be F-14 for air superiority, A-10 for air support, B-52 for strategic bombing and the B-2 spirit for tactical bombing.
I think that its better to have a lot of dedicated mission planes that are very effective in their role flying rather than a small pool of extremely expensive multi-role aircraft being flown by a small, overworked/overtrained pool of pilots. :headscratch:
though i'm far more in favor of the Air Force having a small pool of pilots and a HUGE M'Fing SWARM of drone a/c piloted by people stateside XD
-
Really, both pilots were plenty busy, and had/have plenty on their minds. If either was placed in the others element I think it'd cause enough confusion to skew the fight.
Agreed...
I think the biggest difference is the modern sticks have the ability to process much more data, not just because of the computer, but also because they are trained to do so. In high speed combat with BVR weapons (including SAMs), your mind needs to work faster to stay ahead of the aircraft and combat. Modern day selection for fighter duty is very competitive, we simply don't need the number of pilots that we had during WWII and we can be selective.
WWII sticks generally had less to process in the cockpit since they were flying slower. Most of their attention was placed outside the cockpit so they could see someone before they achieved a firing position (high alt ack, the exception). However, they also had the 'seat of the pants' flying experience where they would be ahead of the aircraft by the very feel of the way it flew.
I feel you could get the same comparison by taking one of our AH guys and putting him into a different sim like A-10. Granted, some of ACM are the same but the environment is apples and oranges like Mtnman said.
-
Over the long run, pilots cost more than the planes. So make each plane more capable so you need less of them and less pilots.
Also, the up-front purchase price of the plane isn't the whole story either. The maintenance and supply is much more. The per plane purchase price of the F-22 probably wasn't what killed the Raptor production. I bet it was the long-term cost of the things that killed off the F-22. Problem is, we don't have enough and don't have any alternative available unless the AF changes policy and authorizes purchase of non-stealthy F-15s to ensure we have enough real air superiority fighters to defend the country. The JSF sure isn't gonna do it.
Part of the idea is also to win the war early, so we don't NEED a ton of cheaper aircraft.
-
Over the long run, pilots cost more than the planes. So make each plane more capable so you need less of them and less pilots.
Also, the up-front purchase price of the plane isn't the whole story either. The maintenance and supply is much more. The per plane purchase price of the F-22 probably wasn't what killed the Raptor production. I bet it was the long-term cost of the things that killed off the F-22. Problem is, we don't have enough and don't have any alternative available unless the AF changes policy and authorizes purchase of non-stealthy F-15s to ensure we have enough real air superiority fighters to defend the country. The JSF sure isn't gonna do it.
Part of the idea is also to win the war early, so we don't NEED a ton of cheaper aircraft.
so I take it you are a fighter pilot in the RW?
well ive only flown 1 plane my whole life,on my 40th B-day, I have about 53 tours in AH, and very limited flying in any other "game" "sim" I haven't been here for 10 years I never flew in AW or WB's.....so it would seem that these people who have so much more experience flying/fighting should be able to smoke me easy....but yet this isn't so, why is that? natural ability, I was getting kills my first days in AH, and no they were not vulches or in gangs, I fly the same exact way now that I did then, find the biggest red dar and fight till I am dead or no bullets, hell I remember the first time the guy who introduced AH to me watched me fly he says to me " you cant do that" yet he was flying in AH long before me, I could easily smoke him within a day of me flying, why? again I say "natural ability"
my whole point is Natural ability trumps experience/education almost every time.....my one huge issue is targeting, I just cant seem to get it down, my hit % is 6.1 as of today, I have come to see that the better shot will most often win over the better pilot, does not matter how good I can fly if I cant hit and kill the nme con I am useless.
a modern fighter pilot is trained to use so much more then a WW2 pilot, does that make them better? NO WAY and to think because they are "trained" in more "stuff" makes them better is Laughable at best, its kinda a moot point to say one is better then another, for it comes down to the individual, some are Naturals, some can train for years and still get smacked around by the noob who is a natural.
of course this is my opinion and don't hold much water to a trained "fighter pilot" such as yourself.....but we can test my theory in the DA :aok
no ego or anything like that, but it will be fun, and a good experiment....ok I will admit It will be cool to know I can send a real "Fighter" pilot to the tower :t
-
Ink you can't make straight comparisons between virtual and real piloting. Another instance and one that's much richer in data points: race sim players and real race pilots. The exchange doesn't quite work either way: many successful race car pilots "fail" in race sims, and there's no evidence I know of that simmers are any better in reality. I've seen just as many say that what they picked up in sims gave them a leg up, as there were saying that what they learned to bring them to the top 5% in virtuality not only didn't apply in reality, but handicapped them in reality because those things were "bad habits".
What you learn in virtuality isn't reality, not unless you happen to also have either a lucky disposition for, or put a lot of effort in keeping everything you learn (and I mean everything, right down to the fundamentals like muscle memory etc) "up in the air" because it might turn out that reality is different: that the fundamental physics you integrated as immutable rules are different, that some things you rely on just don't exist in reality (e.g. no icons, no idealized shapes and textures to everything like 3D engine graphics, constraints on head movement under heavy Gs, etc), or that some things in reality are in a totally different universe compared to virtuality - e.g. the infinite granularity of feedback from real air on real surfaces and real seat of the pants feel.
Nature and nurture go hand in hand. This is in the biosciences literature. Not only are people in general at least as healthy as they were 50 years ago (see life expectancy and fitness for yourself, it's a steady rise iirc), but they benefit from all the lessons learned since. That means not just some dogmatic edumacation, but that they grow up already knowing things that those old pilots had to digest and adapt to themselves.
Take one of those pilots 50 years ago and put him thru the life of a modern pilot and he'll easily have an advantage over his un-time-transported self living 50 years earlier. So the only way WWII era pilots have some superiority is if their biology is superior - plain physical fitness or mental acuity... And from what Eagl describes it's actually the opposite.
-
ya I agree with that moot, I know you cant compare the two, real life to virtual, I totally understand the no G's and what not, but I also know first hand that AH gave me a huge edge when I flew the plane I did, it taught me what to do, I had absolutely no problem flying it, Except for the fact that my body never experienced that kind of motion and I got vertigo bad :lol
I also know if someone is a real world fighter pilot he may not try things in AH that I would, he may fly it more like real life, where as I have no experience in real world flying.............and have no issues with flying it as a game.
I still wanna kick a real "fighter pilot" ass :t
:rofl
-
Fighter pilots cost more than planes? Still now with the multi-billion $ space age fighters + all the man hour maintaining them. I wish I was worth a billion. :old:
-
Over the long run, pilots cost more than the planes. So make each plane more capable so you need less of them and less pilots.
Also, the up-front purchase price of the plane isn't the whole story either. The maintenance and supply is much more. The per plane purchase price of the F-22 probably wasn't what killed the Raptor production. I bet it was the long-term cost of the things that killed off the F-22. Problem is, we don't have enough and don't have any alternative available unless the AF changes policy and authorizes purchase of non-stealthy F-15s to ensure we have enough real air superiority fighters to defend the country. The JSF sure isn't gonna do it.
Part of the idea is also to win the war early, so we don't NEED a ton of cheaper aircraft.
Eagle has spoken, therefore this argument is over
-
Fighter pilots cost more than planes? Still now with the multi-billion $ space age fighters + all the man hour maintaining them. I wish I was worth a billion. :old:
You wouldn't be the only pilot flying that plane... Fighter squadrons are typically manned at a 1.5 crew ratio, and while you might consider costs like maintenance and fuel per hour to be a cost of the plane, that isn't how it works. Those expenses go against the crews who fly the planes, since an airplane is just as capable if it flies one hour or 100 hours per month, while a pilot who flies 1 hr a month is useless.
Some very rough numbers...
Fighter hours run somewhere between $7,000 and $15,000 per hour. A typical fighter pilot requires a minimum of approx 9 sorties per month, each sortie averaging 1.3 hours, just to maintain minimum training requirements. That adds up to just over $2 million bucks each year per pilot just to maintain minimum qualifications and currencies. In an F-15E squadron, apply a 1.2 factor to that since pilots and WSOs sometimes can't double-log both of their training on the same sortie, then multiply by the number of pilots per squadron for total cost, and then divide again by the number of aircraft to get annual training expense *just for flight time* expended per aircraft, if you want to see why planners are always trying to cut both the number of aircraft as well as the number of aircrew. Oh yea, don't forget that we need to keep a hefty percentage of our pilots in staff positions that require operational experience, so after you train up these guys, half of them don't keep flying for much of their career, so you need even more pilots.
Tack on $2 mil or so per pilot for initial pilot training, including costs for everything from UPT through multiple mandatory survival schools.
That number also completely ignores wing support expenses and mission support expenses, such as maintaining and operating EW ranges, bombing ranges, etc. It also leaves out training munition and other misc. "expendable" expenses. All told, each fighter pilot probably costs anywhere from $4 to $8 million bucks per year.
That also explains why the govt has in the past handed out up to $25,000 per year in salary bonuses when they need pilots to stay in the AF... A total expense of $250,000 to keep a pilot with 10 years experience from taking $80 million in training out the door with him is a fairly good deal I think, but when they are making manning cuts sometimes those guys are rather abruptly shown the door, kicked out with no option to continue serving.
That's why they're looking at UAVs because it looks damn attractive on paper, but (according to aviation week) they're finding out that each UAV orbit requires somewhere around 100 support personnel, and the support expenses and manning requirements are still somewhat higher than the same support expenses for traditional manned aircraft. So the UAV "savings" aren't there yet and IMHO never really will be there, but that's also because IMHO on day 1 or 2 of a real shooting war, lots of UAVs will be shot down by dudes sitting on hilltops with optically guided AAA, binoculars, and unjammable dedicated wired or optical comm lines. But that's just my worthless opinion on a completely different subject.
Yes, it used to amaze me how much money was being pumped into my training, and it has been a source of focus to keep me motivated to keep "giving back" during my daily duties. Some days I'm the world's most overpaid janitor, one LtC I know figures he was the world's highest paid bellhop when he was an aid to some General, but the whole idea that our skills are essential and could make all the difference in the world during any conflict makes it easier to understand and accept the responsibility given to us, especially in terms of dollars invested in our training.
But maybe now you can see why I scoff a bit at most per-plane cost numbers... They're a huge up-front expense but compared to the manning and support costs, they're not even close to the biggest part of the equation. Except for the B-2 and I think some of the RC-135 variants...
-
Fighter pilots cost more than planes? Still now with the multi-billion $ space age fighters + all the man hour maintaining them. I wish I was worth a billion. :old:
You wouldn't be the only pilot flying that plane... Fighter squadrons are typically manned at a 1.5 crew ratio, and while you might consider costs like maintenance and fuel per hour to be a cost of the plane, that isn't how it works. Those expenses go against the crews who fly the planes, since an airplane is just as capable if it flies one hour or 100 hours per month, while a pilot who flies 1 hr a month is useless.
Some very rough numbers...
Fighter hours run somewhere between $7,000 and $15,000 per hour. A typical fighter pilot requires a minimum of approx 9 sorties per month, each sortie averaging 1.3 hours, just to maintain minimum training requirements. That adds up to just over $2 million bucks each year per pilot just to maintain minimum qualifications and currencies. In an F-15E squadron, apply a 1.2 factor to that since pilots and WSOs sometimes can't double-log both of their training on the same sortie, then multiply by the number of pilots per squadron for total cost, and then divide again by the number of aircraft to get annual training expense *just for flight time* expended per aircraft, if you want to see why planners are always trying to cut both the number of aircraft as well as the number of aircrew. Oh yea, don't forget that we need to keep a hefty percentage of our pilots in staff positions that require operational experience, so after you train up these guys, half of them don't keep flying for much of their career, so you need even more pilots.
Tack on $2 mil or so per pilot for initial pilot training, including costs for everything from UPT through multiple mandatory survival schools.
That number also completely ignores wing support expenses and mission support expenses, such as maintaining and operating EW ranges, bombing ranges, etc. It also leaves out training munition and other misc. "expendable" expenses. All told, each fighter pilot probably costs anywhere from $4 to $8 million bucks per year.
That also explains why the govt has in the past handed out up to $25,000 per year in salary bonuses when they need pilots to stay in the AF... A total expense of $250,000 to keep a pilot with 10 years experience from taking $80 million in training out the door with him is a fairly good deal I think, but when they are making manning cuts sometimes those guys are rather abruptly shown the door, kicked out with no option to continue serving.
That's why they're looking at UAVs because it looks damn attractive on paper, but (according to aviation week) they're finding out that each UAV orbit requires somewhere around 100 support personnel, and the support expenses and manning requirements are still somewhat higher than the same support expenses for traditional manned aircraft. So the UAV "savings" aren't there yet and IMHO never really will be there, but that's also because IMHO on day 1 or 2 of a real shooting war, lots of UAVs will be shot down by dudes sitting on hilltops with optically guided AAA, binoculars, and unjammable dedicated wired or optical comm lines. But that's just my worthless opinion on a completely different subject.
Yes, it used to amaze me how much money was being pumped into my training, and it has been a source of focus to keep me motivated to keep "giving back" during my daily duties. Some days I'm the world's most overpaid janitor, one LtC I know figures he was the world's highest paid bellhop when he was an aid to some General, but the whole idea that our skills are essential and could make all the difference in the world during any conflict makes it easier to understand and accept the responsibility given to us, especially in terms of dollars invested in our training.
But maybe now you can see why I scoff a bit at most per-plane cost numbers... They're a huge up-front expense but compared to the manning and support costs, they're not even close to the biggest part of the equation. Except for the B-2 and I think some of the RC-135 variants...
-
can someone help me get up to speed here? What's a flap spin?
-
can someone help me get up to speed here? What's a flap spin?
The OP misspelled flat spin.
-Penguin
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJQEFQTJzKo
-
can someone help me get up to speed here? What's a flap spin?
its when you extend and retract your flapse very rapidly to create the effect of a bird flapping its wings. It's a secret most AH players do not know about, but if you do it too fast the plane will violently flap spin and you will most likely die...unless you have mastered reverse flap spin technique in which you must quickly extend in retract your flaps in the opposite direction. :salute
so remember qwqwqwqwqwqwqwqwqw, and when you get in trouble just wqwqwqwqwqwqwqwq
-
its when you extend and retract your flapse very rapidly to create the effect of a bird flapping its wings. It's a secret most AH players do not know about, but if you do it too fast the plane will violently flap spin and you will most likely die...unless you have mastered reverse flap spin technique in which you must quickly extend in retract your flaps in the opposite direction. :salute
so remember qwqwqwqwqwqwqwqwqw, and when you get in trouble just wqwqwqwqwqwqwqwq
I'm glad they fixed that bug then. If you tried doing that in a real airplane you might crash.
-
Hey, it takes skill to ride one of these too. :neener:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v457/Soccerplyr20/ACES-F16high.jpg)
Hell man, I wouldn't eject i'd go down with her, but thats just me, I can't help that i love her more than i could ever love a person. :D