Real Pilots

[1Duke1]

NAV...you were way before me sir  Lateraled from the SWO side in 98, winged in 2000 out of Meridian.

LED, yes I was, but for too short a time.  I never made it to an operational squadron, DQ'ing during CV night quals.  Suffice it to say, I miss it.

[TurboJez]

I flew flight sims first and then the real thing. Now if only my CRJ had Guns!

[NAVCAD]

1Duke1

Sorry to here about D.Q.  Personally I loved the T-34C.  What an awesome plane!  Easy to learn, VERY forgiving, and it would do just about everything you asked of it.

I would love to get a surplus T-34C when they start becomming avail.



NAVCAD

[Morpheus]

Nav, what did you fly in the Navy?

[Deth7]

Stik17 flew A4's Phantom's and Hornets in the Navy    

[Brooke]

I, too, would love to hear more perspective from the military pilots who fly Aces High.

My opinion, having done a very small amount of civilian flying and having flown once at Air Combat USA, is that, once you are used to the different sensory modality of Aces High (feeling stalls and g's with auditory and visual ques instead of "seat of the pants" gues), Aces High is very close to reality.

In Air Combat USA, I went with two other folks:  one an experienced Air Warrior pilot with very little time in real planes and one a commercially rated pilot with thousands of hours and no time in Air Warrior.  The two of us Air Warrior pilots handily beat the commercial pilot.  And that was back in the Air Warrior days.  Aces High is much more realistic in its feel than Air Warrior was in those days.

[QQSaint]

Originally posted by Shane
most of the "real" pilots suck at dogfighting these cartoon planes.  but to be fair, the "gud" pilots in the game might suck at flying a real plane... too many frickkin' rules!!

Aggree. I'm suck how ever.

[Debonair]

NAVCAD,
there is a popular turboprop conversion for Bonanzas, i forget the name of it, but i'm sure google will find it for you, or ask on the AOPA BBS.  i was looking at it a few weeks ago, if the true performance is anywhere near whats promised, it makes an impressive aircraft.

[Golfer]

Originally posted by Debonair
NAVCAD,
there is a popular turboprop conversion for Bonanzas, i forget the name of it, but i'm sure google will find it for you, or ask on the AOPA BBS.  i was looking at it a few weeks ago, if the true performance is anywhere near whats promised, it makes an impressive aircraft.

Jaguar.  Only problem is they don't put bigger fuel caps on the damn thing so it takes a long long long time to fuel one with a regular jet fuel nozzle on "trickle" mode if you don't have a spare avgas nozzle attached to your jet truck.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Brooke
I, too, would love to hear more perspective from the military pilots who fly Aces High.

My opinion, having done a very small amount of civilian flying and having flown once at Air Combat USA, is that, once you are used to the different sensory modality of Aces High (feeling stalls and g's with auditory and visual ques instead of "seat of the pants" gues), Aces High is very close to reality.

In Air Combat USA, I went with two other folks:  one an experienced Air Warrior pilot with very little time in real planes and one a commercially rated pilot with thousands of hours and no time in Air Warrior.  The two of us Air Warrior pilots handily beat the commercial pilot.  And that was back in the Air Warrior days.  Aces High is much more realistic in its feel than Air Warrior was in those days.

Real air combat is a mental game all about tactics, aircraft max performance and weapon systems (and teamwork).  This is not something you'd learn from commercial/General Aviation backgrounds unless you're into aerobatics.  These civilian training pipelines teach that straight and level is good (gag!) and 4,000 hours of straight and level doesn't teach you much about a rolling scissors so I'm not surprised the commercial pilot didn't do so well.

AH actually does an outstanding job in simulating aircraft characteristics and a combat environment...e management, gunnery, turn performance, tactics...they're all there but, alas, no g and no missiles (I want my Phoenix man).    If I were still active duty I'd put several computers with AH on them in my ready room for my new Junior Officers for BFM instruction.  (Of course they might learn to use the trim switch to check six when they're back in a real plane which wouldn't work out real well.)  It is really hard to explain certain elements of performance...when it's best to go verticle, when it's best to extend, rolling scissors, reversals, etc., and for all the millions of dollars the military has put into sims AH provides one of the best models I've seen to learn the basics.  It's cheap, simple and you can do it over and over again until you do it right at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

As far as actual pilots having problems with AH, I think the problem is probably frustration and habit patterns not the switchology.  If you can learn to fly a carrier approach, with one engine out, low fuel, at night, with the deck moving in ****ty weather and still get a 3 wire then you can learn to use a hat switch for your views.  I think the problem is probably more that pilots expect to step into AH and be THE Jedi master kicking teenage geek butt and it's just not going to happen.   It's still a game and you've got to learn the gamey parts and you also have to contend with the fact that there are some guys that play this that really are good, I often wonder how some of them would do in a real plane.  You also have to break years of habit patterns and muscle memory.  The first time I tried I gave it a month and quit, it was just too damn frustrating.  I restarted AH a year later but I still catch myself turning my head to check six...I kid you not...so if you're on my six and I don't do anything it's probably because I'm looking at the wall behind me.

Mace

[DAVENRINO]

Originally posted by Mace2004
These civilian training pipelines teach that straight and level is good (gag!) and 4,000 hours of straight and level doesn't teach you much about a rolling scissors so I'm not surprised the commercial pilot didn't do so well.

True but an hour of straight and level pays more than an hour of having a blast pulling Gs.
Seriously, I wish I could have experienced flying fighters.  It is about the only aspect missing from my aviation experience.  I really did enjoy the bit of aerobatics I have done in the Great Lakes and Pitts S2B.  The Great Lakes open cockpit really added to the thrill even if it didn't perform anything like the Pitts.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by DAVENRINO
True but an hour of straight and level pays more than an hour of having a blast pulling Gs.

How absolutely true that i$...but of course I can't count the number of times I thought about how unbelievable it was that the Navy actually paid me anything  at all to do it!


Mace

[hitech]

Some things I still do not  translate for me.

Flying the vertical line in AH while looking off one wing, just seems a lot harder in AH than the real planes.

HiTech

[indy007]

Originally posted by hitech
Some things I still do not  translate for me.

Flying the vertical line in AH while looking off one wing, just seems a lot harder in AH than the real planes.

HiTech

Only way to simulate that is a motion cued platform and enclosed pit. An open simpit ruins the effect with stationary references, but an enclosed pit really only need 20-30 degrees of motion to trick the player's brain. On top of that, iirc, there's only 1 simulator in the world that can accurately reproduce sink rate... and it's a few stories tall. Life is good when you can feel AoA & torque These simpits are why I've been crying for a shared memory file since I started.

The platform somebody mentioned earlier that used mechanical leverage was the Joyrider. It can be built for under $100, and I'd say you get alittle more than you pay for. I've got the plans, tried a friends, but haven't built my own. Next step up was the original SimCraft. Same gimballed frame concept as the Joyrider, but instead of mechanical leverage based around a hacked up joystick, it's powered by pnuematic cylinders' pressure differential supplied by a wet-dry vaccuum, some digital valves, and a USB port. It can be built for under $1000, and I've seen videos of it working well with Il-2, FS2004, & X-Plane. Soon the SimCraft is coming out, and the lower end models will cost about the same as the built-it-yourself versions (of course, there's "accessories" available). I can't wait

[Grayeagle]

well..

All during my flight instruction ..my instructor to this day still believes I was an F-4 Jock out of George just pullin his leg.

Solo'd the 172 after 7 hrs dual, it just wasn't anywhere near as hard as landing an A-26 with an engine out and bandits in the pattern.

Placed 3rd in spot landing contest in my trusty Four-Zero Romeo 'snaggletooth' 172 ..was at 2hr total dual time then.

Buzzed some radio towers north of Madera in a PT-17 ..was havin a bit of fun 100 or so feet AGL, had all of 3hrs dual then.. owner was CFI in type.

Lost a race to a Falcon (the bird, not the car) in an Aeronca Champ when he put his nose down and accelerated away from us. Had 4 hrs dual then.

Lee Lauderback didn't beleive I only had 17 hrs dual (18 after the hour in Crazy Horse).. I don't think he believes it to this day. We did a full aerobatic program at 4+ G, including mock firing passes at SAM sites over the Naval Weapon Training Center with a below the treetops run down the target runway there at ~400mph. I felt 'at home' .. all the numbers matched what I did in AW years ago.

The sim time helped me with 'site picture' of what a proper approach looked like, ..and dealin with SA - bandits helped a LOT with my first solo approach, I aborted when a fast mover came in low to my right un-announced and a sight-seer came head on during base (he was flyin right pattern instead of left ..nimrod never checked in on local or looked at the windsock and pattern arrow on the ground below)
.. wife told me Mike (my instructor) was a  bit 'wired' watchin it all unfold, I just powered on, retracted flaps, and climbed out on runway heading, offset right so I could see what the fast mover was gonna do. The head-on nimrod touched down about half runway length behind fast mover who had touched down and was fast taxiing to last turn-off.. some hot-rod homebuilt

Second approach was uneventful
Not even tracers whippin by.

Sim time helped tremendously ..and I know it cut cost of licensing tremendously ..flight time was $55/hr then in 'snaggletooth'

-GE