PDA

View Full Version : Training aircraft



Capt._Tenneal
12-13-2004, 09:48 AM
This is just a question to throw out there (not a demand for Oleg) : do you think there is a need for flyable trainers in the game ?

It would not only be a realistic way to ease new sim pilots to the game, instead of throwing them straight away into a high-powered fighter, but also of all types of WW 2 aircraft, trainers are the ones that are still with us in abundance (and being used). Just the basic types should do the trick. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
12-13-2004, 11:14 AM
A Tiger Moth or Harvard would be cool to have. Dunno what other trainers were used by other nations, but that's what the RAF used to train their fighter pilots at first.

Capt._Tenneal
12-13-2004, 11:17 AM
I believe the US used the PT-13 as the basic trainer and the AT-6 Texan as the advanced trainer.

Copperhead310th
12-13-2004, 11:26 AM
For the US the AT-6 was the most widley used advanced trainer in WWII. Many are still in use today. My grandfathger thinks highly of the plane. He worked on them before deplying to the CBI. that was 1943 by the way.

AT-6 "Texan" SPECIFICATION AND PRODUCTION INFORMATION
http://www.warbirdrides.com/gallery/Image11.jpg

ENGINE: Pratt & Whitney R-1340 w/600 h.p.
ARMAMENT: Normally none; can be fitted with one or two .30 cal. machine guns
WING SPAN: 42 feet,7 inches
LENGTH: 29 feet
HEIGHT: 12 feet, 9 inches
MAX. TAKEOFF WEIGHT: 5,617 pounds
CREW: 2
MANUFACTURED BY: North American Aviation
TOTAL AT-6s BUILT: Over 15,000
TOTAL IN EXISTENCE TODAY: Over 1,200
FIRST AT-6 BUILT: 1938
MUSEUM'S AT-6s BUILT: 1942(Gray T-6), 1943(Silver T-6)
MAXIMUM SPEED: 210 mph
RANGE: 770 miles
SERVICE CEILING: 23,200 feet

BuzzU
12-13-2004, 11:53 AM
I think the Hurricane makes a good trainer.

Akula_Xie
12-13-2004, 12:11 PM
We have got Yak7 already,which was originally designed as a training aircraft.
The only work is to modify its cookpit so as to become a REAL trainer in the game.

PBNA-Boosher
12-13-2004, 12:56 PM
THe Yak-7 was a trainer for the Soviets, so was the U-2VS/Po-2. Their UTI series were also trainers.

But I want to see a Bf-108!!

Daiichidoku
12-13-2004, 02:00 PM
Not a bad idea at all, except....

Trainers existed to teach pilots how to fly....errr teach flyers how to be pilots

The point is, trainers would usually be in 3 or 4 stages

Primary- for the vasics of flight
Advanced- building on Primary, but more aerobatics and rudsimentary fighter tactics

After adv, pilots (at least in US system) would usually be posted to fighter schools, using older mounts, then on to the big game...

The whole premise was to teach how to fly and fight, and most importantly, SURVIVE while doing it

With a sim, we can go striaght to the most powerful types, and learn them well in relativly short time, with no constraints on airframe/engine lifespan, maintenance woes, fuel supply issues, and most importantly, no loss of life

Yes, trainer types would be fun, be in FB totally unecessary, and I would only want to see those types after many, many combat types are made, and most if not all the AI types made flyable

darkhorizon11
12-13-2004, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Not a bad idea at all, except....

Trainers existed to teach pilots how to fly....errr teach flyers how to be pilots

The point is, trainers would usually be in 3 or 4 stages

Primary- for the vasics of flight
Advanced- building on Primary, but more aerobatics and rudsimentary fighter tactics

After adv, pilots (at least in US system) would usually be posted to fighter schools, using older mounts, then on to the big game...

The whole premise was to teach how to fly and fight, and most importantly, SURVIVE while doing it

With a sim, we can go striaght to the most powerful types, and learn them well in relativly short time, with no constraints on airframe/engine lifespan, maintenance woes, fuel supply issues, and most importantly, no loss of life

Yes, trainer types would be fun, be in FB totally unecessary, and I would only want to see those types after many, many combat types are made, and most if not all the AI types made flyable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. I still think it wouldn't be a big deal though. Maybe a Tiger Moth, a flyable Storch, AT-6. Would be nice.

Actually, I think I saw some trainers in the dev. updates for BoB.

LEXX_Luthor
12-13-2004, 09:01 PM
I saw some discussion about setting up flight sim booths at air shows or flight museums. Interesting ideas, but it would embarass the developers if the flight sim Newbies take their new flight sim home and find they have no guidance in what to fly. From media exposure alone, the flight sim Newbie will first hop into Fw~190, F~15, or Sopwith Camel. As first aircraft to fly, these are bad choices if the sim has realistic FM. This is where interface design can guide the Newbie to flyable basic trainer aircraft of historical relevance. For example...

Oleg Maddox should have put a place in the Forgotten Battle's main game interface for a one-click link into flying the Polikarpov U~2, with a click-to-run picture of the trainer. Further U~2 flying selection can be made for starting in air or on ground. The air-start should be located near a landing field to practice with. The terrain of the training area should be visually interesting (the Kuban Map mountains for example). Basic text instructions must be included on this "trainer" area of the interface--one level deeper than the basic menu screen. Of course Maddox would have needed to create a flyable U~2 cockpit. Its now being made for future releace, but its a bit late.

The flight sim developer must somehow play the role of educator--an educator with only the game interface to teach with, assuming the manual is an intractable pdf file which few read (I never read FB pdf manual).

The game interface itself should be able to bring up educational text directly from the interface. One problem the general public has is given by the following example. I worked with a guy who fixed light systems on radio towers--owns his own tower lighting business too--and driving across Florida one day we talked about air combat. He was certain that turning was the most important thing about "dogfighting." I never could convince him that speed was the most important thing. As teachers, flight sim Devs have their work cut out for them. This alone shows the danger of making flight sims "dogfight" focused. They should be trainer focused.

The educational analogy may reveal opportunities. I used to volunteer in public elementary schools (5th grade) where we took half a semester to guide a class in building from scratch materials large flying model rockets (7 foot tall). Somehow it may be possible to find a use for flight sims as educational tools in schools.

I won't even go near talking about if a flight sim Dev can get government funding for "educational" purposes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

One immersive feature of the FPS games like DOOM~3 is the amazing eye candy grafix that the player must travel through and around--eye candy that is part of the physical environment, the gaming landscape. Flight sims have a problem here in that the ground terrain is almost always seen far below the airplane. Worse, only during landing does a flight simmer wish to interact with the ground ("Stranger To The Ground" is a fascinating and bizzare book written by F~84 pilot, czech it out).

However, there is a way. Quote from 1930s Royal Aussie Air Force Wing Commander O.G. Heffernan...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Page 248
The inauguration of the meteorological flights coincided with the arrival in Australia of eight Bristol Bulldog single-seater fighter aircraftāā‚¬"¯purchased surplus from Britaināā‚¬"¯in 1929.

Page 249 Heffernan words....
"Sometimes during a flight one would encounter huge towering cumulus clouds, and it was a sheer delight to play chasings around themāā‚¬"¯-through the valleys and then a dive into a mass of cloud, a couple of minutes of clammy wetness and out into brilliant sunshine.

In fact we were not supposed to do anything other than climbing and gliding, as there was some theory that violent manoeuvres upset the thermometers; but it was hard to resist the temptation of this type of sport; Bow and as I said earlier, because of the limited number of aircraft around the sky in those times, there was virtually no risk of collision. One morning however, I was frolicking around a big cumulus cloud and was actually about to loop the machine through a hole in it when, as I came over the top of the loop, I saw to my horror another Bulldog looping in the opposite direction. Both of us were upside down and pointing straight at each other! I've forgotten what type of avoiding action we took, but I know that I fell back into the cloud and prayed that the other chap had gone the other way. On returning to the tarmac I was greeted by my friend, and we both made the same remark: 'Were you the bloody fool that was mucking around that cloud?'. Thereafter, we treated cumulus clouds with a bit more respect." [31]

31. O.G. Heffernan in Stand Toāā‚¬"¯January-March 1966.

Page 249~~> http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/0249.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Flight sim clouds like shown below, easily done for today's grafix cards (if they can render mountains of rock, they can render mountains of water vapor), will deepen the experience of the flight sim Newbie and the old timers -- although they don't know it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). Such clouds form the "landscape" in the air that a flight simmer interacts with, and will offer visual interaction that RAAF's Heffernan experienced, causing flight simmers to click the FLY button just to fly around the sky.

http://www.toandfrom.org/lightaircraft/TCu.JPG
~ http://www.toandfrom.org/lightaircraft/clouds.html


...The need for Flyable Bristol Bulldog Biplane fighter is for another thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

han freak solo
12-13-2004, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With a sim, we can go striaght to the most powerful types, and learn them well in relativly short time, with no constraints on airframe/engine lifespan, maintenance woes, fuel supply issues, and most importantly, no loss of life

Yes, trainer types would be fun, be in FB totally unecessary, and I would only want to see those types after many, many combat types are made, and most if not all the AI types made flyable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely the truth!! Real life flight training is to teach flying and survival, let alone to wash out the dangerous pilots that will wipe out others and planes. I'm not even talking combat, here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Flight Sim Training for Noobs:

CFS 1 (Basic Training, anyone can figure this out)

CFS 2 (Advanced Training)

IL2 (Prep for Combat)

IL2:FB and PF (Combat)

Or, in IL2:FB fly the I-16 and in PF fly the F4F!! Just get out the hand crank! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif