Best trainer for wife?

Hey all im wondering if anyone has any input for which trainer I should get with the Easter discount. My wife has an interest in taking part in my obsession but she has virtually no flying experience other than what I've talked about during chores. Eventually she'll be on the hawg but I'd like to train her on flight fundamentals in a less complicated aircraft. I'm not necessarily looking for the "best" aircraft but rather the best to teach in that mimics the a-10's characteristics to a point. Thanks for any input!

I think the F5 makes a good trainer. Has several systems and gauges in common with Warthog.

My wife started on the Hawk. This got her used to startup checklists, simple maneuvers and navigation, and what it was like taking off and landing (she had issues with her AoA) without all of the computer systems involved.

the a-10's characteristics to a point.

The L-39ZA? Though I'm perhaps stretching the point a bit ;)

Why not train in the A-10? Using a trainer first might end up complicating things.

Sent from my SC-04E using Tapatalk

I wish my wife was cool like that :(

I wish my wife was cool like that :(

:thumbup::pilotfly:

I know it's nothing like an A-10 but the F-15? Simplified systems and plenty of power, plus once learned she can provide fighter cover for your gun runs ;)

If she wants to learn, together with you, I would recommend a trainer. The Hawk has western avionics AND you can sit in the backseat watching and correcting.

It handles very good - a stable subsonic plane - and it doesn't overwhelm with systems.

I know it is still Beta and thus WIP.

If the dual seat aspect isn't important, you should think about the final plane she wants to fly directly.

sorry, couldn't help it

L-39. It is from ED themselfes so the details, FM and quality is top notch. You also get working multicrew and two different airframes in one package! If you need a trainer with western avionics, get the C-101.

Just wait for the Tomcat!

I think the F5 makes a good trainer. Has several systems and gauges in common with Warthog.

I fully agree. F-5 would be my top choice as well.

If you both get L39c, you can sit in the back seat, and take over the controls when she starts losing it. You also get control over the IFR hood you can pull down to force her to use the instruments (or if she gets cocky you can blind her view).

I am currently introduicing my gf to DCS with the L-39.

It is very easy to flight: it does not bleed all its energy in one turn and behave very gently.

It is also very easy to start, and can become a bit more trickyif you want to use RSBN etc...

When flying, you don't have to look at many gauges, just check the airspeed before performing some complicated manoeuvers, else you really don't need to look at the gauges.

That's why my gf finds it very pleasant to fly. I can teach her how to fly a plane without bothering her much with systems and so on.

L-39 is a bad idea if you intend to send her on the A-10C later. Both the gauges and the cockpit layout are completely different. One uses the imperial system and the other the metric system.

I can't help but feel this is being over complicated than what it really is.

Hey all im wondering if anyone has any input for which trainer I should get with the Easter discount. My wife has an interest in taking part in my obsession but she has virtually no flying experience other than what I've talked about during chores. Eventually she'll be on the hawg but I'd like to train her on flight fundamentals in a less complicated aircraft. I'm not necessarily looking for the "best" aircraft but rather the best to teach in that mimics the a-10's characteristics to a point. Thanks for any input!

If she focuses only on the flight part first, the A-10C isn't complicated. When it doesn't need to be set-up for combat missions, then a lot of functionalities can be ignored. At the very beginning, the auto-start can be used, but the start-up checklist isn't overwhelming.

It is very easy to fly, take off and land, much more easy than most other aircraft (landing an F-5 or an Albatros requires more precision for instance). It has an easy-to-set autopilot that allows the pilot to take the time to inspect the cockpit or a manual without having to pause.

The TAD can also be a great help when one is not familiar with the surroundings, or with navigation. And it has redundant instruments for navigation, control and performance.

Other than that, I'd say the P-51D (or even the free TF-51D) is the easiest prop, though taking off and landing requires a little more practice than the A-10C, and you have to watch the engine. Finally, the F-86 is pretty forgiving and simple (and fun!).

So if I had to learn it all again, I'd start by any of those three modules.

Learning is also made easier with existing missions and campaigns, for that the A-10C has a huge choice, and the F-86 a great, progressive campaign.

If she focuses only on the flight part first, the A-10C isn't complicated. When it doesn't need to be set-up for combat missions, then a lot of functionalities can be ignored. At the very beginning, the auto-start can be used, but the start-up checklist isn't overwhelming.

 

It is very easy to fly, take off and land, much more easy than most other aircraft (landing an F-5 or an Albatros requires more precision for instance). It has an easy-to-set autopilot that allows the pilot to take the time to inspect the cockpit or a manual without having to pause.

 

The TAD can also be a great help when one is not familiar with the surroundings, or with navigation. And it has redundant instruments for navigation, control and performance.

I kinda like the idea of having the TAD as a nav backup. I still only have one rig to fly on so 2-seat capability isn't necessary, I just assumed a trainer would be the easiest to, you know, train on?

:lol: If that's not the case I'd just write up a few modified checklists that cut out all of the "fun" switches. But seeing as the sale is going on I might as well get something! I was slightly leaning towards the l-39 but now I don't know if the metric guages would get confusing?

I kinda like the idea of having the TAD as a nav backup. I still only have one rig to fly on so 2-seat capability isn't necessary, I just assumed a trainer would be the easiest to, you know, train on?

:lol: If that's not the case I'd just write up a few modified checklists that cut out all of the "fun" switches. But seeing as the sale is going on I might as well get something! I was slightly leaning towards the l-39 but now I don't know if the metric guages would get confusing?

The L-39 is a nice aircraft, but don't forget the training lessons are a little less user-friendly for an English-speaking cadet, and the taxiing is ... something else entirely, at first ;) In any case, not big issues, really.

Not sure about the gauges... there doesn't seem to be a US metric cockpit yet, that may come one day. Anyway, each plane has its own key speed parameters (rotate at take-off, approach, touchdown, stall, ...), so if that's in knots or in km/h, you still have to memorize them, same for pressures. I don't think the units should be any problem.

Eventually she'll be on the hawg but I'd like to train her on flight fundamentals in a less complicated aircraft.

The A-10 is quite simple for the flight fundamentals. Usually, when I fly the A-10, I skip the parts of the startup procedure which aren't necessary for basic flight. That means no navigation systems, communication systems, or weapon systems knowledge required. It takes me under a minute to start up the A-10 this way, most of which time is simply waiting for the engines to spool up and watching the RPM & temp guages.

Basically, you just need to turn on the APU & engines, adjust a select few instruments (calibrate the altimeter, uncage the gyro horizon, etc.), and do a small handful of other basic tasks such as turning on nosewheel steering. It really is almost as simple as starting up a Cessna 152, with the major difference being the process of APU & engine startup.

Anyway, each plane has its own key speed parameters (rotate at take-off, approach, touchdown, stall, ...), so if that's in knots or in km/h, you still have to memorize them, same for pressures. I don't think the units should be any problem.

It can be a problem. As someone who was raised on (and who still lives in a culture which exclusively uses) US Imperial, but who acknowledges the absolute superiority of metric, I still get confused by units when switching between US and German fighters. I can easily remember that 100 KPH is ~60 MPH, and do crude calculations within a few seconds based on that, but there isn't always time to convert, and there's really no replacement for grokking speed the way one does when seeing it in units which one has been using for one's entire life.

While it's true that memorization of key airspeeds doesn't require one to know the relationship between the two units, it's still disorienting to not have any idea what your actual airspeed means at any given time. That is, to not know intuitively what your airspeed is, and instead know only an arbitrary number.

I mean that I can "feel" what my airspeed means, at any given point, when I see it in MPH, but I can't when I see it in KPH (or even knots!). With KPH, I only know when I'm close to one of the pre-memorized figures (e.g. stall speed, best climb speed, etc.). The intuiting the relationship between my current speed and the figure I'm watching for is missing when the units are foreign.

It can be a problem. As someone who was raised on (and who still lives in a culture which exclusively uses) US Imperial, but who acknowledges the absolute superiority of metric, I still get confused by units when switching between US and German fighters. I can easily remember that 100 KPH is ~60 MPH, and do crude calculations within a few seconds based on that, but there isn't always time to convert, and there's really no replacement for grokking speed the way one does when seeing it in units which one has been using for one's entire life.

 

While it's true that memorization of key airspeeds doesn't require one to know the relationship between the two units, it's still disorienting to not have any idea what your actual airspeed means at any given time. That is, to not know intuitively what your airspeed is, and instead know only an arbitrary number.

 

I mean that I can "feel" what my airspeed means, at any given point, when I see it in MPH, but I can't when I see it in KPH (or even knots!). With KPH, I only know when I'm close to one of the pre-memorized figures (e.g. stall speed, best climb speed, etc.). The intuiting the relationship between my current speed and the figure I'm watching for is missing when the units are foreign.

For sure. While I'm used to the standard metric system, and so km/h in cars, I learned to fly (in sims) with knots. Switching back to Russian aircraft that have km/h or in WWII UK aircraft that have mph is sometimes disturbing.

But in a similar way to languages, I found that switching between them without trying to do a conversion but just keeping consistent, separate systems - "thinking" in other units if you like, helped. It would be a problem for the same aircraft, but not if they're quite different in mass, thrust and so on.

Perhaps it's less of a problem for people who are new to this, still, I agree with you that anyone likes to compare to a familiar reference.

Speaking of which, a Russian cockpit won't help either ;) Or the other way round of course, an English cockpit for someone speaking Russian.

In addition to flight characteristics, you could also look at it from the perspective of what tasks the A-10C will be doing, since that tends to be directly connected to how you will be flying the aircraft (and what tasks you might need to get used to doing while flying). To that extent, the Su-25T has enough similarities to help her get used to the idea of dividing attention between being heads-up to fly and heads-down to watch the feed from the TGP, for example. Another useful option might simply be to get the A-10A or the larger FC3 package and have her start with the A-10A's simpler avionics and flight modelling before transitioning to the A-10C.

Now, if the idea is to give her a feel for the thrill of flight itself, rather than training with a specific aircraft, the MiG-21 might be an option. Virtually none of the procedures, techniques, or tactics will transfer over to the A-10C, but it has one of the most thrilling landing experiences of any plane I've flown in DCS. Additionally, the startup procedure is relatively simple AND easy to memorize (because of how the cockpit is laid out, with switches in rows), so a beginner can quickly learn to get it started and takeoff.

The flip side of that is that the MiG-21 probably isn't a good beginner aircraft in general: it's too easy to stall or to cut off fuel feed with negative G, its layout and procedures are going to be very different from Western aircraft, and it requires specialized tactics to make the best use of its obsolete avionics. Its air-to-ground capabilities are also extremely primitive and (in my experience) frustrating to attempt to use, so it really wouldn't be a good aircraft for someone who enjoys ground attack missions.

L-39. It is from ED themselfes so the details, FM and quality is top notch. You also get working multicrew and two different airframes in one package! If you need a trainer with western avionics, get the C-101.

I would not recommend the C-101 Pre-Release Beta at the moment. It has no EFM, yet. That means you learn flying and handling with an SFM plane and need to train muscle memory again, when the EFM is done.

Also the second airframe is the one that has the weapons attached to it... and that one isn't out either. :cry:

So if training in western avionics is the focus, either go A-10C directly or try the Hawk, as it has already EFM and the capability to train weapons employment, although it is still in beta. :imho: