is there any benefit to buying a trainer

Is there any benefit to buying the L-39 or the C-101 and if so which is the better of the two ?

Id also like to bring up the topic of a carrier capable trainer

Is there any benefit to buying the L-39 or the C-101 and if so which is the better of the two ?

Not really, the trainer aircrafts have no radar, no flight computer and simpler weapons, so naturally they are easier to learn; but you can learn DCS on any aircraft ... I learned on the Su-25T, but if I were to start again I would learn on the Mirage 2000, as it is the one with the best training missions and its Campaign is also geared more towards an advanced learning.

Id also like to bring up the topic of a carrier capable trainer

Currently only the F-18, Su-33 and Harrier are able to operate from a carrier, of the three I find the F-18 the easiest to fly onto or from a carrier.

In the case of the L-39 , the benefit is that it is an absolute delight to fly !

The L-39 is a really well-modeled aircraft that challenges you to dust off all sorts of "analog" stick-and-rudder skills that you don't need in the FBW modules. With no autopilot you have to trim the a/c properly and with no HUD you have to do a proper instrument scan. Learning to fly realistic IFR in this platform in the Caucasus map is one of the more stimulating things I've ever done in DCS. These aircraft are like cars with manual transmissions; more involving to operate, often more viscerally rewarding and sometimes scorned by those who've never learned to drive one.

Honestly I don’t see the use for “Trainer” aircraft in DCS. This isn’t the real world with all the real world reasons for having aircraft like that. You could simply learn to fly any of the front line aircraft directly and skip the cost and time of buying and learning the trainer.

You don't need trainers in DCS.

You train with the aircraft you want to fly, nothing better than that since you get used to it since the beginning.

Instead of trainer aircraft they should have put their resources in spotter aircraft like the OV-10 Bronco.

I did not buy the L-39 or the Yak-52, because of their “use”, but because I was interested in those planes. Wanted to get to know them, learn to operate them. This is not just a game, this is a simulator, where you can learn things like that if you want. I don’t fly them a often, but still I consider them a very good purchase.

I think that there is a campaign called Kursant for the L-39 that brings you through flight training. Things like that could be interesting to newcomers I think, if they whish to learn to operate in a more realistic way.

In case you are a PvP-Player: Servers like blueflag give trainers special purposes. You are able to land and deploy crates, or collect intel and call in bombers, making them part of the logistics chain and therefor as important as any other aircraft. Their "benefit" there is that they are faster than helicopters.

"You don't need trainers in DCS", "It's a sim and you can train with a real aircraft"... bollocks. Well, I used to be thinking the same way until I got L-39.

If you're more up to aviation, want to actually learn to fly, learn a proper weapon employment approaches, not have the HUD and INS/GPS doing everything for you, learn how to navigate, go deeper into VFR and IFR there is nothing better than a trainer. I wonder how many guys out there that say that a trainer are not needed would be able to execute a nice leveled coordinated turn in it... or would be able to fly an approach patter keeping the plane in parameters. You finally understand what are the different nav aids around the map and how properly use them. One can get surprised how many found the L-39 "Kursant" campaign extremely difficult.

I wish I would have got the L-39 much more before the MiG-21. C-101 finally starts to shape up for a good module, especially with just released attack version (CC) and the PFM. It's a pity that HAWK ended up a way it ended as we could maybe had a hope for the T-45 Goshawk. There is a beauty in the simplicity of the trainers. Plus the L-39 is just amazing to fly.

You can't go wrong with a trainer if you're a bit more into the sim beyond blowing up the staff and flipping switches in the cockpit.

No need for trainers in DCS at all, thats why you have that "Fly Again" button at mission end.

I do own a trainer or two but only because I like to fly a different plane once in a while. To be honest, I hardly ever fly anything other than the Hornet. Before that, it was mostly the Harrier.

As the other guys above me already mentioned: There is no real purpose of owning the training airplanes, other than "owning them" for the joy.

Best beginners "training module" for DCS is (DCSW / FC3, followed by the A-10C.

In my opinion the F-14 from Heatblur will soon be the best all-round module for new and advanced players, next to the A-10C.

- AI WSO buddy that assists you / takes away half the work load in things like situational awareness/spotting, weapons employment and navigation

- on top of that: it is a superb jet that can do so many things DCS has to offer - (Air-to-Air / Air-to-Ground / Carrier & airport landings)

- shared multiplayer cockpit:

----> Newb buys the F-14 and his cool & experienced DCS friend takes a seat right behind him in the same plane and assists him in taking the first few steps in DCS -> this will be the best thing ever and will practically render the other training airplanes obsolete.

"You don't need trainers in DCS", "It's a sim and you can train with a real aircraft"... bollocks. Well, I used to be thinking the same way until I got L-39.

If you're more up to aviation, want to actually learn to fly, learn a proper weapon employment approaches, not have the HUD and INS/GPS doing everything for you, learn how to navigate, go deeper into VFR and IFR there is nothing better than a trainer. I wonder how many guys out there that say that a trainer are not needed would be able to execute a nice leveled coordinated turn in it... or would be able to fly an approach patter keeping the plane in parameters. You finally understand what are the different nav aids around the map and how properly use them. One can get surprised how many found the L-39 "Kursant" campaign extremely difficult.

I wish I would have got the L-39 much more before the MiG-21. C-101 finally starts to shape up for a good module, especially with just released attack version (CC) and the PFM. It's a pity that HAWK ended up a way it ended as we could maybe had a hope for the T-45 Goshawk. There is a beauty in the simplicity of the trainers. Plus the L-39 is just amazing to fly.

You can't go wrong with a trainer if you're a bit more into the sim beyond blowing up the staff and flipping switches in the cockpit.

+1

"You don't need trainers in DCS", "It's a sim and you can train with a real aircraft"... bollocks. Well, I used to be thinking the same way until I got L-39.

If you're more up to aviation, want to actually learn to fly, learn a proper weapon employment approaches, not have the HUD and INS/GPS doing everything for you, learn how to navigate, go deeper into VFR and IFR there is nothing better than a trainer. I wonder how many guys out there that say that a trainer are not needed would be able to execute a nice leveled coordinated turn in it... or would be able to fly an approach patter keeping the plane in parameters. You finally understand what are the different nav aids around the map and how properly use them. One can get surprised how many found the L-39 "Kursant" campaign extremely difficult.

I wish I would have got the L-39 much more before the MiG-21. C-101 finally starts to shape up for a good module, especially with just released attack version (CC) and the PFM. It's a pity that HAWK ended up a way it ended as we could maybe had a hope for the T-45 Goshawk. There is a beauty in the simplicity of the trainers. Plus the L-39 is just amazing to fly.

You can't go wrong with a trainer if you're a bit more into the sim beyond blowing up the staff and flipping switches in the cockpit.

You can definitely benefit from L-39 to train with and it is really fun to fly, we do DCS for fun, don't we ?

It is funny how so many airquake "dogfighters" out there can't navigate without f10 map icons and can't do a proper traffic pattern :)

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

"You don't need trainers in DCS", "It's a sim and you can train with a real aircraft"... bollocks. Well, I used to be thinking the same way until I got L-39.

If you're more up to aviation, want to actually learn to fly, learn a proper weapon employment approaches, not have the HUD and INS/GPS doing everything for you, learn how to navigate, go deeper into VFR and IFR there is nothing better than a trainer. I wonder how many guys out there that say that a trainer are not needed would be able to execute a nice leveled coordinated turn in it... or would be able to fly an approach patter keeping the plane in parameters. You finally understand what are the different nav aids around the map and how properly use them. One can get surprised how many found the L-39 "Kursant" campaign extremely difficult.

I wish I would have got the L-39 much more before the MiG-21. C-101 finally starts to shape up for a good module, especially with just released attack version (CC) and the PFM. It's a pity that HAWK ended up a way it ended as we could maybe had a hope for the T-45 Goshawk. There is a beauty in the simplicity of the trainers. Plus the L-39 is just amazing to fly.

You can't go wrong with a trainer if you're a bit more into the sim beyond blowing up the staff and flipping switches in the cockpit.

You can still do all of this in the main attack aircraft. If people don't do it its another thing but ALL of the aircraft (except FC3) are capable of using navaids, doing landing paterns, use different radios and many more things that a trainer can't do. Thats why we have so expensive modules.

There's no point in buying a trainer other than the joy to have it.

It can also drop bombs and rockets and guns. Same way some early cold war frames does. Can be used as light attack aircraft as well.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

One can utilize a trainer in many ways if one wish so. Sure, one don't necessarily need to.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

The benefits are there. First, it adds to the funding for future releases - never a bad thing. Second, you'll possess a trainer!

F5 is a good combo between a trainer and the real deal.

There is sense in a trainer only if you are going to go through a real flight school training course. Maybe you can even join a squad that practices that, like https://www.avialetuchka.ru

Kursant campaign is a good insight into real world military aviation, with timing, patterns and public safety first.

L-39 really is a pleasure to fly, it can't be stated enough. I have only had it since the last sale and my only regret is not getting it sooner. Multi-crew is a blast and having an extra set of eyes in the cockpit is great in combat.

Speaking of combat, nothing beats the feeling of punishing people silly enough to take their supersonic "real fighter" into a turn fight against you.

If you're more up to aviation, want to actually learn to fly, learn a proper weapon employment approaches, not have the HUD and INS/GPS doing everything for you, learn how to navigate, go deeper into VFR and IFR there is nothing better than a trainer.

You can do all of this and more and learn to do it really well in the Maple Flag courses for the A-10C

Do the trainer aircraft come with “training” campaigns?

I wonder how many guys out there that say that a trainer are not needed would be able to execute a nice leveled coordinated turn in it... or would be able to fly an approach patter keeping the plane in parameters.

No please tell us how? :blink:

Again you can do this in any aircraft...

Interesting to read thanks gents I don't think Ive fired a weapon yet as I'm very much concentrating on the basics of flight and simple navigation I feel as a rookie I need to get this part nailed and be confident Although Ive got quite a few craft now I still feel the need to have a trainer

The T45 would have been the ideal option for me - smaller and slower than the Fa18 and less complicated that the AV8b

Im very much drawn to the C 101 but the L-39 looks appealing

Interesting to read thanks gents I don't think Ive fired a weapon yet as I'm very much concentrating on the basics of flight and simple navigation I feel as a rookie I need to get this part nailed and be confident Although Ive got quite a few craft now I still feel the need to have a trainer

The T45 would have been the ideal option for me - smaller and slower than the Fa18 and less complicated that the AV8b

 

Im very much drawn to the C 101 but the L-39 looks appealing

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk