No clue as to the accuracy of old training pipelines or when/how they changed. Uncle would've gone through sometime in the 60s and said he flew 34s out of Saufley for initial solo and then went 28s.Pretty certain my pilot buds in 1979 that went T-28s for primary only flew the Trojan. No T-34 lead in.
No clue as to the accuracy of old training pipelines or when/how they changed. Uncle would've gone through sometime in the 60s and said he flew 34s out of Saufley for initial solo and then went 28s.
I wasn't a fan of the SNJ, other than flying open canopy.
The T-28 has very docile flying qualities, but the engine management... holy cow. Busy!
I think it may have also been a result of "doctrine"/design philosophy. I've seen a report on comparison test conducted between F4Us and FW190s by USN Test Pilots either during or shortly after WWII. The authors stated that the FW190's engine controls were highly automated and that operating it was done by operating one control that combined and automated the pitch, throttle, and fuel mixture inputs. American airplanes were designed with each of those inputs as an independent control that gave the operator the ability to make more adjustments. The authors of the report preferrred the American method but they were American pilots who were used to flying using American controls.All of the big pistons are like that, unfortunately. I think it is part of the attraction of flying 'em, personally.
CQ was part of Primary until mid or late 70's - as was gunnery, regardless of pipeline I believe.Long time ago, but my dad did the same......also, first CQ in the -28, advanced CQ in the S-2.
While at TPS, I found the controls on the U-6 Beaver much easier to manage than the controls on the T-28B. Some of that was probably familiarity (several flights in the U-6 vs. one flight in the T-28), and some was undoubtedly the owner's preferences on the to minimize wear on the T-28 engine- he was understandably very particular. The B-25 was the biggest eye-opener. With 2 radial engines and 6 levers, practically the entire job for the non-flying pilot is managing the engines, especially in the pattern. Either way, the radials are manageable, but a major difference in workload coming from something like a T-6B. If you're used to flying aircraft with piston engines and variable pitch propellers, the mechanics probably aren't that different. But man, those radials are cool. Like drive a muscle-car to work, hack your mechanical watch, land on a straight-deck, and debrief over whiskey in the ready room kind of cool.
How much did the flight engineer help with the engine management workload?Imagine handling four of them. 17s and 24s .......flying form.....under fire from FLAK. 108s and 190s........and being 23 years old.
Too busy in the top turret fending off the 109's and 190's.How much did the flight engineer help with the engine management workload?