Agreed that it seems "busy" but I think it's important to remember where we came from so you get an understanding of how much easier the lifes of pilots have been made with the advent of modern controls.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Could a T-6B defeat a P-51 in a dogfight?
- Thread starter Deven Bolding
- Start date
I see your smilie, but no. It allows you to focus on your mission and to do it safely and reliably. Does it take the "adventure" and "art" out of flying an airplane? I can see how someone could see that, but the airplane needs to do a mission.What, so FADEC and 3-axis autopilot makes you some sort of non-pilot pussy??
Agreed but sometimes the art is a pleasure we can indulge. FADEC and 3-axis autopilot is probably important on a big military aircraft (wish we had FADEC in the herc...), but is it REALLY necessary in a Cessna 172? Or a DA-42 that has both?
Depends on what you want to do and how well you want to do it. Just want to leave the ground? No. Want to leave the ground and accomplish some sort of high level tasking in all weather conditions day or night and do it safely? Yes.
If you're interested in the art of flying then there's certainly an existential pleasure to flying old airplanes because it asks a lot of the pilot. Hence why there are people who fly warbirds up to and including WWI airplanes and Curtis Pushers. Those airplanes aren't easy to fly, the challenge of flying them is the mission.
I (literally) grew up learning on a Lycoming piston engine with a fix-pitch prop. The PT-6 definitely made things easier, but over the last couple of years, I've been flying a constant speed prop and, while there is an extra step in messing with the power settings, I find it significantly easier to control what I want the plane to do and when to do it than with a fixed-pitch prop.
Because you don't have the luxury of a gas turbine doing everything, the constant speed prop on a piston still allows you to descend at speed, not worry about shock cooling (relatively) and then also slow yourself down very quickly to pattern airspeed. That was something that I couldn't do before without using loads of slip. I know the extra levers seem like more overhead, but they can also make life easier...again, assuming your stuck in the piston world.
Because you don't have the luxury of a gas turbine doing everything, the constant speed prop on a piston still allows you to descend at speed, not worry about shock cooling (relatively) and then also slow yourself down very quickly to pattern airspeed. That was something that I couldn't do before without using loads of slip. I know the extra levers seem like more overhead, but they can also make life easier...again, assuming your stuck in the piston world.
Shit, I learned in a Piper Tomahawk death trap. Fumbling with sectionals, post-it notes with radio freqs, shitty trim. Got my IFR in a Warrior, electric trim on the yoke, AM/FM stereo with a tape deck.........I was in heaven. Now, the avionics on a little Cirrus, is mind-boggling, touch the controls to launch and recover. I'm all for it, hand flying a a CX was taxing (at least to me), I got much better at it over time, but rolling into a VOR intersection took some time to master. I would have loved to scroll to the intersection and press a button
Yeah, I remember doing NDB approaches in a steam gauge warrior for my IR check ride. Still haven't ever flown a GPS approach.
Really?? Primary??
We didn't do it as primary students in the T-34. The only GPS approaches I've flown outside of GA were in the T-6B as a TPS student, and (just recently) LNAV approaches in the Rhino.
Funny, when I was flight planning an airnav last week looking for divert fields with suitable instrument approaches in the KS/CO area, I found an NDB that fit the bill as a last resort/plan D sort of thing, and I thought........heh I'd probably be the first person to ever do one in an F/A-18. As I was trying to remember the old course correction rule of thumb and even how to procedurally do one legally, I remembered the Rhino doesn't have an ADF like the chuck did (aka poor man's MIDS), and my mind wandered elsewhere.......
And yeah BACON, we had a little retrofitted GPS in the -34, but shooting an approach with it was only optional in RI's, and we didn't do one. I'm not even sure if it was IFR certified. Never flown "glass" in civvie land, and I have no clue how to use RNAV in the Rhino at this point other than to select "nearest field" and observe airfield info and bearing/range.
And yeah BACON, we had a little retrofitted GPS in the -34, but shooting an approach with it was only optional in RI's, and we didn't do one. I'm not even sure if it was IFR certified. Never flown "glass" in civvie land, and I have no clue how to use RNAV in the Rhino at this point other than to select "nearest field" and observe airfield info and bearing/range.
We did.
Let's remember that, depending on why we are flying, there are different bits of significance when it comes to automation.
If we are performing aviation as a self-gratifying solo performance art, then using those stick-and-rudder hand flying skills for our own enjoyment is thoroughly in line with our mission and purpose of being strapped in to the airplane.
If we are conducting aviation for a purpose outside of pure enjoyment, then using the equipment and automation to ensure the mission is accomplished safely, efficiently, and accurately is the measure of our skills as an aviator, even if it involves virtually zero hand flying (or other wang-measuring, bar-bet aviator skills).
If we are performing aviation as a self-gratifying solo performance art, then using those stick-and-rudder hand flying skills for our own enjoyment is thoroughly in line with our mission and purpose of being strapped in to the airplane.
If we are conducting aviation for a purpose outside of pure enjoyment, then using the equipment and automation to ensure the mission is accomplished safely, efficiently, and accurately is the measure of our skills as an aviator, even if it involves virtually zero hand flying (or other wang-measuring, bar-bet aviator skills).
It was certified, and given your timeframe, I'm puzzled why you didn't do an approach. Unless you were a Corpus guy, in which case that explains everything.
I can't remember MIDNJAC's exact Primary timeline, but looking at your timing, were you one of the guys that did a separate Tailhook intermediate in the T-34? That seems like the only way you wouldn't have done one in the aircraft given the syllabus at the time. Or it was just Corpus, and that would explain everything.