Another interesting question. I wonder how the German trainers compare, too.
On the subject of training procedures, that's been a debate of great conjecture for many years.
Here's all I've really ever heard on the subject.
The Americans used trainers that were easy to fly so as to nurture the trainees into being comfortable with the concept of flying.
As time goes on, the trainee moves onto higher performance aircraft, ultimately leading to the actual front line planes of the day.
The British docterne was to have a plane that was
simple to fly, but wasn't neccessarily "easy" to fly. They felt this kept the student alert and educated them quickly in what it took to keep the airplane in the air.
It's my understanding that the British trainee moved straight from the Tiger Moth into a "training version" of whatever aircraft they were to fly into battle.
Which way is better?
I don't think there is a "better" way, just two different ways of achieving the same goal.
It seems to me that the British skipped a couple of steps in their training (or the Americans added a couple?), combining steps into each step.
I've taught, what seems like, a million people in the "rigors" of doing my job (don't ask
) and my opinion is, you show 'em what its all about and let 'em fly.
Either they get it or they don't.
How the axis powers trained their pilots, I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen anything on that.
Elvis