SNJ

[mkloby]

Thanks. Last month I came across a Navy brochure about the new pilot training program in which the initial phase/screening training are to be done in GA in which the candidate have to go solo before 13.5hrs of flying a C-152 or alike, as per Jeppesen training syllabus dictates. The Air Force document I cited previously had wrote roughly the same.

The aim for doing that is to reduce student attritions after transiting to more advanced (hence expensive) stages. I was deeply impressed that is what the US military aviation had concluded after 80 years to examine and to train hundred thousands of pilot candidates. Maybe the cost has prioroty over other things but I am proud of the GA for its level as it was recognized as such.

I would like to point out however, in "our" hobby flying there are no screening existed after just one or two days of checkrides by the examiners. Pilots not competent enough for a long run can easily be pass through that and what will happen are the accidents after ten or twenty years.

In my opinion screening of the pilot candidates is primarily to prevent possible accidents or unsatisfactory performance of jobs or business in the air.

The program you are referring to is called Intro Flight Screening. It involves approximately 25 hours in 152/172 or Piper warrior (I think), or similar craft. I did my solo around 12 hours I believe. IFS was some of the best fun I had - a 2ndLt with no collateral duties, only fly for about 1 hour each day. You wear civvies and fly with civilian guys. What a hoot!

There is some debate about the relatively new program. I'm not convinced it provides an adequate return on investment. It costs Uncle Sam about $4,500 for each student. The 25 hours does not prep you very much at all for flight school. I think I've only heard of one guy that went through the pipes with me that got booted from IFS. There's also probably a very small number of guys that determine they do not like aviation during IFS. Just about everybody makes it through - it's not much of a "screen."

After IFS you go through Aviation Preflight Indoc - basically 6 weeks of ground school studying aero, turbines, wx, flight rules and regs, etc (and get swim quals). A lot of guys attrite here due to academics.

Primary is where it hits the fan for many. The study is hard and you get introduced to a much more complicated machine. You're in military flight school, not toolin around at 2,000' with Bobby Joe Civ going 70 knots. The guy in the back is usually always yelling at you for jacking this or that up. This level still has a relatively high attrition rate despite the Intro Flight Screening. This is just my 2 cents.

 

[ppopsie]

usually always yelling at you for jacking this or that up

One of the civilian instructors I know of still doing all the same! But I understand giving a student pressures in the air is a good way to make he/she a better and tougher pilot because flying itself is not a peaceful thing. As a CFIG I used this technique before sending my students for solo and it worked very well.

I think FAA's airman certification system is excellent in that even a student doing written exam preps or various questions one can get ample and practical knowledge needed in the air. I remembered working very hard to "memorize" all 1000 questions in prep book on the way to US in an airliner, in 1982.

As for the SNJ, my view is that the SNJ or T-6 had a higher power, complicated aircraft system such as retractable MLG, basic military equipment and flight characteristics and performances representing those in front line machines.

The JASDF guy I quoted also wrote that when he went back to the jets again he had no problem in transiting back into the T-33 because the T-6 was equally complicated and demanding airplane. One of his mates who came back from a T-34 unit needed a considable amount of adaptation before back to the jets.

AOPA PILOT magazine March 2007 issue has an excellent article about flying the SNJ in which the author wrotes;
1) more sharp control responce on all axles, starts from ground run, to compare with those in the GA planes.
2) needs to observe basic procedure, for example, to get out of a spin.
3) higher power and performances.

Sounds quite nice challenging!

 

[mkloby]

One of the civilian instructors I know of still doing all the same! But I understand giving a student pressures in the air is a good way to make he/she a better and tougher pilot because flying itself is not a peaceful thing. As a CFIG I used this technique before sending my students for solo and it worked very well.

I think FAA's airman certification system is excellent in that even a student doing written exam preps or various questions one can get ample and practical knowledge needed in the air. I remembered working very hard to "memorize" all 1000 questions in prep book on the way to US in an airliner, in 1982.

As for the SNJ, my view is that the SNJ or T-6 had a higher power, complicated aircraft system such as retractable MLG, basic military equipment and flight characteristics and performances representing those in front line machines.

The JASDF guy I quoted also wrote that when he went back to the jets again he had no problem in transiting back into the T-33 because the T-6 was equally complicated and demanding airplane. One of his mates who came back from a T-34 unit needed a considable amount of adaptation before back to the jets.

AOPA PILOT magazine March 2007 issue has an excellent article about flying the SNJ in which the author wrotes;
1) more sharp control responce on all axles, starts from ground run, to compare with those in the GA planes.
2) needs to observe basic procedure, for example, to get out of a spin.
3) higher power and performances.

Sounds quite nice challenging!

Well, the old T-34A and B were very underpowered with a measly 225hp flat six engine. The T-34C is a 550shp PT6A turboprop. There's a big difference between the two. I'm also not too sure why we are referring to the SNJ as very complicated?

Lastly, my jet brothers go right on to the T-45 Goshawk right after flying T-34Cs.

 

[ppopsie]

>not sure
To think about the era, the T-6s or SNJs are amply complicated trainer, as I posted before. In general aircraft becoming heavier and faster, it become more difficult to fly. Heavier aircraft after WW2 and today accordingly became complicated in sense not only of the design and make but their operation.

I read the ex-IJA and JASDF pilot's article in the Koku-Fan magazine in 80s and these are my best source for instructing my students. No other books or writings worked better than that to myself even flying in very primitive flying machines.

BTW Flyboy-san,
My examiner at Chino in 1982 was an ex-AAF guy who told me after the checkride that "Do you know the Hamps?" He was a transport pilot during the war who flew in CBI fronts. I learned at that moment that was (is) the GA in the US.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

>not sure
To think about the era, the T-6s or SNJs are amply complicated trainer, as I posted before. In general aircraft becoming heavier and faster, it become more difficult to fly. Heavier aircraft after WW2 and today accordingly became complicated in sense not only of the design and make but their operation.

I read the ex-IJA and JASDF pilot's article in the Koku-Fan magazine in 80s and these are my best source for instructing my students. No other books or writings worked better than that to myself even flying in very primitive flying machines.

Actually are you speaking in terms of trainers like the T-6? I've flown T-34s and if in a training situation would take that over a T-6 any day. Aircraft became heavier and maybe complicated but in some cases easier to fly if we talk about GA aircraft.

The only thing I ever heard about the T-6/ SNJ being difficult was the fact that they were taildraggers.

BTW Flyboy-san,
My examiner at Chino in 1982 was an ex-AAF guy who told me after the checkride that "Do you know the Hamps?" He was a transport pilot during the war who flew in CBI fronts. I learned at that moment that was (is) the GA in the US.

Not sure I understand....

 

[ppopsie]

>Taildraggers
I actually have landed taildraggers more than 3000 times and I don't think it was not much too difficult flying in them as long as you stay sharp. I admit it was fun a lot.

Therefore I don't think being a taildragger meant everything. The SNJ is a heavy and fast single engine taildragger trainer.

BTW does somebody have experience in flying Beech 18s or alike? These should have been the counterparts to the SNJs.

The examiner I met got through and survived the airlifting operations held between India and China which was to fly over high mountains and said to have had pretty high casualty rates for transport operations.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

>Taildraggers
I actually have landed taildraggers more than 3000 times and I don't think it was not much too difficult flying in them as long as you stay sharp. I admit it was fun a lot.

Therefore I don't think being a taildragger meant everything. The SNJ is a heavy and fast single engine taildragger trainer.

you said it right there but in the day of the military taildragger I think she was considered pretty docile. Eric has flown in SNJs (T-6) many times and knows several owners, maybe he'll read this and chime in.

BTW does somebody have experience in flying Beech 18s or alike? These should have been the counterparts to the SNJs.

I knew someone who owned one - he loved it except for the fuel bill and that was about 10 years ago! He never said anything bad about the way it flew.

>
The examiner I met got through and survived the airlifting operations held between India and China which was to fly over high mountains and said to have had pretty high casualty rates for transport operations.

I gotcha now! I had an instructor in A&P school who flew C-46s over the hump - same story...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ive flown a few times in the T-6 and I enjoyed it but then again I was not on the controls.

One of my A&P Instructors owned a few as well and he said that once you got it over a certain speed such as in a dive the controls became very heavy. He did say though that he enjoyed flying it and the plane overall was a blast.

 

[ccheese]

BTW does somebody have experience in flying Beech 18s or alike? These should have been the counterparts to the SNJs.

I've got a lot of time in the right seat of the Beech 18 (SNB in the Navy).
Playing co-pilot, lower/raising flaps, gear, shifting fuel tanks and actually
controlling the aircraft. I worked for a Communications Officer at Cecil
Field who had to check the NavAids once a week, He's drag me along,
mostly for company. I thought it was a fun aircraft !!

Charles

 

[AL Schlageter]

Asked my uncle, who trained in Harvards, about the plane. He said it was nice to fly but could bite you real quick.

 

[renrich]

Speaking of the T34, I have a cousin, graduate of the Academy, who told me that the T34 was a breeze to fly after his early training in the Academy's C172s( or the AF counterpart. )

 

[mkloby]

Speaking of the T34, I have a cousin, graduate of the Academy, who told me that the T34 was a breeze to fly after his early training in the Academy's C172s( or the AF counterpart. )

I did not find that to be the case at all - but I only had 25 hours in C-172s.

Flying the T-34C going 200 knots was a lot different from 172s at 2000' 70 knots or whatever they cruise.

 

[ppopsie]

>Being faster and heavier;
Being faster requires thinking ahead and being heavier requires the skill to kill inertia or to handle the plane properly. Complications shall be added to them when flying multiengine airplanes like SNBs. And the power managements....these are just from my own suppositions, or, dreams.

I heard that the USAF once had the students start taking flying lessons right from jets, in T-37s. Maybe the jets had more straightforwart handlings but the speed was way too fast for the novices, weren't it?

Even a C-152 bites if you are dull in the air or on the ground. That is what General Chuck Yeager wrote on his book. It is just a matter of degree. This is from my own experiences.

 

[mkloby]

>Being faster and heavier;
Being faster requires thinking ahead and being heavier requires the skill to kill inertia or to handle the plane properly. Complications shall be added to them when flying multiengine airplanes like SNBs. And the power managements....these are just from my own suppositions, or, dreams.

I heard that the USAF once had the students start taking flying lessons right from jets, in T-37s. Maybe the jets had more straightforwart handlings but the speed was way too fast for the novices, weren't it?

Even a C-152 bites if you are dull in the air or on the ground. That is what General Chuck Yeager wrote on his book. It is just a matter of degree. This is from my own experiences.

USAF used the T-37 as their primary trainer until VERY recently - they phased it out completely about 2 years ago. They now use the T-6, another turboprop. The Navy is switching over to the T-6 for primary too. The NFO's have been training on T-6's for quite some time already.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Speaking of the T34, I have a cousin, graduate of the Academy, who told me that the T34 was a breeze to fly after his early training in the Academy's C172s( or the AF counterpart. )

T-41s - Actually the T-34 is lighter on the controls and makes you feel like you're in a military aircraft as you sit tandem in the middle. The T-41 with a 210 hp O-360 could be a beast for the novice. I have about 2 hours in the T-41 and love to fly her but also had about 300 hours in a 172 so I had a good grasp of the extra horse power. The T-41 was easily "blown over" in a crosswind but could easily be tamed with power and rudder. the T-34 was just "nice" all the way around.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

>Being faster and heavier;
Being faster requires thinking ahead and being heavier requires the skill to kill inertia or to handle the plane properly. Complications shall be added to them when flying multiengine airplanes like SNBs. And the power managements....these are just from my own suppositions, or, dreams.

You'll be surprised how much easier it is when you actually fly her - I thought i could never fly an L-29. Not quite a piece of cake, but its not unmanageable.

I heard that the USAF once had the students start taking flying lessons right from jets, in T-37s. Maybe the jets had more straightforwart handlings but the speed was way too fast for the novices, weren't it?

No - they are usually "screened" first. These days a potential pilot get 20 hours in a Diamond Katana. After that they go into a T-6 (Pilatus). From there on to a T-38 or T-3.

Even a C-152 bites if you are dull in the air or on the ground. That is what General Chuck Yeager wrote on his book. It is just a matter of degree. This is from my own experiences.

And you're very right if you don't have a full grasp of the aircraft and what it does under certain conditions. I was fortunate to learn how to fly in a very windy environment - that has helped me many years later.

 

[renrich]

I remember that he said the T34 was a lot easier to make good landings in which is probably the most important evolution for a novice pilot. It was by far the most challenging part of flying for me. I was part owner of an Atlas Skyrocket and soloed in it and getting it down in a smooth landing in the Texas wind seemed to be difficult for me.

 

[ppopsie]

>T-34 was a lot easier...

What I understood is that the Mentors were used for screening purposes and were long gone now. Starting with a gentle and forgiving machine should not be a bad idea. If the screening is to be carried out by civilian instructors at civilian facilities there could be something hotter than a 210hp C-172 in the GA and we could use them at own expences.

BTW how today's JSDF pilots are trained;
More than 2/3 of all JMSDF pilot/observers are high school graduates. A rather simple academic exams are followed by physical and mental examinations including interviews. Only the JASDF does flight exam which is equivalent to the screening in US.

After two years ground schooling/physical trainings which aims primarily at making officer candidates, the students proceed to flight trainings either for pilots and observers in which the ovserver/TACCO candidates at least fly solo in primary trainers.

I think the rest of the course should be the same with the systems in other countries but in case of the JMSDF, all pilots are to fly multi engine airplanes or helicopters but not hot jets. I heard in many cases the TACCO will take command of a VP aircraft and not a small number of the students choose that. This is inherited from the old navy system in which the ovservers/navigators became aircraft captain in most of the cases.