PDA

View Full Version : Jets are for sissies



RPMcMurphy
07-09-2009, 08:25 PM
I'm just quoting a guy from this video. This is good. I love this kind of stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npkxeATi5iY

AllorNothing117
07-11-2009, 11:48 AM
There so not, great vid though.

hirosangels
07-12-2009, 10:10 AM
LOL,

I did love MiG Alley though. I remember gunnery was alot easier than that sim. But IL-2 just grabbed me and won't let me go.

Anyone watch those Sat morning cartoons that aired with Looney Toons? There was one where a dad was a B-29 and his wife, and they had a kid, which was a jet lol. The dad didn't like that too much.

And the kid saved the dad in the end or something. Been a long time since I saw that cartoon. But its true, they don't make cartoons like they used to.

mortoma
07-12-2009, 09:05 PM
If jets are for sissies and prop planes are so tough, I wonder why they don't train people in jets from the start? Modern military flight training won't allow you to even touch a jet for a long time. So I guess they must think it takes a "real pilot" to fly a jet.

Loco-S
07-12-2009, 09:25 PM
Funny is that a regular piston job throttle quadrant has three levers: RPM, prop pitch, and mixture, (per engine) apart of cowl flaps, carb heat, magnetos, etc.....

regular jet (blow) job, has only one lever ( per engine) = Thrust

make your very own assumptions...Jets (modern jet engines) are way easier to operate than modern piston engines

note, older jet engines have serious personality issues, that requires a special type of mind to operate them.

SILVERFISH1992
07-16-2009, 05:47 PM
I am not a sissy and I happen to be an Ace when it comes to the Me 262 HG-2 or the YP-80! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I didnt even know this thread exists.

idonno
07-16-2009, 06:21 PM
Not only are jets for sissies, but real men fly round engines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AndyJWest
07-16-2009, 09:26 PM
But which would you feel safer in, a P38 or a F104 widowmaker? Real men take what their given, and ATA pilots (often women) would fly anything, with no ammo, no radio, and just the 'pilots notes' for guidance...

(For the benefit of those who don't know, 'ATA' was the Air Transport Auxiliary, ferry pilots for the RAF during WWII). Some of the women pilots were even prettier than the planes they flew too...

Choctaw111
07-16-2009, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
I am not a sissy and I happen to be an Ace when it comes to the Me 262 HG-2 or the YP-80! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I didnt even know this thread exists.

I must say this here.
Il2 is just a sim, a really good game. Your not a sissy because you can play a game really well?

This was a real combat pilot saying that jets are for sissies. Why should that offend any "arm chair" fighter jock that only does this in simulation?
You sound like my oldest son. How old are you?

BillSwagger
07-17-2009, 12:40 AM
its a facetious statement and anyone who takes it to heart is missing his point.

Modern jets are largely computer operated, where a WW2 plane relied more on pilot ability.

I'd still rather zoom in an f-18 from 1000 to 10,000ft, than do a loop in a P-51. Not because i'm a sissy, but an F-18 would just be more exciting to fly.

Bremspropeller
07-17-2009, 02:55 AM
But which would you feel safer in, a P38 or a F104 widowmaker?

From what I read, the P-38 had a couple of design-related (read: workload) accidents of it's own.

The F-104, furthermore, wasn't any widowmaker at all. By flighthours/accident, it was actually right in the average-part of the chart, when compared to contemporary designs.
Look up the mishap-rates of the F-100 if you wanna see, what a widowmaker is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

robtek1957
07-17-2009, 03:19 AM
Yep, F-104 Starfighter,

another fine example how a story - hungry press can ruin a reputation!
That fine plane was beloved by its pilots.

AndyJWest
07-17-2009, 04:38 AM
Well, there seem to be differing opinions on this, but the Wikipedia article on the F-104,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter

suggests that it had a poor safety record in service, and the handling characteristics don't sound too nice.

I won't necessarily take anything on Wikipedia as gospel of course, and to be honest, I probably picked on the F-104 on the basis of its press reputation, rather than on any real knowledge of the plane. This is rather off-topic I suppose anyway, so perhaps it is best to leave it there...

NAFP_supah
07-17-2009, 04:47 AM
Though engine operation in a jet is arguable less complex the aircraft and their systems have become much much more complex then the propellor planes of 60-70 years ago (Well DUH!). If you ever get the chance try and fly a F-16 simulator, the real kind. Operating the systems necesary to use the jet as a effective weapon is REALLY complex.

Airmail109
07-17-2009, 04:58 AM
I met an ex RAF fast jet pilot at Duxford once who had just finished practicing a display circuit in a Hurricane, his exact words were "any idiot can be taught to fly a jet"

I'm not sure what to make of that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Another time there were a load of RAF Tornado pilots at an airshow having a go on IL2, who were getting verbally irritated by the fact they could not just point the nose of the aircraft sky high on take off. They kept stalling and crashing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

A family friend is an ex fast jet pilot with time on Phantoms, Tornados and F-111's...he once asked me why he could stall the aircraft with full thrust in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .....he was also an RAF instructor. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Airmail109
07-17-2009, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Though engine operation in a jet is arguable less complex the aircraft and their systems have become much much more complex then the propellor planes of 60-70 years ago (Well DUH!). If you ever get the chance try and fly a F-16 simulator, the real kind. Operating the systems necesary to use the jet as a effective weapon is REALLY complex.

Arnt they trying to make them a little simpler these days compared to the 80's/90's era fighters? Take a look at the F-35 cockpit

Hawgdog
07-17-2009, 06:29 AM
I love flying the Arado.
Come in hot and heavy, hope the AAA doesn't get you or a Jug is waiting up high and runs you down.

I absolutely can NOT miss with that Stuvi site.
I'll give 'em a rip with the stingers if they do get too close.
There are more than a few Jug Jocks that have caught me when I make the final.
One of my favorite pits is the Arado.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/HawgDog/grab002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/HawgDog/grab0003.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/HawgDog/grab0001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/HawgDog/grab0000.jpg

Hawgdog
07-17-2009, 06:30 AM
Shortly after this run (check the tanks trying to get off the road on my second pass)
2 late mustangs caught me. Never should have made the second pass-

AllorNothing117
07-17-2009, 06:35 AM
Anyone who thinks that a Jet is easier to fly than a prop is seriously mistaken. You couldn't be more wrong.

"Funny is that a regular piston job throttle quadrant has three levers: RPM, prop pitch, and mixture, (per engine) apart of cowl flaps, carb heat, magnetos, etc.....

regular jet (blow) job, has only one lever ( per engine) = Thrust

make your very own assumptions...Jets (modern jet engines) are way easier to operate than modern piston engines"

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard on ths forum, period.

Hawgdog
07-17-2009, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by AllorNothing117:

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard on ths forum, period.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Trust me, I've read things here over the last 6 years flying IL2 that make each and every comment posted in this thread, including the sigs, brilliant in comparison. LOL, I think we need a sticky thread that highlights some...like the whole RaybanJockey series.
Gold, comedic Gold. Or the pilots lounge wars!
the maps, the charts the graphs
outstanding!

Loco-S
07-17-2009, 08:36 AM
As I said, make your very own assumptions....have you ever flown a real airplane?...I do ( CPL, MEL,Instruments, CFI, Airframe and powerplant mechanic, etc...) also I know because I used to work in flight testing for props and jets...lets leave it like this mkay?


Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
Anyone who thinks that a Jet is easier to fly than a prop is seriously mistaken. You couldn't be more wrong.

"Funny is that a regular piston job throttle quadrant has three levers: RPM, prop pitch, and mixture, (per engine) apart of cowl flaps, carb heat, magnetos, etc.....

regular jet (blow) job, has only one lever ( per engine) = Thrust

make your very own assumptions...Jets (modern jet engines) are way easier to operate than modern piston engines"

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard on ths forum, period.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-17-2009, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
I am not a sissy and I happen to be an Ace when it comes to the Me 262 HG-2 or the YP-80! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I didnt even know this thread exists.

I must say this here.
Il2 is just a sim, a really good game. Your not a sissy because you can play a game really well?

This was a real combat pilot saying that jets are for sissies. Why should that offend any "arm chair" fighter jock that only does this in simulation?
You sound like my oldest son. How old are you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

SILVERFISH1992
07-17-2009, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
I am not a sissy and I happen to be an Ace when it comes to the Me 262 HG-2 or the YP-80! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I didnt even know this thread exists.

I must say this here.
Il2 is just a sim, a really good game. Your not a sissy because you can play a game really well?

This was a real combat pilot saying that jets are for sissies. Why should that offend any "arm chair" fighter jock that only does this in simulation?
You sound like my oldest son. How old are you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm 16.

Choctaw111
07-17-2009, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:


I'm 16.

Ah, to be that age again...
I just want you to be sure I am not meaning to insult or badger you in any way. I just see too many youngsters taking gaming way too seriously, like getting upset when someone questions their gaming skills, even if it's not directed right at them.
My oldest son is 15 and I see this mentality in him.
I also want to add that I also take Il2 very seriously but from a different perspective. I have spent a great deal of money on controllers and peripherals, solely for Il2.
All this expensive equipment makes my simming more enjoyable, it doesn't make me a better "pilot".
If someone wants to talk smack about another, then take it to a private server and see for sure who is better, say best out of 5?
As far as jets, they are a whole different breed of aircraft. You cannot fly them at all like you would in planes with screws. Much practice is needed to transition between the two.
My hat is off to anyone, jets or no, that have learned to become a powerful adversary in their chosen plane.
I can say this for certain. That a skilled pilot in any jet portrayed in Il2 flying against a skilled pilot in a screw will be one good fight.

AndyJWest
07-17-2009, 12:03 PM
If flying jets is easier for you, isn't it easier for the guy who is trying to shoot you down too? Ultimately, in anything like evenly-matched contests (not they are that common in real life), the pilot who makes the best use of what he's got should win in a dogfight.

The great thing about the IL-2 sim is if you think that The Me 262 is the best plane ever, and the J8A/Gladiator is a cross between a venetian blind and a wheelbarrow, or vice-versa, you have the choice. Personally I suspect that both in real life and on the sim, the more experience of different types you get, the more you learn, at least in the early stages: if you want to later specialise in shooting down B-17s in an IL-2, there's nothing to prevent you beyond the constraints of historical accuracy.

That gives me an idea: my internet connection seems a bit slow at the moment, so perhaps I should drag out the QMB and try this out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

DrHerb
07-17-2009, 12:20 PM
Handling the powerplant in a jet is definately easier than in a piston aircraft. Its the handling of all the avionics, radar, firecontrol systems, radio ect ect in a modern fighter that can really screw one up, they call it Task Saturation

Loco-S
07-17-2009, 12:40 PM
Amen, plus plodding around at seven miles a minute makes your decision making process an art.

its a set of balances, the Jet Pilot has less levers to fumble on and more time to pay attention at the rest of the systems, while a prop pilot he needs to be a master piano player to keep the engine/s happy AND the systems on check.



Originally posted by DrHerb:
Handling the powerplant in a jet is definately easier than in a piston aircraft. Its the handling of all the avionics, radar, firecontrol systems, radio ect ect in a modern fighter that can really screw one up, they call it Task Saturation

idonno
07-17-2009, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
This is the silliest thing I have ever heard on ths forum, period.


I don't know about anybody else, but I'm just having fun with the subject at hand. Truth be told, I love flying the 262's when I get a chance, and I've spent a good bit of time flying Lock On.

Some of you guys are taking this whole thing too seriously. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

AndyJWest
07-17-2009, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
Handling the powerplant in a jet is definately easier than in a piston aircraft. Its the handling of all the avionics, radar, firecontrol systems, radio ect ect in a modern fighter that can really screw one up, they call it Task Saturation

True of modern jets, but not necessarily so in the IL-2 sim aircraft, or in the same aircraft in real life I'd think: The sim Me 262 will probably have an engine fire if you throttle back hard at any speed above 400 Km/h indicated, and most of the other jets can flame out in a similar situation: Unless Oleg is playing some kind of practical joke, this is probably realistic enough, from what little I know.

DrHerb
07-17-2009, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrHerb:
Handling the powerplant in a jet is definately easier than in a piston aircraft. Its the handling of all the avionics, radar, firecontrol systems, radio ect ect in a modern fighter that can really screw one up, they call it Task Saturation

True of modern jets, but not necessarily so in the IL-2 sim aircraft, or in the same aircraft in real life I'd think: The sim Me 262 will probably have an engine fire if you throttle back hard at any speed above 400 Km/h indicated, and most of the other jets can flame out in a similar situation: Unless Oleg is playing some kind of practical joke, this is probably realistic enough, from what little I know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats all due to unreliable FCU's (fuel control units) I believe. However once I get up to speed in a jet in the sim, I barely have to touch the throttle and when I do, its moved slowly

AndyJWest
07-17-2009, 06:13 PM
It's not getting up to speed that is the problem, though the Me262 seems a bit lacking in initial acceleration, but slowing down again to land: if you don't want to remain airborne forever, you have to slow down by climbing and/or pulling hard Gs to bleed off energy so you can ease the throttle back at a safe speed. Nice plane otherwise, if you remember it is no turn & burn machine...

Bremspropeller
07-17-2009, 06:29 PM
Don't forget that jets fly a lot faster than prop-fighters.
Higher speed means less time for navigation and other tasks that are to be fulfilled "by the way".

Jets require a lot of situational awareness.
Remember, you shouldn't let your plane take you where your brain hasn't been some time before.
As the plane gets faster, accomplishing this gets harder.

Viper2005_
07-17-2009, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
If jets are for sissies and prop planes are so tough, I wonder why they don't train people in jets from the start? Modern military flight training won't allow you to even touch a jet for a long time. So I guess they must think it takes a "real pilot" to fly a jet.

Jets are expensive to run, not least because they burn fuel much faster than piston engined aircraft. Since a proportion of student pilots will fail, it's cheaper to find out who those students are with piston engined aircraft than with jets.

hirosangels
07-18-2009, 01:39 AM
yeah this is pretty funny it should be stickied for the funnies.


going how military trains prop then jet,

so for future UAV pilots, flight training will consist of BOB SOW or IL-2 (heck maybe ROF for AF 1 or 4/1 joke) then <insert your favorite modern day jet sim here>


Its funny cuz my dad is 70 and he said no battle he's seen on mil channel and wings compares to ones he's seen over the Philippines and Leyte while his folks were staying out of the Japanese occupant's way.




Originally posted by DrHerb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrHerb:
Handling the powerplant in a jet is definately easier than in a piston aircraft. Its the handling of all the avionics, radar, firecontrol systems, radio ect ect in a modern fighter that can really screw one up, they call it Task Saturation

True of modern jets, but not necessarily so in the IL-2 sim aircraft, or in the same aircraft in real life I'd think: The sim Me 262 will probably have an engine fire if you throttle back hard at any speed above 400 Km/h indicated, and most of the other jets can flame out in a similar situation: Unless Oleg is playing some kind of practical joke, this is probably realistic enough, from what little I know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats all due to unreliable FCU's (fuel control units) I believe. However once I get up to speed in a jet in the sim, I barely have to touch the throttle and when I do, its moved slowly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Oleg modelled the jets, when I load up QMB and choose a jet if I throttle quickly back up or back down or vice versa, the engine shuts off and I can't turn it back on.

Loco-S
07-18-2009, 11:07 AM
I guess they havent gone from centrifugal Fuel control units in the last 70 years( they can take up to 10 seconds to spool up when advanced rapidly, they are connected to the "tower shaft" which is driven by the turbine crankshaft, its simple, you advance the throttle...slowly because you dont want to flood the engine with fuel , thats bad..., which signals the centrifugal fuel control unit to increase fuel, this adds pressure to the turbine section, which in turn spools up the compressor section, which in turn runs the tower shaft, which gives power to the centrifugal fuel control unit which in turn adds more fuel to the combustion chamber when the turbine speed is "trimmed" to the speed selected


New Turbines use digital controls ( FADEC= Full Authority Digital Engine Control)to do all of this without having to accelerate the throttle slowly, you can ram the lever all the way to the radar screen in one second, but the computer will take care of the fine details without stalling the engine, or flaming out.

a small jet engine burns about 50 gallons of jet fuel per hour ( say a T53), a big one can suck more than 50 gallons in one second, while a big modern reciprocating engine ( not so modern, like an IO-720) can burn 30 gallons per hour at high power settings.

The military trains pilots in props because of cost ( fuel cost), its more difficult to master props than to master jets, and you can try at any airport, right now, no wait, no need to enroll in the air force, just ask for a small demo flight on a complex piston airplane and you will see that is not as easy as it seems, you need to learn to control RPM, prop Pitch, and mixture according to height, you need to control engine temps with cowl flaps, and mixture, and on top of that, you need to be able to do it in a reasonable amount of time.

on a jet, you just set the % of power you want and the engine does the rest, its fool proof.

AllorNothing117
07-18-2009, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
As I said, make your very own assumptions....have you ever flown a real airplane?...I do ( CPL, MEL,Instruments, CFI, Airframe and powerplant mechanic, etc...) also I know because I used to work in flight testing for props and jets...lets leave it like this mkay?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
Anyone who thinks that a Jet is easier to fly than a prop is seriously mistaken. You couldn't be more wrong.

"Funny is that a regular piston job throttle quadrant has three levers: RPM, prop pitch, and mixture, (per engine) apart of cowl flaps, carb heat, magnetos, etc.....

regular jet (blow) job, has only one lever ( per engine) = Thrust

make your very own assumptions...Jets (modern jet engines) are way easier to operate than modern piston engines"

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard on ths forum, period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have flown but not solo. So you used to test Props and Jets? Well I guese I'm eating my words then... How is it possibly that simple? Surely Jets are more complicated!

Loco-S
07-18-2009, 12:22 PM
the big picture is this, people train on cheap aircraft, cheap means about 100 bucks an hour "Wet" ( fuel, insurance, depreciation, oil, TBO of the engine, etc, all things considered), but these "cheap" aircraft, have quirks, like you need to be more focused on pampering the engine, and being able to fly on the lower/ crowded levels while taking care of navigating, radio chat, navigation, and most important, at low speeds, which allow more margins for error/ learning, after they master the "cheap" aircraft, they go to bigger, faster, more expensive, say 2500 to 15,000 bucks an hour, after they master these, they normally get a "type rating" for aircraft tat cost about 90,000 to 150,000 or more bucks an hour, which may have more systems that you HAVE to learn verbatim, its not that the jet is more difficult to fly, its that its bigger, faster, and way more expensive.

on props, very little has changed since WW2 ( engine/fuel wise), just recently we have some aircraft with quite crude "fadec" ( think an electronic "KommandoGerat" from the FW190)that cars have had since the 70's, but that is limited to very few and not common piston aircraft, I am not talking about Avionics/ instrumentation...that is changing rapidly with the PFD/MFD/GPS thinghies, which BTW they make your life in flight like a techie video game, ( Im used to the steam gauges from before the 80's).

the way they see it in the industry is that you have to demonstrate to have "skills" on aircraft that are "complex" ( variable prop pitch, turbo, retractable gear, more than one engine, etc) to be able to fly the more expensive stuff ( jets) which have more complex systems, but are easier to fly overall.

PS, I used to fly commercially in South America, and in the US I have worked on modification and certification of A-500 and A-700 aircraft ( the company doesn't like to be advertised/mentioned online for some strange reasons, so please refer to my sig) as a technician on Composites, jet and prop maintenance, inspection, and suggestions to the manufacturer, systems installation, modification and testing, impossible repairs and convincing the engineers to modify stuff to make construction/maintenance safer and simpler, also I pride myself in keeping the test pilots alive, safe and happy.

BillSwagger
07-18-2009, 12:38 PM
there are more physical factors that come into play for flying a jet (fighter jet), right??

i've heard something like the distance your heart is from your brain and of course eyesight.

Is it true they test how big your blind spots are in your vision?? (we all have blinds spots in our eyes where the optic nerve meets the eyeball, but our brains will fill in the blanks. If its just a dot you wont see it)

Loco-S
07-18-2009, 12:44 PM
for Military jets, I guess you have to be superman, I have taken mil medical tests yearly in Peru ( while I was there), which is the same, as any local civvy pilot is just a reservist for their air farce) and they make exertion tests, lung capacity, X rays, EKG, ECG, math and calculus tests under stress, pain threshold, oxygen deprivation tests, visual acuity, hearing tests, blood tests, color perception tests, etc, and with the bonus that the rats always made me "volunteer" to donate blood as I have a type rare down there ( B+).

the medical ( civilian) exam is quite easy, you just need to be in good health, not be on meds, and have correctable vision to 20/20 with use of eye glasses, after 40 you need to have an EKG yearly if you go for first class medical.

and yes, they test you for color blindness, or some handicaps, but you can get a SODA (statement of demonstrated ability) and get a limited license

BillSwagger
07-18-2009, 01:50 PM
so the idea of a fat man his 40s telling me jets are for sissies, is really kinda silly... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

RPMcMurphy
07-18-2009, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
so the idea of a fat man his 40s telling me jets are for sissies, is really kinda silly... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Yeah, thats just what I thought when I saw the guy say that in the video. I mean, what the hell does he know about jets?