If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
fighter pilot hours?
I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in the groove. Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a year? Thanks! all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in the groove. Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a year? Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other day where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help make up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to get in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less than the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit more than that each year. Brooks Thanks! all the best -- Dan Ford |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:18:37 -0400, Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Cub Driver" wrote in message .. . I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in the groove. Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a year? Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other day where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help make up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to get in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less than the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit more than that each year. Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots? Does the number of hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown? Also, to what extent can good simulators replace flying time? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time? It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them. There are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing, and this was over 30 years ago, in computing's dark ages. Even the 9/11 ****s had to get genuine flight training and even then, they nearly tore the wings off the second 767. Flying is not only complicated - its dangerous. Simulators can't trick you all the way, so you are always missing some component of the actual flight. In the Navy, we had a minimum of 4 hours per month that we were required to ride along in any capacity that we could. On some shore duty locations, meeting that would take genuine effort, but I didn't encounter that situation. I got 660 helicopter flight hours one year, and when I got back to the states, my squadron scheduled my first mission as a sortie in the WST. I guess they didn't see the irony. I slept through the entire "flight". Hey, how was that for a simulation? zzzzz...grumble...snort..Wa? GOBLIN GOBLIN...ahhhhh... freakin WST...snort... snorrre zzzzzz v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 08 Sep 2004 22:36:53 GMT, Krztalizer wrote:
Also, to what extent can good simulators replace flying time? It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them. There are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing, and this was over 30 years ago, Presumably they are better now than then. in computing's dark ages. Even the 9/11 ****s had to get genuine flight training and even then, they nearly tore the wings off the second 767. Flying is not only complicated - its dangerous. Simulators can't trick you all the way, so you are always missing some component of the actual flight. Simulators -- assuming a good mathematical model of the airplane -- should be able to correctly simulate how it would respond to anything the pilot does. The visual part of simulation is mostly solved these days due to good computer power. The hard thing, as I see it, is simulating the effect of the aircraft's movements on the pilot. In the Navy, we had a minimum of 4 hours per month that we were required to ride along in any capacity that we could. On some shore duty locations, meeting that would take genuine effort, but I didn't encounter that situation. I got 660 helicopter flight hours one year, and when I got back to the states, my squadron scheduled my first mission as a sortie in the WST. I guess they didn't see the irony. I slept through the entire "flight". Hey, how was that for a simulation? What's a WST? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them.
There are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing, and this was over 30 years ago, Presumably they are better now than then. The last simulator I was in was for the F-15 up at Edwards. Still a video game, albeit on a GIfrickinGANTIC screen, compared to the real thing. What's a WST? Navy-ese for simulator - "Weapons System Trainer". v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time? Krztalizer wrote: It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them. There are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing, and this was over 30 years ago, phil hunt wrote: Presumably they are better now than then. snippage Simulators -- assuming a good mathematical model of the airplane -- should be able to correctly simulate how it would respond to anything the pilot does. The visual part of simulation is mostly solved these days due to good computer power. The hard thing, as I see it, is simulating the effect of the aircraft's movements on the pilot. A very nontrivial challenge. When positive G is modeled by inflating your g-suit and negative G by inflating a "whoopie cushion" under the driver's butt or dropping the sim a foot or two, that ain't very useful. Numerous crashes have been attributed to pilots flying the airplane too soon after being in the sim (Miramar had a mandatory delay between 'flying' the WST and getting in a real airplane). Your body gets used to what ought to happen to it in the Real Thing (tm), then gets confused by the sim. Minutia such as rate of G application get missed by the sim but have tremendous significance in flight. Sims are great for buttonology and procedures, and can be a lot of fun (and they can scare the hell out of you sometimes). But they do NOT teach you how to really push the plane to its and your limits (low-level flight in a non-permissive environment, for one simple example), and that's the key to surviving in the Real World. We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat. Jeff |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote...
Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots? Does the number of hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown? Also, to what extent can good simulators replace flying time? USN minimum is 100 hours/year. That's way too low to actually maintain proficiency. 15 hours/month is about minimum for proficiency; 300 hours/year is reasonable. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:18:37 -0400, Kevin Brooks wrote: "Cub Driver" wrote in message .. . I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in the groove. Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a year? Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other day where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help make up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to get in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less than the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit more than that each year. Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots? Can't find any (after a quick search) for fighter/attack aircraft, other than in "relative" terms (using 1988/89 as a baseline value that is not actually stated); you maye derive more info by reading the following more completely: www.comw.org/pda/afread02.html Does the number of hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown? Apparently so; the above reference indicates, for example, that in 1994 the C-5 pilots were averaging 133 hours per year, and C-141 pilots were averaging 123 hours. I'd imagine fighter pilots, especially those of multimission aircraft like the F-16, require significantly more hours to remain truly proficient (as already mentioned by Ed and others). Also, to what extent can good simulators replace flying time? You'd be better off asking that question of someone who has experience with the latest high-tech sims. I doubt they are on par with actual flying experience, but I also have little doubt that they beat sitting around rereading flight manuals to kill time... Brooks -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:13:02 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote: I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in the groove. Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a year? You would have to add some definitions and parameters to get a definitive answer. Could you fly the airplane? Probably if you had been properly qualified and gained some experience. If you had flown a lot previously and maintained high proficiency, you could probably avoid killing yourself with that level of flying. Would you be mission capable? Depends upon the mission and the availability of effective simulation. If you had good mission simulator support you could remain reasonably competent with that level of currency. Today's airplanes are easier to fly than in the past, but today's weapons systems are considerably more complex and enemy defenses are more layered and require better force integration to defeat. At 140 hours per year you might be quite good if all of your flying was ..9/sortie air-to-air of high intensity--provided your mission was 1-v-1. If your 140 hours was ten monthly cross-country flights, droning along from A to B, you probably won't be combat effective. And, a lot would depend upon your innate talent. If you were a "natural" you could be a lot more "current" than if you were a bit ham-handed. Fly your 140 hours in a three month period and you'll be very good at the end of the period. Then, you can come back up to speed quite quickly when you resume next year. Fly your 140 hours at 12 hours/month, two 1.5 hour flights per week, and you'll just barely be minimum qualified unless you've got a backlog of experience to draw upon. IMHO. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
AF investigators cite pilot error in fighter crash | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 9th 04 09:55 PM |
Questions Regarding Becoming a Marine Fighter Pilot. ? Thanks! | Lee Shores | Military Aviation | 23 | December 11th 03 10:49 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Effect of Light Sport on General Aviation | Gilan | Home Built | 17 | September 24th 03 06:11 AM |