is there any benefit to buying a trainer

[SharpeXB]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207194

 

 

I think it will sell really good since it will be the most modern eastern aircraft we will have.

Well it’s not a trainer! :thumbup:

[Zoomer]

Is there any benefit to buying the L-39 or the C-101 and if so which is the better of the two ?

 

Id also like to bring up the topic of a carrier capable trainer

 

Depends what modules you already have. The C-101 is the best of the two imo. Better loadout options inc. anti shipping, and very well done. If you can wait for a 50% sale they are both worth the price, if not, go with the C-101. The Mirage etc. are more capable obviously for the money with the F/A-18 worth every penny at full price.

[SatThuVoBui]

I bought the L-39 because the ZA model is in service with the Syrian Arab Air Force. Just because an aircraft is labeled "trainer" does not mean you cannot simulate combat with it.

[msalama]

As I've said countless times before, the ZA model is not just a trainer but an excellent light attack / COIN platform as well. And as such, a great addition to any DCS ground pounder's hangar.

[Dehuman]

And here we have the two camps of DCS

 

Those that just love the challenge of flight, be it aerobatic or combat.

 

And those that want hi-fi ace combat

[Voodoo_One]

And here we have the two camps of DCS

Those that just love the challenge of flight, be it aerobatic or combat. And those that want hi-fi ace combat

Yeah - I loke both worlds. The truth (As always) lies between

[firmek]

Not very exciting...

Digital Training Simulator? :sleep:

You know that the "training" is kind of by default embedded in "simulator" word ;)

 

Anyway, you may not like the trainers and only see a reason for the newest and most complex jets. The fact is that answer to the OP question "is there any benefit to buying a trainer" is yes. None of the developers would invest time to develop something that they would not be able to sell. Neither ED or 3'rd party are running a charity. There is a business case behind such planes as there are people that are able to put them to a good use or just simply have a great time flying them. This even includes MP like a BF where guys fly trainers and put them to a good use for a benefit of a whole team rather than jumping into a modern most complex F-18 just to quickly flip few switches and run into a constant pointless air-quake around Sochi.

I wouldn't be also surprised that the revenue gain from a relatively simple trainer/light attack plane is much better than investment needed to develop a complex 4th gen multi-role fighter. If you don't remember, someone had actually approached ED and invested to get a Yak 52 developed. For sure they had a good reasons behind it and didn't spend considerable amount of money just for an amusement. Again this clearly illustrates that there are benefits from trainers in DCS. Especially if you want to go deeper and use DCS as a study sim. Whether you like it or not or whether you deliberately try to neglect this fact.

[SharpeXB]

None of the developers would invest time to develop something that they would not be able to sell.

Hawk... :cry:

 

Especially if you want to go deeper and use DCS as a study sim.

My signature bar... :music_whistling:

Edited January 29, 2019 by SharpeXB

[Rudel_chw]

Not very exciting...

Digital Training Simulator? :sleep:

 

 

OK, I've come to the conclusion that this guy is really a troll .. thank god there exists the Ignore list .. hasta la vista nene.

[Varis]

Easy to learn and you can participate in low intensity / COIN scenarios unlike if you buy say F-5 (trainer/ground attack).

 

Of course the other option would be historic aircraft (Mig-15) or helicopters. Depends on what you prefer.

 

The L-39 is a very mature module with nice features, C-101 just recently got weapons but it sounds like it will be quite nice as well. Hawk had the best performance for a "pure" trainer but the story was quite sad.

 

Instead of trainer aircraft they should have put their resources in spotter aircraft like the OV-10 Bronco.

 

Christen Eagle and P-51 anyone? :lol:

[Pikey]

I think the "Trainer" word is clearly emotive for some.

 

 

For training, the use of other people and decent training plans is going to have the most use on your flying effectiveness, as well as stick time with the aircraft you are trying to learn.

 

 

I actually haven't ever found a real use for Trainers, and have owned and flown them all. What I did find, flying all the modules is that learning the next one was easier, finding the common themes where they existed. The actually civilian lessons systems in other sims served better for civilian training, and I think there's a lot missing in DCS of general Aviation best practice. You can learn that in anything, but you have to do your own work.

 

As folks said, the modules each are excellent and everyone has their favourites. Personally the free TF-51 is a great plane to tech props and some GA. The F-5 is a good one as a simple plane. I still think if you are heading to a more complex modern modules like Harrier or Hornet, then get it and study GA and buy what interests you.

[Kev2go]

Easy to learn and you can participate in low intensity / COIN scenarios unlike if you buy say F-5 (trainer/ground attack).

 

Of course the other option would be historic aircraft (Mig-15) or helicopters. Depends on what you prefer.

 

The L-39 is a very mature module with nice features, C-101 just recently got weapons but it sounds like it will be quite nice as well. Hawk had the best performance for a "pure" trainer but the story was quite sad.

 

 

 

Christen Eagle and P-51 anyone? :lol:

 

the F5E isnt a trainer or even a pure ground attack plane.....

 

 

Its an inexpensive " no Frills" lightweight tactical fighter for nations that wanted a budget tactical fighter, to augment their more expnsive A/C fleets like the F4 or couldn't can afford an aircraft like F4 at all.

 

You dont need a "trainer" or light attack" version of a trainer for COIN/ low intensity scearios. Syrians have used Mig21's for exactly that role, or how respective US aviation branches used anything from A10's to F16s to Strike Eagles, to Hornet's in low intensity conflicts in Afghanistan or the Air war against ISIL.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Kev2go

[chaser]

After spending some time with the 101 its a great little aircraft, its pretty analog and very much hands on

Im enjoying it

[msalama]

You dont need a "trainer" or light attack" version of a trainer for COIN/ low intensity scearios.

 

And you don't need DCS either. If you've got shelter, heat and nutrition, you're set. Everything else is superfluous.

 

The thing is, some folks prefer these machines, because they're fun. And if you can't wrap your head around that - as it seems - your problem, not ours.

[kontiuka]

And you don't need DCS either. If you've got shelter, heat and nutrition, you're set. Everything else is superfluous.

 

The thing is, some folks prefer these machines, because they're fun.

Exactly. It's all about the type of experience you want to have. Some people are rotor heads. Some people like the war birds. Some people like the high tech stuff. And weird people like me like being the underdog in a casually-powered (to quote a Mudspike review) trainer jet like the C-101.

 

Sure, you can do pretty much everything in an F-18 that you can in a trainer, but practicing flight fundamentals just seems more "genuine" in a trainer. Something very satisfying to me about properly setting up your NAV radios, setting up your course lines, making sure your HSI is properly aligned and your gyro erected, struggling to keep a set altitude, making sure you don't exceed engine temp. Then there's the combat part. I get a lot more of a thrill when I get a bomb delivery just right through proper speed, dive angle, and sight depression.

[msalama]

+1

[Ahmed]

In my opinion a trainer is not really needed as this is a simulation, as others pointed out, and some of the reasons they are required in real life do not apply here.

 

On the other hand, a trainer aircraft also provides a simpler airframe to learn basic admin/monkey skills and I have to say that I have seen lots of videos on youtube of people who really master the switchology and combat employment of the airplanes but lack basic stick and rudder skills (more evident on landings and especially carrier traps at the end of those videos).

 

So I guess it depends. If you need to improve admin flying then a trainer may be useful as a stepping stone and a fun new aircraft to learn and fly. If not, I don't think it is worth the money investment and I'd recommend going straight to a complex module.

[chaser]

[quote name=

 

The thing is, some folks prefer these machines, because they're fun. And if you can't wrap your head around that - as it seems - your problem, not ours.

 

 

who said it was a problem I was simply asking a question to the community thats all :)

[Cake]

Sure, you can do pretty much everything in an F-18 that you can in a trainer, but practicing flight fundamentals just seems more "genuine" in a trainer. Something very satisfying to me about properly setting up your NAV radios, setting up your course lines, making sure your HSI is properly aligned and your gyro erected, struggling to keep a set altitude, making sure you don't exceed engine temp.

 

I'm on the same page, but to push a little more, there is a lot that you cannot learn in a fly-by-wire aircraft. There is a lot you cannot learn in a turbojet aircraft. The best aviators are usually students of everything related to flying.

 

Many in this community are students and enthusiasts of aviation. Some want to jump into a DCS plane and experience P-factor, torque, and spiraling slipstream. Some want fly airplanes that require more careful energy management. Some probably want to fly gliders.

 

We all have our own reasons for flying in DCS and our own wish list for the next aircraft.

 

Each time a developer puts out a properly completed new aircraft, it's a win for the community. It builds the DCS player base and opens new possibilities for the future.

 

The community is bigger than any one of us or any subset of us.

[Svsmokey]

Some probably want to fly gliders..

 

Well said , but we prefer to call them sailplanes :)

[Varis]

the F5E isnt a trainer or even a pure ground attack plane.....

 

 

Its an inexpensive " no Frills" lightweight tactical fighter for nations that wanted a budget tactical fighter, to augment their more expnsive A/C fleets like the F4 or couldn't can afford an aircraft like F4 at all.

 

You dont need a "trainer" or light attack" version of a trainer for COIN/ low intensity scearios. Syrians have used Mig21's for exactly that role, or how respective US aviation branches used anything from A10's to F16s to Strike Eagles, to Hornet's in low intensity conflicts in Afghanistan or the Air war against ISIL.

 

Seems it all depends if you want to consider DCS gameplay or how things are in reality (and often not fully modelled in the game by a long stretch). Also whether you want to play multiplayer or single player. You can refer to this classification: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225516

 

In the end it becomes pretty much a moot argument when you are playing a sandbox game :music_whistling:

[Cake]

Well said , but we prefer to call them sailplanes :)

 

Right on. I've never flown a sailplane, but I can tell you that I've instructed and given flight checks to those who have and they perform much better when they lose their engine.

[msalama]

who said it was a problem I was simply asking a question to the community thats al

 

Wasn't you who said it was a problem and I wasn't even replying to you, but certain other individuals here don't seem to grasp that some folks like to fly them for fun. And find COIN ops in them great fun as well, compared to, say, flying that same stuff in a Hornet.

[River]

Both trainers are an absolute joy to fly if you already have some other modules and are into collecting more aircraft. For people short on funds maybe not the best option as they do lack combat capability air to air and air to ground.

It is a blast hunting light ground targets and do some coin with them though. Highly recommended !

 

And be aware, people voting against those trainers often just do not own them ;-)

Edited February 2, 2019 by River

[firmek]

...

And be aware, people voting against those trainers often just do not own them ;-)

+1