Best "trainer" jet in DCS

[razorseal]

If I wanted to teach a friend basic flight and teach about flight dynamics and all that jazz.... What would you reccomend? 

 

I thought F5 would be good (similar to T38)... 

Or maybe the L39 or MB339 with slower speeds and are actual training jets.

None of them have gotten any love lately either with possibility of F5 getting a make over soon (who knows when) so they are pretty dated jets for DCS, but I think trying to teach someone in a F16 or a similar jet is kind of hard. at that point, you're learning more systems than anything else. not how to taxi, take off, landing, flaps, aoa etc.

 

edit to add - Just realized MB339 is less than a year old lol. I thought it was a pretty old DCS jet

Edited July 27, 2023 by razorseal

[Tom Kazansky]

It's just not fair not to add the C-101EB. Lovely little thing. Well made for DCS.

[MAXsenna]

I would go with the MB-339, (which was a free community module before they went 3rd party), or the C-101, personally. But the L-39, does have an excellent training campaign though.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[some1]

You might have been thinking abiut C101, which  is more mature than mb339 and I think is the best trainer in DCS. The MB339 still has some bugs and missing features that make instrument flying much worse than it should be.

L39 has russian instruments so it's hardly a trainer for an F16.

Edited July 27, 2023 by some1

[razorseal]

8 minutes ago, some1 said:

You might have been thinking abiut C101, which  is more mature than mb339 and I think is the best trainer in DCS. The MB339 still has some bugs and missing features that make instrument flying much worse than it should be.

L39 has russian instruments so it's hardly a trainer for an F16.

 

Yeah, after I posted I thought how L39 is not western, and instruments are very different.

 

I thought C101 was no longer supported, I might have mixed it up with another jet.

 

Hell, even the A4 community plane. it's just too nimble and insane roll rate for a new pilot though lol

[Tom Kazansky]

3 minutes ago, razorseal said:

I thought C101 was no longer supported, I might have mixed it up with another jet.

Yeah, you mixed it up with the Hawk.

The C-101 is still supported with passion.

[razorseal]

4 minutes ago, Tom Kazansky said:

Yeah, you mixed it up with the Hawk.

The C-101 is still supported with passion.

 

Added it to the poll

Edited July 27, 2023 by razorseal

[razorseal]

29 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I would go with the MB-339, (which was a free community module before they went 3rd party), or the C-101, personally. But the L-39, does have an excellent training campaign though.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I remember that. when it came out, it was advertised (the training campaign) to be great for training basic flight.

 

I wish the other trainer jets had some training campaigns.

[SharpeXB]

Game players don’t need to train in trainer aircraft. The real world reasons why trainers exist aren’t present in a game. You can kill yourself and crash your multimillion dollar jet into the carrier here as many times as you like. For a new player, a trainer module is just another aircraft they’d have to buy and learn and one that’s probably less exciting. If you want to train yourself in a Hornet or an F-16 go right ahead. 

[Mr_sukebe]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Game players don’t need to train in trainer aircraft. The real world reasons why trainers exist aren’t present in a game. You can kill yourself and crash your multimillion dollar jet into the carrier here as many times as you like. For a new player, a trainer module is just another aircraft they’d have to buy and learn and one that’s probably less exciting. If you want to train yourself in a Hornet or an F-16 go right ahead. 

agreed.

If you both want to experience the use of a trainer aircraft, then I’ll happily vote for the CC101, but really, it’s not needed.

[razorseal]

34 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Game players don’t need to train in trainer aircraft. The real world reasons why trainers exist aren’t present in a game. You can kill yourself and crash your multimillion dollar jet into the carrier here as many times as you like. For a new player, a trainer module is just another aircraft they’d have to buy and learn and one that’s probably less exciting. If you want to train yourself in a Hornet or an F-16 go right ahead. 

I agree (mostly) and disagree.

There are few ways you can play DCS. as a sim or a game. it then branches out as a weapons platform sim vs flight sim.

for people who want to just go blow stuff up, it sorta works. kinda weird to use 99% realism to blow stuff up when war thunder is around and does a pretty good job. that's my opinion.

Then there are some like me who isn't into the full start up shut down, but enjoy the simulation of systems with an accurate flight model who understands principals of flight as a real world GA & former commercial pilot.

and some that like full realism with squadrons etc. that's not me, but it is some.

 

Tying to teach someone who to "fly" planes in this game is weird. like you said, go fly it yourself... if you crash you just press fly again. plenty of youtube videos. that's how I teach myself systems.

 

that being said, there are few people here (i have seen one recently I wanted to help) that said "hello, i'm new to flying and don't know anything about flying. I got the F16 to fly... can someone teach me to fly the f16?". well. the F16 is a fast jet. things happen very fast, and if someone wants to learn to fly, it helps to be in something bit slower and not fly by wire so you understand how it all works. just makes a better aviator.

 

but if you want to just war thunder it out, go get in, try to figure it you and you'll be aight.

 

I was asking for people who would want to understand flight a bit better. like teaching a new student.

Edited July 27, 2023 by razorseal

[razorseal]

another quick food for thought...

 

THere is a 2 week trial for these jets. in our sim world, all you really need is probably a few hours with the person you're trying to explain flight basics to so they have an idea.

 

so honestly you don't even need to buy it.

[SharpeXB]

48 minutes ago, razorseal said:

can someone teach me to fly the f16?". well. the F16 is a fast jet. things happen very fast, and if someone wants to learn to fly, it helps to be in something bit slower and not fly by wire so you understand how it all works. just makes a better aviator

You do realize this is a game right? All the things that are very important in real life just don’t apply here. Sure eventually players might like to make things very realistic on themselves but a new player would get bored very quickly if they approached this like real world flight training. They probably want to just shoot something first. And that’s ok. Whatever keeps you motivated.

[Dragon1-1]

52 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

All the things that are very important in real life just don’t apply here. 

Except they do, and if you start your learning with the F-16, you'll have no idea what or why they are important. FBW hides a lot of subtler aerodynamic behaviors from you, but they're still simulated, and can still trip you up. Learning a non-FBW aircraft first makes you a better pilot, because now you understand what's going on. Yes, of course you can fly and drop JDAMs without it. So can a trained monkey, by the pilots' own admission. If you're going to move beyond "throwing poop and pickling" and actually learn to fly the Viper, you can benefit from starting out in a trainer. 

I'd say the F-5 is pretty great, very American, and analog enough to be good for flight training, even though visuals are a bit raw. Now, the bombsight is a little too analog, CCIP takes most of the skill out of dive bombing, but it's got automatic flaps (that you can still control by hand to see what they do), it's got a basic radar and heaters, and it's really gentle unless you disengage the roll limiter. It's rather underpowered, so you need to learn energy management (key to being good in the Viper). At the same time it's got enough nose authority to either get you out of trouble or into it, and no FBW to compensate for your mistakes, so you have to learn not to make them. Viper is great for fighting, but if you don't understand it, you won't be getting the most out of it.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'd say the F-5 is pretty great

Yeah but if you really want to play F-16 then just go fly an F-16. It’s a game, really… If that’s what’s exciting to a new player there’s no reason not to just do that. Most people are limited in the time they have for these things and learning several aircraft just isn’t practical. So just stick with the one you want to fly. It’s ok. 

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Except they do

They really don’t. In the real world first line fighters are dangerous and expensive to operate. In a game you can wear them out, wreck them and kill yourself as much as you like. In the real world people’s lives depend on the pilot being an expert. In a game it’s ok if you suck at it. We can all be amateurs here. No point in taking it that seriously. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

In the real world first line fighters are dangerous and expensive to operate.

Expensive, yes, dangerous, no. The F-16 holds your hand so much that a kid can fly it, Iron Eagle style (I was flying serious Viper sims at 14 or so, with little trouble). WWII fighters could be dangerous, and Korea-era jets outright wanted to kill you, but that is not the case with modern jets, and it hasn't been since the 70s. So stop hiding behind "it's just a game" excuse, because it's a complex one, and learning to get the most of your aircraft really helps get the most out of (non-inconsiderable) amount of money you have to pay for it. That's why a trainer is useful. 

It's not about crashing a cheaper aircraft in training, nor is it even about crashing an expensive one - you're less likely to crash an F-16 than an F-5 IRL, because the former is so much easier to fly. Landing is another matter, but as long as you keep crosswinds low, the Viper is pretty easy to put down, too, and the FPM really helps compared to the F-5. Pretty much the only thing that the Viper can do to you is the deep stall, and it takes more effort to get into it than to get out, in most configurations at least. And that's exactly the problem, if you get no time in a less advanced fighter, you won't appreciate what the Viper does for you, and why. Unless you're happy with moving mud, I'd recommend the F-5 just to learn how a fighter behaves without all this fancy FBW. I'm not saying you can't understand the Viper by reading about how and why it does things, but it's so much easier with some hands-on experience in a non-FBW aircraft.

If it had proper tutorials included, the A-4 would've made for a nice trainer, for the same reasons (plus it's free). Lack of them is really the only reason why I wouldn't recommend it. The others mostly make sense if you like flying in multicrew, with a real instructor in the backseat. The A-4 and F-5 are particularly nice because they can hold their own in a dogfight, and if you buy the F-5, you can get some mileage out of it on Cold War servers (plus, it's a just plain nice aircraft to fly, and you can get a big discount on a sale).

[TheFreshPrince]

I dont know about the other planes, but the L39 allows you to train instrument flights, which can be really helpful and is stressful at the same time. I started off with FC3 and then I trialed the L-39 and it gave me a much better understanding and feeling of actually flying a plane and having to rely on instruments and analog navigation, etc. I then stepped into the Hornet and although you have to learn all those buttons and functions, it's much easier to fly. Modern fighter jets take control over so many things and make it so much easier with all the displays, FCS, GPS, etc. it's just not the same. It's a bit like the difference between a modern car with all those features and assistants versus a young- or oldtimer, which you actually have to drive yourself.

[razorseal]

14 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You do realize this is a game right? All the things that are very important in real life just don’t apply here. Sure eventually players might like to make things very realistic on themselves but a new player would get bored very quickly if they approached this like real world flight training. They probably want to just shoot something first. And that’s ok. Whatever keeps you motivated.

To each their own. We can have disagreements on some things lol. 

Many ways to approach this game or sim or whatever you wanna call it. Pretty sure it's called dcs not dcg

 

I would bet my left nut f16 and a10 students (even maybe f18 and other jets) from air force academies in this world use this "game" to practice maneuvers and systems.

 

How do I know? Back over a decade ago when I got my IFR rating, I practiced hold patterns (before glass cockpits were a thing) using vor needles and HSIs on Microsoft flight sim on a similar Cessna that I flew.

 

 

[MAXsenna]

@TheFreshPrince
All trainers have a "hood" for IFR training.

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

So stop hiding behind "it's just a game" excuse, because it's a complex one, and learning to get the most of your aircraft really helps get the most out of (non-inconsiderable) amount of money you have to pay for it. That's why a trainer is useful.

In DCS I can do AAR, Carrier landings, handle warbirds, ACM, instrument flying etc. all the difficult tasks, with many different modules. I never touched a DCS Trainer module. And prior to DCS I had just about zero knowledge of flying or aircraft nor am I a RW pilot. I pretty much learned on the A-10C. It’s really impractical advice to tell a new player that they need to train on a trainer. In the end it just means having to learn another aircraft which has limited gameplay potential in a combat oriented game. Plus it’s not a good use of the limited time most people have for gaming. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by SharpeXB

[probad]

gatekeepers itt

Edited July 28, 2023 by probad

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

I'd say it depends on what your friends wants to get out of DCS.
I always loved the L-39 but it's quite dated now and long overdue of re-texturing to support DCS 2.5+

But things always improve and not just in an eye-candy way, so perhaps one of the recent trainers such as the C-101 or MB-339 is the best option here, IF you want a dedicated trainer aircraft.
If it's just about easing your friend into DCS, you can't go wrong with the F-5 (which is also in dire need of re-texturing and remodelling of the cockpit to make the dimensions correct for VR).

[razorseal]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

In DCS I can do AAR, Carrier landings, handle warbirds, ACM, instrument flying etc. all the difficult tasks, with many different modules. I never touched a DCS Trainer module. And prior to DCS I had just about zero knowledge of flying or aircraft nor am I a RW pilot. I pretty much learned on the A-10C. It’s really impractical advice to tell a new player that they need to train on a trainer. In the end it just means having to learn another aircraft which has limited gameplay potential in a combat oriented game. Plus it’s not a good use of the limited time most people have for gaming. 

 

 

so you learned on a slow moving non fbw plane.

 

Thanks. lol

[SharpeXB]

45 minutes ago, razorseal said:

 

so you learned on a slow moving non fbw plane.

 

Thanks. lol

I fly all the warbirds too, so… lots of different sims now. My first sim was actually RoF but the WWI planes are so wonky they hardly apply to anything here. Plus they really have no systems.

[Dragon1-1]

WWI aircraft are pretty conductive to learning props, prior to transitioning to warbirds. You have to use rudder and ailerons to turn, you have to learn to counter propeller torque and, in reality, gyro effects (notably absent from ROF, which makes both Sopwitch Camel and the Dr.I lose their infamous handling quirks). They're also slow and some examples are, save for lack of trim, surprisingly benign in handling, exaggerated by ROF FMs being somewhat simplified, same level as the other WWII sim. So, you did have what is very much a trainer experience in this case.

Also, systems are largely irrelevant to learning to fly, unless it's something like Tomcat's swing wings, which impact flight characteristics quite a bit. In fact, the A-10 is a perfectly workable trainer, although its systems can be overwhelming at first, it's got a lot of stuff going on with the MFDs. The ship itself, though, is really gentle, slow and well-behaved aircraft, while at the same time it has no FBW. There's SAS and PAC, but those are just assists (trainers often have those, too), controls are still regular hydraulics. In fact, given the Iron Flag campaign available for it, as well as fairly complete training missions, I could recommend it as a trainer. The only problem with it is that it bleeds energy even worse than the F-5, and doesn't have its nose authority, so it's not very helpful if you want to practice air combat.