Best "trainer" jet in DCS

[Mars Exulte]

T-45 Goshawk, no question. It has no weapons, but best for overall learning.

[lmp]

F-15C or A-10A perhaps? No FBW but at the same time no real quirks in the FM. All the modern aids are there (HUD and flight path marker mainly), but at the same time the simple avionics won't distract from the flying. The Viper can be tricky during takeoffs and landings. The Hornet is easier if you insist on a full fidelity module, but the trimming logic doesn't carry over to other planes.

[Dragon1-1]

F-15C is an FC3 module, and therefore a bad introduction to DCS. Plus, it has a big disadvantage of being keyboard-operated, which means remembering a lot of keystrokes unless you have a HOTAS that can take them all. Most of those functions are on clickable switches in FF modules, which means they're often easier to learn. 

[draconus]

On 7/27/2023 at 7:09 PM, razorseal said:

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

Because it was a good mod for a long time before going official.

My answer - other: Su-25T but really no trainer is needed in simulation world.

[Dragon1-1]

Su-25T is terrible. Flies like a pig, FC3, and looks really dated on top of that. If it wasn't free, nobody would've bought it. It's a good enough combat jet, but a poor introduction to DCS, mostly on account of not being all that fun to fly.

[Hiob]

C-101 is a good choice, for its exceptional simulation of systems (and system failures).

[MAXsenna]

C-101 is a good choice, for its exceptional simulation of systems (and system failures).

And superb training missions. The instructor really hates me.
The Su-25T is a great module IMHO, especially with FFB, but it lacks quite a few features, like dual wheelbrake axis etc. And I agree, it's not a great trainer, but it was kinda fun as my introduction to DCS, though one needs a HOTAS which I kind of didn't have at the time. Only my old TM game port one.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Slippa]

I discovered the T-45 Goshawk not long ago and tried it out.

It’s a jet trainer, carrier capable and simple to fly. Really well done little mod I reckon. Multiplayer as well I think?

[DD_Friar]

As somebody posted, in DCS if you crash, you hit re-fly, you do not die.

Rather than buying a module to learn in, I support the above post suggesting the T-45, plus its free.

It can be used in Multiplayer providing the server has it as well.

Over at the Dangerdogz we have it as part of our "must have" mods to get onto our server.

If you are a new pilot and looking for a DCS squad that has UK and North American elements, drop by and say hello

www.dangerdogz.com

[MAXsenna]

@Schlingel mit Kringel
Actually, the MiGs have the brake lever on the stick. The Sus have ordinary brake pedals. For some reason ED left them out for the 25s, while the 27 and 33 have them.
Cheers!

EDIT: And the T-45 is an excellent choice. 

 

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Edited February 11, 2024 by MAXsenna
Added text and corrected grammar.

[Dragon1-1]

6 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

For the wheel brakes in the Su-25: that is a soviet thing, i do not think any russian plane got rudder pedal (left/right) brakes. All a single handle on the flight stick.

That is true for many Russian fighters, but ironically not for Su-25, which has Western-style toe brakes. The Soviets tested the F-5 they got from Vietnam around the time it was developed and the brakes was one thing they really liked. The real Su-25T retained the system, though ours does not have separate toe brakes. The paid Su-25 does.

Amusingly, the previous Russian aircraft to feature toe brakes was the I-16, where they were not hydraulic but purely mechanical, like a bicycle brake (the thing was notorious for having weak brakes, not that this was a bad thing in a taildragger). They switched to pneumatic brakes around WWII and have kept them for a long time, with Sukhoi and Tupolev eventually going back to toe brakes with hydraulics. MiGs use pneumatics with a shared lever to this day.

Edited February 11, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[MAXsenna]

@Dragon1-1 Oh, I thought both the 25s didn't have them. Kewl!

[MAXsenna]

and @Dragon1-1
Oh weeh, shame on me! You are right To my defense: i usually fly the Su-25a only and stick to the MiG-29 otherwise, guess that missing 25 axis tricked me. Rarely sit in the 27 or 33. Is there a bug report for that missing axis on the 25? Got to bump or create!

Yeah, brake axis have been requested in wishlists.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[HiJack]

T-45 is a great free addition. No payed content needed so great for new players.

[Bananabrai]

Did anyone keep track which of the trainers (MB-339, C-101, L-39, Yak-52) is at least patched on a regular basis? To me it seems like all those “side” aircraft are abandoned more or less. 

But to be honest I also always forget to pay attention to them when I read the patch notes. 
 

Edit:

Going back the last couple of patches, seems like the C-101 is still updated on a regular basis:
DCS 2.9.19.13478, DCS 2.9.18.12722, DCS 2.9.17.11733

The Yak got a little fix as well once:

DCS 2.9.17.12034

Edited 2 hours ago by Bananabrai

[Ala13_ManOWar]

10 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

Did anyone keep track which of the trainers (MB-339, C-101, L-39, Yak-52) is at least patched on a regular basis? To me it seems like all those “side” aircraft are abandoned more or less. 

But to be honest I also always forget to pay attention to them when I read the patch notes. 

C101 is quite regularly patched, fixed, and enhanced in a regular basis if you look at the changelogs every DCS patch. Anywhere near abandoned whatsoever, mate.

Edited 2 hours ago by Ala13_ManOWar

[Bananabrai]

3 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

C101 is quite regularly patched, fixed, and enhanced in a regular basis if you look at the changelogs every DCS patch. Anywhere near abandoned whatsoever, mate.

Just checked it, thanks. Was hoping the 339 is also patched regularly, didn’t check too far into the past. 

[Rudel_chw]

9 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

Did anyone keep track which of the trainers (MB-339, C-101, L-39, Yak-52) is at least patched on a regular basis? To me it seems like all those “side” aircraft are abandoned more or less. 

 

So, you are saying that a DCS Module can never be "completed" .. it's either being "patched" or is "abandoned"   ?

I own and have flown all four of these Modules, and to me they are mature modules that can be flown and enjoyed, and I feel that I've got my money's worth out of them over all the years that I've had them on my hangar, the last being the 339.

[twicesss]

I’d say the F-5 is the best “trainer-style” jet in DCS.
It feels like a real tactical aircraft — simple enough to learn, but still gives you proper systems, good speed, and great handling. You can practice everything from basic flying to real combat tactics, so it actually teaches skills you can carry over to other jets. Overall, it’s the most complete and rewarding option.
Personally, in my opinion

 

 

 

[Rudel_chw]

To me, a trainer must be two seat capable, so that a more experienced pilot can instruct the beginner.

[d0ppler]

Since this is a simulator, I don't necessarily think that a trainer in DCS needs to have 2 seats, even tho it "breaks the immersion" a bit. The F-5 is pretty damn close to the standard trainer T-38 Talon they use at Sheppard AFB,  apart from the two seats on the T-38 and the gun in front of the F-5. So I would say the F-5 is a perfect trainer in DCS.

With that said, the L-39, MB-339, C-101 and T-45 are all perfect trainers as well.

[Hiob]

7 minutes ago, d0ppler said:

Since this is a simulator, I don't necessarily think that a trainer in DCS needs to have 2 seats, even tho it "breaks the immersion" a bit. The F-5 is pretty damn close to the standard trainer T-38 Talon they use at Sheppard AFB,  apart from the two seats on the T-38 and the gun in front of the F-5. So I would say the F-5 is a perfect trainer in DCS.

With that said, the L-39, MB-339, C-101 and T-45 are all perfect trainers as well.

Correct.

However, when talked about a "Trainer" aircraft, usually a two seater like the C101 is meant.

Of course in a simulator environment you don't need go through classical training. It can be advantageous though.

@OP, if I had to pick one. The C-101 would be my pick. Because it is very lovely, well put together simulation.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hiob

[draconus]

If one goes the trainer path he should take into consideration their final combat aircraft. So for example for USN they better take T-45 or A-4, for USAF the F-5, for PVO/VVS the L-39.

[Ornithopter]

45 minutes ago, draconus said:

If one goes the trainer path he should take into consideration their final combat aircraft. So for example for USN they better take T-45 or A-4, for USAF the F-5, for PVO/VVS the L-39.

But in a game though, what is the "final combat aircraft?".  Unless somebody is in some really rigid Milsim squad, I think most people who have already attained generic skills desire to fly a lot of different aircraft in DCS.  Obviously they are going to be especially good in some planes, but if you have attained the generic skills, you really ought to be able to pick up any FF module and learn it.

If I were trying to go down a simulated Western training pipeline, I'd probably do something like:  C-101--->F-5--->and then whatever front line FF aircraft one chooses to fly after learning their initial skills.  If you have the basic flying and navigational skills, and are ready to be a carrier pilot, there is no problem at all with something like the Tomcat/Hornet being the first time you land on a carrier, and I don't really see the need to get some free mod to do the T-45 or A-4  versus one of the official DCS trainers. 

 

Edited 36 minutes ago by Ornithopter