Best "trainer" jet in DCS

[Ornithopter]

Seems like the C-101 is the community favorite according to the poll.   I agree.  It's a great plane whether one uses it as an actual trainer or as a light attack plane.

3 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

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

But in practice, I would think a lot of people learn the basics of DCS offline, before they even consider taking it into multiplayer, and before they even have a passing aquaintance with anyone else playing the game.  To that end, a second seat only matters if you have another human being to crew up with. Otherwise it's just an empty seat. 

 

[Rudel_chw]

44 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

But in practice, I would think a lot of people learn the basics of DCS offline, before they even consider taking it into multiplayer, and before they even have a passing aquaintance with anyone else playing the game. 

 

I agree, I learned the basics on the Su-25T over a decade ago, but as the topic is about "best trainer" I will stick with my requisite of two seats 

,

44 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

To that end, a second seat only matters if you have another human being to crew up with. Otherwise it's just an empty seat. 

I matters to users that belong to virtual squadrons, or even to those users that are being introduced to dcs by a more experienced friend where they would do MP without a public server

[Hiob]

Again, that‘s nothing to be dogmatic about, but just as food for thought:

Trainers are not only trainers, because they have a second cockpit, but also, because they have manageable performance, are usually not FBW (so that they offer very „basic“ stick and rudder experience to build fundamental skills etc….

 

[Ornithopter]

This is just my late night opinion, after having a few drinks, but the F-5E and the C-101 aircraft couldn't be more opposite in flying character.  The C-101 is like you're floating in the air, and couldn't be more docile.  The F-5E, by contrast is "oh F***, I'm behind the power curve!".

So I think if you want to become an F-14 or MiG-29 pilot, and fly a very capable pussycat of a fighter, then the C-101 would be the closest trainer in handling.  If you want to fly a brick like the Phantom II, and don't mind dying a lot during final approach, on your way to getting good, emphasize the F-5!

[Bananabrai]

Interesting thoughts. I’ll give the 101 and maybe the 339 another go. My boys and me are mostly doing/trying milsim if anything.

Ideally I would like to offer the whole lot (again), BFT/IFT on the YaK, BQT on the 101 or 339, IFF would be 100% on the F1BE for me (it’s just so much better suited for training than the F-5, in any regard), and then the B-Course on anything. ATM we’re doing a B-Course on the Hornet.

But having resources for the whole lot is so difficult. I offered an IFT some years ago on the YaK, but instructors are rare, I did mostly everything alone and people went away after some BQT sorties on the 101, as I had to jump between the yak and the vacuum cleaner. Plus multi crew sync was really s… for years in the Yak. That much in terms of complete vs patched vs abandoned… 

We tried the 339 two tears ago. They took ages to fix bugs as well. We kept using the 101 then. 
Maybe we should do a GT, lets ask @OPEC again XD.

[Hiob]

8 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

Interesting thoughts. I’ll give the 101 and maybe the 339 another go. My boys and me are mostly doing/trying milsim if anything.

Ideally I would like to offer the whole lot (again), BFT/IFT on the YaK, BQT on the 101 or 339, IFF would be 100% on the F1BE for me (it’s just so much better suited for training than the F-5, in any regard), and then the B-Course on anything. ATM we’re doing a B-Course on the Hornet.

But having resources for the whole lot is so difficult. I offered an IFT some years ago on the YaK, but instructors are rare, I did mostly everything alone and people went away after some BQT sorties on the 101, as I had to jump between the yak and the vacuum cleaner. Plus multi crew sync was really s… for years in the Yak. That much in terms of complete vs patched vs abandoned… 

We tried the 339 two tears ago. They took ages to fix bugs as well. We kept using the 101 then. 
Maybe we should do a GT, lets ask @OPEC again XD.

The free T-45 could also be an option. It literally IS a navy trainer.... (and therefore carrier capable, which the others are not)

 

[Bananabrai]

23 minutes ago, Hiob said:

The free T-45 could also be an option. It literally IS a navy trainer.... (and therefore carrier capable, which the others are not)

 

Thanks mate, although we’re not using the Hornet for NAVY purpose, but will go for the Typhoon when it drops. 
We are doing RCAF Germany style field ops in EDAM. EDAL is sadly not in yet.

[Hiob]

54 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

Thanks mate, although we’re not using the Hornet for NAVY purpose, but will go for the Typhoon when it drops. 
We are doing RCAF Germany style field ops in EDAM. EDAL is sadly not in yet.

Then I would definitely go for the C-101. It has one caviat though - it has no AP, only FD. IFR can therefore be very exhausting.

(that would be a point for the MB-339 when I think about it. But the systems failure simulation is the real crown jewel of the C-101 if that is your cup of tea.)

[Beirut]

I'm a big fan of the L-39. The C-101 gets a lot of love on a regular basis and might be a better module, but I enjoy the L-39 more. Just threw in the NS430 and I like the way it sits in the instrument panel, as if it belongs right there. I have the MB-339 in the civvy sim and I really like it, but not so much in DCS, not sure why.

 

For me: L-39 FTW! 

[Ornithopter]

13 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

Interesting thoughts. I’ll give the 101 and maybe the 339 another go. My boys and me are mostly doing/trying milsim if anything.

Ideally I would like to offer the whole lot (again), BFT/IFT on the YaK, BQT on the 101 or 339, IFF would be 100% on the F1BE for me (it’s just so much better suited for training than the F-5, in any regard), and then the B-Course on anything. ATM we’re doing a B-Course on the Hornet.

But having resources for the whole lot is so difficult. I offered an IFT some years ago on the YaK, but instructors are rare, I did mostly everything alone and people went away after some BQT sorties on the 101, as I had to jump between the yak and the vacuum cleaner. Plus multi crew sync was really s… for years in the Yak. That much in terms of complete vs patched vs abandoned… 

We tried the 339 two tears ago. They took ages to fix bugs as well. We kept using the 101 then. 
Maybe we should do a GT, lets ask @OPEC again XD.

 

You used too many acronyms, so I don't quite understand all the things you said.  However, you do mention the Mirage F1BE.  The OP probably should have added the Mirage F1BE to his original poll!  I can see how that would be an awesome training plane (what it's supposed to be), but only if you have a human teacher (because there is no back seat automation otherwise.)   The back seat of the BE, with it's television repeater sight, and duplicate instruments is a sight to behold and a joy to fly in.  And frontline combat capable too!  It's a wonderful airplane, and I'm surprised nobody mentioned it before, including me.

Edited 13 hours ago by Ornithopter

[Hiob]

Indeed the BE has some advantages to it, that the vacuum cleaners don’t. Including but not limited to an afterburner….

The L-39 is a fine aircraft, I have nothing against it. But when training is your goal you have to make a decision. There have been lethal real world accidents caused (or supported) by the fact that the accident pilot has transitioned from eastern instrumentation to western standards (mainly the attitude indicator).

Usually in the DCS environment I have no problem transitioning across aircraft (west and east), however I very rarely fly in real IMC.

I did a night flight in heavy clouds across the whole map once in A C-101 (so the whole flight from T/O to landing was IFR). Without AP and the poor inherent stability the DCS FM offers, that was a VERY exhausting and frankly quite scary task. I can easily imagine how a Russian Attitude Indicator would have killed me…..

[Volator]

Throwing in my two cents and purely personal views here, for the WP/red side the L-39 is a good trainer and, despite being pretty much abandoned by ED, it can do everything you would expect from a training aircraft in DCS.

The Yak-52 take-off and landing characteristics are totally off in my view, so I'd not use that one. It is also pretty much abandoned by ED.

For Bluefor training, the C-101 is constantly bugfixed and updated, but I cannot stand the engine sound, and - maybe I am doing something wrong here - it needs a horrendous lenght of runway on take-off. I also do not like the Spanish labels in the cockpit of the trainer version (the CC has English labels). It also does not have a TACAN receiver. That is why it is not very well suited for NATO elementary flying training.

The MB-339 on the other hand has very good flight characteristics, comes with a TACAN receiver and an English cockpit, so in order to simulate NATO basic flying training, I'd go with that plane. It is true however that upates and bug fixes on the MB339 are very rare, but as far as I can see, there are no real show-stoppers currently.

@Bananabrai In my squadron we recently had the discussion whether we should introduce a basic flying training program utilizing a training aircraft, but several long-time community members said it's not worth it. They said they had experienced similar attempts in other squadrons, but the result was very dissatisfying, as most people - even if they have no effing clue of how to fly an aircraft properly the military way - simply do not want to "waste" their money and time on a training aircraft, they want to start flying their fighter right away.

They also said, many candidates simply do not want to put in or underestimate the time and effort needed to really train what it takes to be a fighter pilot, so after the IPs invested quite some time and work into candidates, the candidates would jump off and play something else or turn to another aircraft and squadron or whatever. The general consensus was that if a squadron really wants to invest resources into a training program for nebwies, it should be on the fighter the squadron is flying from the very beginning, because that would increase the probability of candidates actually finishing the training, and it would not deduct resources from the squadron's main flying activities. Since it's only a "game" where you can crash a thousand times and restart, that was seen as the more realistic approach towards the mentality of the DCS community.

That said, I still absolutely favour the idea of a realistic training program for new candidates, but I have to accept that the DCS community is what it is.

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, Hiob said:

Indeed the BE has some advantages to it, that the vacuum cleaners don’t. Including but not limited to an afterburner….

 

You throwing shade on my L-39? 

 

Besides, everyone needs a good vacuum cleaner.

[d0ppler]

1 hour ago, Volator said:

the L-39 is a good trainer and, despite being pretty much abandoned by ED

Abandoned? As far as I know, this plane is feature complete, we don’t need anymore updates.

[razo+r]

1 minute ago, d0ppler said:

Abandoned? As far as I know, this plane is feature complete, we don’t need anymore updates.

Not updates but one or another bug fix would not hurt.

[d0ppler]

9 minutes ago, razo+r said:

Not updates but one or another bug fix would not hurt.

What kind of bug fixes? I’ve flown the L-39 a solid 200 hours in DCS, and can’t recall one single bug

[Volator]

6 minutes ago, d0ppler said:

What kind of bug fixes? I’ve flown the L-39 a solid 200 hours in DCS, and can’t recall one single bug

Check the bug section of the L-39 forum.