The significance of trainer aircraft in DCS

[Beirut]

7 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Does it help though and it really eases the learning curve and you get better and faster real experience if you use a simulator like DCS is on top of your flight school? Yes, it totally does, . . . 

 

Back when we had flightsim magazines, maybe they still exists, there was a story about a guy who joined the armed forces to be a pilot. When he went up on one of his very first flights with an instructor, to learn the absolute basics, the instructor was surprised at how well the guy handled the plane even though he had no real life experience. The guy told him he had practiced a ton in the civvy sim.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

2 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

Back when we had flightsim magazines, maybe they still exists, there was a story about a guy who joined the armed forces to be a pilot. When he went up on one of his very first flights with an instructor, to learn the absolute basics, the instructor was surprised at how well the guy handled the plane even though he had no real life experience. The guy told him he had practiced a ton in the civvy sim.

Yep, and in the 90s it was the most asked question among flight simmers, and from simmers to real pilots, could I land a real aircraft just with my sim experience? Old grandpa stories…


P.S.: and from my own experience, yes, you could in good weather conditions and no emergencies, as said back in the 90's either .

But, be aware not all flight simmers are equally bold, and while ones could do it others are reluctant to even try if ever given the opportunity, it occurred to me when I had a flight with a simming colleague, really good virtual pilot but he wouldn't dare to try…

[SharpeXB]

38 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Yep, and in the 90s it was the most asked question among flight simmers, and from simmers to real pilots, could I land a real aircraft just with my sim experience? Old grandpa stories…


P.S.: and from my own experience, yes, you could in good weather conditions and no emergencies, as said back in the 90's either .

But, be aware not all flight simmers are equally bold, and while ones could do it others are reluctant to even try if ever given the opportunity, it occurred to me when I had a flight with a simming colleague, really good virtual pilot but he wouldn't dare to try…

I’m sure you might know this but Mythbusters did an episode on that. “Can a total novice be talked down to land a plane by ATC like in the movies”? No spoilers

There was that one guy who did land the plane for his incapacitated friend. Otherwise there’s about zero chance in the real world this could happen.
One of these days for my birthday I’ll get my wife (who would never let me fly for real) get me this. I could totally do it.

https://airlinecaptainforaday.com

[Aapje]

Modern airliners with autoland are probably fairly easy to land if one knows the procedures for configuring it (which can be practiced in a sim), assuming a suitable airfield + weather conditions and an emergency declaration so everyone stays out of the way.

 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

23 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m sure you might know this but Mythbusters did an episode on that. “Can a total novice be talked down to land a plane by ATC like in the movies”? No spoilers

There was that one guy who did land the plane for his incapacitated friend. Otherwise there’s about zero chance in the real world this could happen.
One of these days for my birthday I’ll get my wife (who would never let me fly for real) get me this. I could totally do it.

https://airlinecaptainforaday.com

 yeah, I said many people wouldn't even dare even with some knowledge, totally true. It's not necessarily they're scared, but they respect it too much to even try.

Anyhow, I did it , but it was good old Cessna…

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

Modern airliners with autoland are probably fairly easy to land if one knows the procedures for configuring it (which can be practiced in a sim), assuming a suitable airfield + weather conditions and an emergency declaration so everyone stays out of the way.

Auto-Land is no fun or only fun in a certain way. If I paid $750/hr for a sim session you can bet I would land it manually. AFAIK Auto-Land isn’t an emergency procedure although I’m sure the guidelines for using it vary with different airlines.

5 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

I said many people wouldn't even dare even with some knowledge

I think that’s only happened once IRL and ATC talking someone down in an airliner has never happened. But it’s a great episode. 

[Aapje]

@SharpeXB

I was thinking more about a scenario where both pilots ate the fish and got sick, and they ask a passenger to land it.

In that case it's not about having fun, but about getting the plane down safely.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

@SharpeXB

I was thinking more about a scenario where both pilots ate the fish and got sick, and they ask a passenger to land it.

In that case it's not about having fun, but about getting the plane down safely.

Right. I’m pretty sure in reality this has never happened. There’s not a high likelihood of it either. But hey with the popularity of MSFS those chances are rising  

[Aapje]

A little search suggests that real pilots who were passengers have assisted as co-pilot when the captain got ill or died, but no cases where they had to take over on their own, let alone cases where a flight simmer landed the plane.

There was one situation where a flight attendant took to the controls when there was an oxygen issue and that person was the only one who got to the portable oxygen in time. This person had a pilot license, but no qualification for the plane. He couldn't land the plane, but he got to the controls at the same time that the plane ran out of fuel, so it was a tough ask anyway. He did steer the plane away from Athens. This was Helios Airways Flight 522.

[SharpeXB]

Yeah, in those cases the passenger was already a qualified pilot and the aircraft wasn’t truly without anyone at the controls since there was still a copilot. Looks like there have actually been several incidences with GA aircraft of an untrained passenger being talked down to land. But it’s never happened on a commercial aircraft. Yet…

This is the episode

 

 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

On 2/27/2025 at 5:22 PM, SharpeXB said:

I think that’s only happened once IRL and ATC talking someone down in an airliner has never happened. But it’s a great episode. 

Well, about airliners I haven't the faintest, but GA aircraft has happened, don't know if "many" times, but it happens from time to time. I recall someone having a flight with a friend and the friend fainted (you know like the joke, but it wasn't a joke) and ATC, or more probably some pilot, in the radio managed to take him back to ground.

Here in my city actually it happened to an ULM not so many years ago. A local couple was having a flight and the husband died from heart attack. ATC managed to bring the wife back to ground just with radio instructions even though she hadn't any idea about flying despite her husband being a private pilot. Of course the great thing is she managed to connect and talk throw the radio, and ULM have no need or obligation to have a radio, even less they are allowed to use it among regular traffic, but she managed to do so and ATC led her by radar to the city airport so she could have a better chance (3000m/10000ft long RWY, you know), and I know she had a hard time (not to mention having your dead husband's body sitting on your side) but she made it.

So airliners, dunno, but GA aircraft yes and it's happened. I'm sure there are even more stories about that out there.

On 2/28/2025 at 3:09 PM, SharpeXB said:

Yeah, in those cases the passenger was already a qualified pilot and the aircraft wasn’t truly without anyone at the controls since there was still a copilot. Looks like there have actually been several incidences with GA aircraft of an untrained passenger being talked down to land. But it’s never happened on a commercial aircraft. Yet…

So, yeah, this.

[portman]

Am 25.2.2025 um 20:55 schrieb virgo47:

I'd love to have more "curriculum" in DCS, but I accepted it is not here and I have to use out-of-game material. The topic at this moment seems a bit exhausted. It is what it is.

In my opinion it is absolutely necessary to use out-of-game material. I created my Yak-52 missions based on real training materials from the GST (kind of East German DOSAAF) where they flew the Yak-18U, so the instructions were pretty applicable. That way I also learned dead-reckoning, route calculations, wind calculations and all that kind of "learning flying from scratch" stuff.

In this context, I also find it quite important to have performance charts, flight time and altitude diagrams, fuel consumption charts etc., for the particular aircraft. These tactically important things are completely missing from the DCS manuals, and everytime you get a new aircraft module, you also have to get yourself the real manuals. That's annoying. But maybe that's just me 

So yeah, DCS is giving you the simulated aircraft and environment, but it's up to you to fill it with life and passion 

Edited March 4 by portman

[dcn]

2025/2/26 AM10点33分，Ornithopter说：

If you're so intent on learning what a "real pilot" knows, then why don't you take private piloting lessons, and earn your PPL?  OK, everyone gets your point, the Yak-52 and other training aircraft in DCS aren't teaching you what you want to know.   You've been given many opinions, but your views seem to be unchanged, and unmoved from your original post.  What more does anyone need to say about it?

I was just complaining.

2025/2/26 PM3点38分，ThePops说：

It doesn't really work like that.

That's from DCS Yak-52 manual.

2025/2/26 PM3点38分，ThePops说：

I think you discredit DOSAAF. DOSAAF was an "institution" in the USSR, and the Yak-52 wouldn't even be half of what it is today without DOSAAF pulling the design strings so to speak.

I knew DOSAAF, but I couldn't find the data. Do you have data on the number of Yak-52 in the Soviet Air Force and Yak-52 in DOSAAF? Do you have evidence that Yak-52 in DOSAAF are mainly used for aerobatics rather than flight training?

[Pillowcat]

Quote

There's no good reason a trainer, military or civilian, should be capable of negative 5g and have an inverted system.

All interest of DOSAAF has in aerobatics was preparation of a potential fighter pilots pool, nothing more really.

[dcn]

2025/2/26 PM8点28分，Ala13_ManOWar说：

You won't learn it all, you can't from a gaming software

2025/2/26 PM8点28分，Ala13_ManOWar说：

But, even with my quite ample simulation experience to that point, I didn't take anything for granted, I went to flight school like I knew nothing and wanting to be taught "from zero"

2025/2/26 PM8点28分，Ala13_ManOWar说：

but I wanted to listen to every aspect I was told, known for me or not because I wanted to be told all the nuances and subtleties a real life operation has compared to simulation. In short, be humble and listen to everything you're told, known or not, expected or not, and especially when it confronts what you already know, has read or listened before because there you're facing real life and actually your life and maybe others' lives at stake.

That's exactly what I wanted to say.

2025/2/26 PM8点28分，Ala13_ManOWar说：

So, if you want to learn from absolute scratch only with a PC gaming software absolutely everything to be a real pilot, no, currently and for the time being you won't just using pc software (or even professional simulators or software, which are used to train, not to learn from scratch).

You admit DCS Yak-52 can't teach me real life flight.

2025/2/26 PM8点28分，Ala13_ManOWar说：

Does it help though and it really eases the learning curve and you get better and faster real experience if you use a simulator like DCS is on top of your flight school? Yes, it totally does, if that's your concern and the question why you started this thread.

I have never denied that you will learn faster.It suddenly occurred to me that DCS Yak-52 can only be used as an auxiliary means of learning real life flight, just like real pilots use a simulated flight cabin as an auxiliary means of learning real life flight.

[ThePops]

3 hours ago, dcn said:

Do you have evidence that Yak-52 in DOSAAF are mainly used for aerobatics rather than flight training?

I didn't say it was, and it's a very odd presumption anyway. DOSAAF was the Soviet counterpart if you like, of private GA in the west. It was however focused on aerosport in a typical Soviet style manner. That is gliding and aerobatics. Obviously training is a large part of such an organization, but the point remains. There's no good reason to have the aerobatic performance of the Yak-52 as an ab initio trainer. The only reason for this performance is to:

• Train people in aerobatics, all the way to advanced class, and
• Use the aircraft in competition aerobatics.

What I said was that DOSAAF obviously had a word or two in the design process/design parameters of the Yak-52. Today, most of the Yak-52s are on private hands. This is not due to the virtues of the Yak-52 as a trainer, but due to:

• The looks
• The sound
• The performance as an aerobatic aircraft

In the west it's used pretty much in the same way that it was used in DOSAAF, a sport aerobatic aircraft (which also includes lots of training, it's a two seat aircraft after all). It's also an excellent military trainer of course, but in such use, only a fraction of the aerobatic performance is needed, if any. Candidates only needs to learn the basic of flying as well as checking their aptitudes of flying, then go straight to jet trainers. For civilian ab initio to commercial pilot training, none of the aerobatic performance is needed.

The Yak-52 is a cool aircraft in its own right, and that's the main purpose people get it also in DCS. It certainly could be used as a trainer, but why?  In DCS you can push ESC and start over using any aircraft. Then again, it's a sim, a game. If you want to use the Yak-52 to become proficient in most things related to "seat of the pants" flying, like aerobatics, nothing is stopping you. I'm sure the skills will be very transferable to an F-16 for instance. This doesn't mean you cannot do the same thing, and much more, starting with the F-16. I mean, cool down, relax, have fun  The Yak-52 is as cool as it gets, and it's fun to fly, which is all that matters.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

13 hours ago, dcn said:

You admit DCS Yak-52 can't teach me real life flight.

Well, with Yak-52 if you want to learn "just" the absolute basics? Yes, it can be good enough to learn those basics, even to "learn to fly" and go there without previous RL experience and fly something without experience (with the instructor by your side, obviously), in a sunny, windless, good day. The thing is real life flying goes beyond those basics really quick, just with a minimal weather change. And those, even though DCS excels like any other sim in recreating atmospheric changes and how those affects the aircraft behaviour and performances (an usually overlooked aspect of DCS), are too many, too subtle, and too much to learn from a sim which only gives you a pc experience with home controls. Because this, one of the most overlooked areas and a huge difference between pc sims and RL, are the controls itself… what it shocked me the most in that first experience I had was how the controls behaved and felt!! I didn't expect the yoke, or pedals, or even the trim wheel to be so hard to move, which in the real plane isn't something bad at all, it prevents you from overcontrolling especially the rudder pedals. But it's shocking if you hadn't felt that before even if you expect it. An ULM for instance has way lighter controls, that wouldn't be so different than your own home controls if you have  long stick and regular pedals, but a simple Cessna? you don't expect how those controls feel and perform. And that's something everyone trying to answer the all times favourite question in flight sims, "would I be able to land/fly a real aeroplane with just my sim experience", always overlook.

So, you can't learn it all because for starters you can't have that same feeling at home with the controls. The other thing you don't expect is moving yourself with those controls movements. You think you're doing a nice, gentle, banking turn for instance like in the sim, but when you look at the artificial horizon what you think is a regular 30º turn as you do in sims is actually a 15º turn .

Now I think and recall my experience, you don't expect either how tight and yet slack the controls in real aeroplanes are. In Cessnas for instance ailerons have lots of slack, while pitch control is way tighter and responsive. You don't know that in a sim for sure. Or the oposite, the time I flew some minutes a Tiger Moth the ailerons response was heavy and a bit hard, but pitch control felt like you could loop the aeroplane just sneezing (a bit like the Spitfire is in DCS when you don't adjust the controls, yes, but worse when you're in RL). About the Yak-52 I can't say much, I've been around it several times, never got the chance to fly in it, but if you ever get the chance at ~500$ an hour, expect those controls to be quite heavy compared to any home flight gear.

So, in short, this is what I meant when I said "you can't learn it all", which doesn't mean you can't learn anything. You can learn a lot of things in the sim, actually I did as I told, it's just you aren't in the real environment and all of those nuances can only be learnt by being there.

Edited March 13 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Ala13_ManOWar]

P.S.: this was my baptism flight, yes I had never sat or flown a real aeroplane before, and I flew all the way. So it can be done…
 

 

Edited March 13 by Ala13_ManOWar

[draconus]

9 hours ago, dcn said:

You admit DCS Yak-52 can't teach me real life flight.

RL aircraft can't teach you anything either. You need an instructor and learn a lot by yourself.

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

So, in short, this is what I meant when I said "you can't learn it all", which doesn't mean you can't learn anything. You can learn a lot of things in the sim, actually I did as I told, it's just you aren't in the real environment and all of those nuances can only be learnt by being there.

Here's the thing, do you actually need to know those things beforehand to be able to fly an airplane? Yes, real aircraft controls are stiff, and few home rigs come close. Mostly because most home furniture can't take that kind of forces, you need at least a frame simpit to handle a realistic gimbal without bending. FFB bases can help, but even then, commercial offerings still fall short of real fighter controls. Still, if that's the main difference, you should be able to adjust after a short period. 

One thing you can't learn while sitting in a chair is how moving your own body feels, though people do build DIY motion platforms. This can be a safety-critical effect. That said, we don't have the "seat of pants" feeling in the sim, so we compensate by staring at the instruments. That's actually the safest way to fly a real airplane, provided you have the instruments in first place.

[virgo47]

13 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yes, real aircraft controls are stiff, and few home rigs come close.

It's definitely easier to fly from home - but I've actually heard a true story of a guy who was a back-seater in some real-life plane he flew in a simulator previously. When he got the plane (in the air of course), he yanked the stick at first, overcontrolling the plane at first - he was then surprised how easy it was to move compared to his home rig. So I guess it depends.

[Dragon1-1]

It greatly depends on the aircraft, and if you have mechanical controls, it'll also depend on airspeed. One of the primary considerations when diving in WWII era was to avoid going so fast that you won't have the physical strength to haul back on the stick and pull the aircraft out of the dive. If you're not going very fast, it's going to be much easier. Then, you've got individual aircraft quirks. Spitfire, for instance, is well known for needing very little stick force to throw it around the sky.

FFB joysticks on market can get close to a real Yak-9 (another example of remarkably light controls), but will fall short of the forces most hydraulic systems are tuned to. I heard somewhere that the stick forces for US aircraft were standardized based on the P-51 control forces, presumably during cruise.

Edited March 13 by Dragon1-1

[Ala13_ManOWar]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Here's the thing, do you actually need to know those things beforehand to be able to fly an airplane? Yes, real aircraft controls are stiff, and few home rigs come close. Mostly because most home furniture can't take that kind of forces, you need at least a frame simpit to handle a realistic gimbal without bending. FFB bases can help, but even then, commercial offerings still fall short of real fighter controls. Still, if that's the main difference, you should be able to adjust after a short period. 

One thing you can't learn while sitting in a chair is how moving your own body feels, though people do build DIY motion platforms. This can be a safety-critical effect. That said, we don't have the "seat of pants" feeling in the sim, so we compensate by staring at the instruments. That's actually the safest way to fly a real airplane, provided you have the instruments in first place.

Well, actually you don't need to know because while learning you have an instructor sitting besides you, but if we enter the "could you land it only with sim experience" question, that usually means doing it by yourself on you own with no assistance. And still, I believe it could be done (maybe not everyone…) with wide enough sim experience. But surviving doesn't mean you don't smash the plane onto the ground, and all of those little details .

 

Edited March 13 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Dragon1-1]

46 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Well, actually you don't need to know because while learning you have an instructor sitting besides you, but if we enter the "could you land it only with sim experience" question, that usually means doing it by yourself on you own with no assistance. 

No, I mean "do you need to know this at all" before you get into the plane. On your own, with no assistance, you'll still go "hey, this is heavy!" for a minute or two, jerk it around a bit, then your brain will adjust and you'll be flying as usual (and if you go simming right after landing, your home rig will briefly feel too light). Similar to switching between a car with and without power steering, they control the same, only in one of them, you need to put some muscle into it. If you don't have that minute or two, then you're probably in a situation that'd be difficult to recover from even for an experienced pilot. Our brains are flexible and if you've got the right intuition as to how to actuate the controls, actually doing it is relatively simple.

Now, greasing the landing can be a different matter if you're not aware of certain aerodynamic peculiarities like updrafts and downdrafts (not modeled in DCS except for the carrier's burble, but present in the civvy sim) or some quirk pertaining to the specific aircraft, or if you learned to land on a naval aircraft and smashing the ship into the deck is your SOP.  That said, you should still be able to stay alive, and it's not like an actual pilot's license magically grants you the power to land smoothly every single time, anyway...

[Ala13_ManOWar]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No, I mean "do you need to know this at all" before you get into the plane. On your own, with no assistance, you'll still go "hey, this is heavy!" for a minute or two, jerk it around a bit, then your brain will adjust and you'll be flying as usual (and if you go simming right after landing, your home rig will briefly feel too light). Similar to switching between a car with and without power steering, they control the same, only in one of them, you need to put some muscle into it. If you don't have that minute or two, then you're probably in a situation that'd be difficult to recover from even for an experienced pilot. Our brains are flexible and if you've got the right intuition as to how to actuate the controls, actually doing it is relatively simple.

Hmmm, well, for instance to go to flight school and fly from day one, no, you don't need. But remember what I said previously, the instructor is actually flying himself the plane, not you, even if you don't notice that, at least with a good instructor.

To fly for yourself in the usual hypothetical situation Airplane! movie like, remember what I also already told. It's not only getting used to controls (which can make really tricky to use some of the controls you actually need, but well, yeah, you could somewhat use them), but be aware either you're not used, not just to use those controls, you aren't used to actual flying sensations and flying by the seat of your pants, which goes far beyond the old motto. Flying by the seat of your pants is an actual reality up there, you need to feel the plane and its behaviour. You could get used to controls stiffness in five minutes (or more than that, but ok), yeah, but you won't get used to flying sensations in five minutes because while learning that happens when you already have 15-20, or even more flight hours and actually you don't just stop learning those the day you're examined. In five minutes, or even a whole hour to say something if the situation were real on a real aeroplane, you or anyone would get used to those at all. Problem is you need to be used (which you aren't with sims), to climb, dive, banking, everything, and not just that but need to be used to listen to the engine which sounds really different than movies and all the mods out there (people making those mods say they're "realistic sound" when they mean movie like sounds, they aren't realistic at all, you don't listen to plane engine in dolby surround yet there are hundreds of sound subtleties you need to know). Up there you even know when the aircraft is climbing or diving even slightly while cruising by the sound of the engine, which I don't know if can currently be reproduced in sims, but it plays a major role in your RL flying skills, not to mention while gliding to the runway while attempting to land. Those are the various nuances and subtleties I meant in my first post, you can't learn those from pc sims because they're hardware limited and those absolutely subtle quirks just aren't there.

But Ok, let's say in an absolutely good day, you are plenty of time in the plane to get used, at least a little bit, to all those little details and you manage to more or less get a grip of the aeroplane to try to land (which is the trickiest situation, flying high up and levelled everybody knows to "fly"), well, it can be really tricky, cumbersome, and bumpy. You actually don't know to land properly from a sim, you aren't used to see the terrain getting close to you and at what speed, you aren't used to the bouncing of the aeroplane, etc, but depending on your own skills and how much you know, from sim or not just sims but how much of an aviation geek you are so know plenty, or let's say enough, yes maybe you could do it with no previous experience even if it's a somewhat traumatic situation and experience. Not to mention when your life is at stake it definitely helps either .

 

But a last thought. Even if you manage to get to ground safe, not sure if sound, remember something sims don't tell you either. In a Cessna (the usual ) the landing gear is actually sturdier than you are…   In a hard landing you could really hurt yourself, specially your back and neck, while the aircraft could be intact and that's either something you don't know from sims at all. Some people without RL experience on the internet forums would probably say something like that in a sim "is unrealistic", but that's real life.