fighter pilot hours?

[Cub Driver]

I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
the groove.

Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
year?

Thanks!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
> the groove.
>
> Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
> year?

Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other day
where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as
low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help make
up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to get
in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less than
the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not
talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that
have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG
helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit more
than that each year.

Brooks

>
> Thanks!
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:13:02 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
>the groove.
>
>Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
>year?
>

You would have to add some definitions and parameters to get a
definitive answer.

Could you fly the airplane? Probably if you had been properly
qualified and gained some experience. If you had flown a lot
previously and maintained high proficiency, you could probably avoid
killing yourself with that level of flying.

Would you be mission capable? Depends upon the mission and the
availability of effective simulation. If you had good mission
simulator support you could remain reasonably competent with that
level of currency.

Today's airplanes are easier to fly than in the past, but today's
weapons systems are considerably more complex and enemy defenses are
more layered and require better force integration to defeat. At 140
hours per year you might be quite good if all of your flying was
..9/sortie air-to-air of high intensity--provided your mission was
1-v-1.

If your 140 hours was ten monthly cross-country flights, droning along
from A to B, you probably won't be combat effective.

And, a lot would depend upon your innate talent. If you were a
"natural" you could be a lot more "current" than if you were a bit
ham-handed.

Fly your 140 hours in a three month period and you'll be very good at
the end of the period. Then, you can come back up to speed quite
quickly when you resume next year. Fly your 140 hours at 12
hours/month, two 1.5 hour flights per week, and you'll just barely be
minimum qualified unless you've got a backlog of experience to draw
upon.

IMHO.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

>Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
>year?

Usual NATO requirement is 180, but the Swedish air force
got a waiver from that because our training areas are much
closer to the airbases. So I'd say it's possible if you
can use them well.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
1) What is happening will continue to happen
2) Consider the obvious seriously
3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF, Oct 74

[Mark]

Really nice to have your range near by/adjacent to the airfield. For an
air-to-air guy with a training range very close, 140 hrs would have you
flying about every other day. That said there are lots of other things to
be done in terms of being 'current' in all aspects of the mission (even
air-to-air specialized units). In particular there would be instrument
flying requirements and air-to-air refueling missions. This eats into your
140 hrs; so the time actually spent honing your air-to-air skills would be
down to a couple of times a week. Still not BAD, but on the fringe (IMHO).

20hrs a month is a more realistic number to take care of all the bits n
pieces

For a mud-mover (F-15E, F-16 type) you'd be looking at needing more hours to
really keep proficient. Most missions average 2 hrs (rather than the 0.9 to
1.2 hr average for A2A)

Mark


"Urban Fredriksson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
> >Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
> >year?
>
> Usual NATO requirement is 180, but the Swedish air force
> got a waiver from that because our training areas are much
> closer to the airbases. So I'd say it's possible if you
> can use them well.
> --
> Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
> 1) What is happening will continue to happen
> 2) Consider the obvious seriously
> 3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF,
Oct 74

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:18:37 -0400, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
>> the groove.
>>
>> Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
>> year?
>
>Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other day
>where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as
>low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help make
>up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to get
>in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less than
>the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not
>talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that
>have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG
>helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit more
>than that each year.

Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots? Does the number of
hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown? Also, to
what extent can good simulators replace flying time?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Cub Driver
confessed the following:

>I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
>the groove.
>
>Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
>year?

Sure...if your mission was very limited. AFR 51-50 training
requirements would be fairly easy to meet. F-102 units didn't have AAR
squares to fill, no low levels, only one weapon the AIM-4...(TX ANG
was not a nuke unit) so no Dart or strafe requirements, and no ACM
back then. That leaves formation takeoffs and landings, intercepts,
instrument approaches and SFOs (simulated flameout landings). Do-able.

But like Urban mentioned, when I showed up in USAFE in 1981, NATO
standard was 180 hours minimum. USAFE F-4 guys were averaging 240-300
back then, F-15 guys a bit less ISTR 200-250.

If you had to drop bombs, strafe, fly night low levels, air refuel,
use NVGs, employ HARMs or PGMs, maintain some honest air-to-air
proficiency...140 hours wouldn't hack it today. With that little
flying you'd only be a MS (mission support) wienie and not a full up
MR (mission ready) pilot.

Robey

[phil hunt]

On 8 Sep 2004 22:08:51 +0200, Urban Fredriksson > wrote:
>In article >,
>Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>>Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
>>year?
>
>Usual NATO requirement is 180, but the Swedish air force
>got a waiver from that because our training areas are much
>closer to the airbases.

Given that Sweden isn't in NATO, why would NATO care what Sweden
does, and why would Sweden care what NATO requires?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Krztalizer]

> Also, to
>what extent can good simulators replace flying time?
>

It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them. There
are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing, and
this was over 30 years ago, in computing's dark ages. Even the 9/11 ****s had
to get genuine flight training and even then, they nearly tore the wings off
the second 767. Flying is not only complicated - its dangerous. Simulators
can't trick you all the way, so you are always missing some component of the
actual flight.

In the Navy, we had a minimum of 4 hours per month that we were required to
ride along in any capacity that we could. On some shore duty locations,
meeting that would take genuine effort, but I didn't encounter that situation.
I got 660 helicopter flight hours one year, and when I got back to the states,
my squadron scheduled my first mission as a sortie in the WST. I guess they
didn't see the irony. I slept through the entire "flight". Hey, how was that
for a simulation? :)

<zzzzz...grumble...snort..Wa? GOBLIN GOBLIN...ahhhhh... freakin WST...snort...
snorrre zzzzzz>

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[John R Weiss]

"phil hunt" > wrote...
>
> Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots? Does the number of
> hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown? Also, to
> what extent can good simulators replace flying time?

USN minimum is 100 hours/year. That's way too low to actually maintain
proficiency.

15 hours/month is about minimum for proficiency; 300 hours/year is reasonable.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Urban Fredriksson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
> >Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
> >year?
>
> Usual NATO requirement is 180, but the Swedish air force
> got a waiver from that because our training areas are much
> closer to the airbases. So I'd say it's possible if you
> can use them well.

Huh? Why would the Swedes need a "waiver", when they are not part of NATO in
the first place?

Brooks

> --
> Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/

[WaltBJ]

Ed's numbers look pretty good to me. But another factor is what the
peculiar requirements of your situation is. I was a little miffed at
TAC because they used a six-month cycle in which you flew (not
necessarily in this order) air intercepts (radar work), air to ground
conventional, air to ground nuke, air to ground night, air combat
maneuvers followed by air combat tactics. Air refuling was mixed with
(usually) air to ground nuke and air to ground night. But the problem
was just about as soon as you got 'happy' with what yoyu were doing
the mission changed. The other thing was instrument cross-check. here
is where a good (!) simulator helps a lot, to stay sharp. In was once
caught out; I'd been off 90 days TDY and when I got back about the
second missionwas flying as chase on a pilot in the combat crew
training phase. The wx lowered and we had to make separate GCAs. I was
all over the place compared to my usual proficiency. The lesson was
duly noted and I started scrounging sim rides when I sensed they were
needed rather than dodging the box as if it were radioactive. FWIW I
needed 3 act rides a week to be able to fly act automatically. I would
guess that 3 good busy practices rides a month would keep you
proficient enough to fly around the pattern on a severely clear VFR
day. That means accomplishing the various training items you must keep
proficient in, like approaches, ILS and non-p, plus the VFR pattern.
This also includes, on the side, reviewing the flight manual
religiously and knowing the EPs and limitations exactly plus
'blindfold familiarity' with the cockpit - be able to reach out and
touch and identify without fumbling every gauge and control in the
cockpit. (Note that this will not furnish enough proficiency to safely
fly at night!)
The USAF beginning about 1965 had us write out the EPs out verbatim
before each and every flight. I consider this level of knowledge and
cockpit familiarity to absolutely necessary for any high-performance
flying. Unfortunately, as Ed points out, time per se isn't worth much.
The USAF for a long time tried to get DOD and Congress to buy off on
sorties rather than aircraft time as far as appropriations went. The
pols couldn't understand that approach, unfortunately, since maximum
performance flying eats up fuel and there goes the 1.5+ flight. Also,
a heavy emphasis on max performance leads to a lot of hole-boring near
the end of the month to log the monthly total and avoid nasty notes
from HHQ. That's why a couple squadrons I was in really liked to send
guys out on XCs over the weekend. 4 planes flying seven sorties each
in cruise mode at altitude boost the average time per sortie
significantly. One takeoff, climb out, cruise letdown and approach
wasn't a significant amount of training per sortie, but that 1:40
(F104) or 2:30 (F102) helped a lot towards the hour total. Made up for
those AB-heavy missions where the lessons learned were weighty.
(Learned some lessons on the XCs, too!)
Walt BJ

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:18:37 -0400, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
> >> the groove.
> >>
> >> Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
> >> year?
> >
> >Depends on what Air Force you are talking about. I was reading the other
day
> >where the average annual flight time in the Russian Air Force has been as
> >low as the 40 hour mark--and they don't have decent simulators to help
make
> >up the deficiency. Supposedly, that average allows the younger pilots to
get
> >in some 60 or 70 hours a year, while the older guys get stuck with less
than
> >the 40 hour average. ISTR that some of the NATO nations (and I am not
> >talking the recent additions here) have annual flight hour numbers that
> >have dipped as low as the 80 to 100 hour figure; ISTR that even our ARNG
> >helicopter aviators are (or were a few years ago) required to get a bit
more
> >than that each year.
>
> Do you have any figurews for USAF and RAF pilots?

Can't find any (after a quick search) for fighter/attack aircraft, other
than in "relative" terms (using 1988/89 as a baseline value that is not
actually stated); you maye derive more info by reading the following more
completely:

www.comw.org/pda/afread02.html

Does the number of
> hours typically vary depemnding on type of aircraft flown?

Apparently so; the above reference indicates, for example, that in 1994 the
C-5 pilots were averaging 133 hours per year, and C-141 pilots were
averaging 123 hours. I'd imagine fighter pilots, especially those of
multimission aircraft like the F-16, require significantly more hours to
remain truly proficient (as already mentioned by Ed and others).

Also, to
> what extent can good simulators replace flying time?

You'd be better off asking that question of someone who has experience with
the latest high-tech sims. I doubt they are on par with actual flying
experience, but I also have little doubt that they beat sitting around
rereading flight manuals to kill time...

Brooks

>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
>
>

[phil hunt]

On 08 Sep 2004 22:36:53 GMT, Krztalizer > wrote:
>> Also, to
>>what extent can good simulators replace flying time?
>>
>
>It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them. There
>are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing, and
>this was over 30 years ago,

Presumably they are better now than then.

> in computing's dark ages. Even the 9/11 ****s had
>to get genuine flight training and even then, they nearly tore the wings off
>the second 767. Flying is not only complicated - its dangerous. Simulators
>can't trick you all the way, so you are always missing some component of the
>actual flight.

Simulators -- assuming a good mathematical model of the airplane --
should be able to correctly simulate how it would respond to
anything the pilot does. The visual part of simulation is mostly
solved these days due to good computer power. The hard thing, as I
see it, is simulating the effect of the aircraft's movements on the
pilot.

>In the Navy, we had a minimum of 4 hours per month that we were required to
>ride along in any capacity that we could. On some shore duty locations,
>meeting that would take genuine effort, but I didn't encounter that situation.
>I got 660 helicopter flight hours one year, and when I got back to the states,
>my squadron scheduled my first mission as a sortie in the WST. I guess they
>didn't see the irony. I slept through the entire "flight". Hey, how was that
>for a simulation? :)

What's a WST?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Krztalizer]

>>It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them.
>There
>>are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real thing,
>and
>>this was over 30 years ago,
>
>Presumably they are better now than then.

The last simulator I was in was for the F-15 up at Edwards. Still a video
game, albeit on a GIfrickinGANTIC screen, compared to the real thing.

>
>What's a WST?
>

Navy-ese for simulator - "Weapons System Trainer".

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:35 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>Fly your 140 hours in a three month period and you'll be very good at
>the end of the period. Then, you can come back up to speed quite
>quickly when you resume next year. Fly your 140 hours at 12
>hours/month, two 1.5 hour flights per week, and you'll just barely be
>minimum qualified unless you've got a backlog of experience to draw
>upon.

Thanks, Ed. That's about what I figured.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
phil hunt > wrote:

>Given that Sweden isn't in NATO, why would NATO care what Sweden
>does, and why would Sweden care what NATO requires?

It started with Partnership for Peace.

And now, for example, SWAFRAP JAS 39A recently took part
in Dragon's Nest 2004 and will fly in Joint Winter 2005.

Most likely international operations we'll take part in
will be NATO-led.

You're right in that pilots not part of the rapid reaction
force don't need any waiver. (And given the current
economic climate it's not given they'd get one, the
SWAFRAPs have priority.)
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
There is always a yet unknown alternative.

[Jeff Crowell]

> >> Also, to
> >>what extent can good simulators replace flying time?

Krztalizer wrote:
> >It still doesn't entirely replace flight hours, it only augments them.
There
> >are darn few "good simulators" that can remotely compare to the real
thing, and
> >this was over 30 years ago,

phil hunt wrote:
> Presumably they are better now than then.
snippage
> Simulators -- assuming a good mathematical model of the airplane --
> should be able to correctly simulate how it would respond to
> anything the pilot does. The visual part of simulation is mostly
> solved these days due to good computer power. The hard thing, as I
> see it, is simulating the effect of the aircraft's movements on the
> pilot.

A very nontrivial challenge.

When positive G is modeled by inflating your g-suit and negative G
by inflating a "whoopie cushion" under the driver's butt or dropping
the sim a foot or two, that ain't very useful. Numerous crashes
have been attributed to pilots flying the airplane too soon after being
in the sim (Miramar had a mandatory delay between 'flying' the
WST and getting in a real airplane). Your body gets used to what
ought to happen to it in the Real Thing (tm), then gets confused by
the sim. Minutia such as rate of G application get missed by the sim
but have tremendous significance in flight.

Sims are great for buttonology and procedures, and can be a lot of
fun (and they can scare the hell out of you sometimes). But they do
NOT teach you how to really push the plane to its and your limits
(low-level flight in a non-permissive environment, for one simple
example), and that's the key to surviving in the Real World.

We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training
environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat.


Jeff

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: fighter pilot hours?
>From: "Jeff Crowell"
>Date: 9/10/2004 7:45 AM Pacific Standard Time

>We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training
>environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat.
>
>
>Jeff

Too bad Rumsfeld doesn't read this stuff.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:45:59 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote:

>phil hunt wrote:

>> Simulators -- assuming a good mathematical model of the airplane --
>> should be able to correctly simulate how it would respond to
>> anything the pilot does. The visual part of simulation is mostly
>> solved these days due to good computer power. The hard thing, as I
>> see it, is simulating the effect of the aircraft's movements on the
>> pilot.
>
>A very nontrivial challenge.
>
>When positive G is modeled by inflating your g-suit and negative G
>by inflating a "whoopie cushion" under the driver's butt or dropping
>the sim a foot or two, that ain't very useful. Numerous crashes
>have been attributed to pilots flying the airplane too soon after being
>in the sim (Miramar had a mandatory delay between 'flying' the
>WST and getting in a real airplane). Your body gets used to what
>ought to happen to it in the Real Thing (tm), then gets confused by
>the sim. Minutia such as rate of G application get missed by the sim
>but have tremendous significance in flight.
>
>Sims are great for buttonology and procedures, and can be a lot of
>fun (and they can scare the hell out of you sometimes). But they do
>NOT teach you how to really push the plane to its and your limits
>(low-level flight in a non-permissive environment, for one simple
>example), and that's the key to surviving in the Real World.
>
>We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training
>environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat.
>

I agree to a point. It's a difficult task to simulate accelerations on
the body that occur in flight using some sort of six-degree of motion
ground-based gadget. It works fairly well in low acceleration systems
such as air transports, but not in high-g operations like tactical
aircraft.

But (you were waiting for that, I know), a lot depends upon what you
are trying to train. One can do a pretty good job of cockpit
procedures training without much high-tech whiz-bang. And, one can
teach instrument procedures pretty well with moderate tech sims. And,
if you spend the money, current state-of-the-art can give you a pretty
good aircraft pilot qual without ever burning a pound of JP-8.

It's when you get into the weapons employment phase that things get
confusing. Exactly as you describe, there's the proprioceptive cues
that are part and parcel of every highly qualified operators input.
You can't recreate those (yet) with the desired level of accuracy.
And, you can't--without huge investment--recreate the total combat
environment. You can't get the total combination of airplane, flight,
strike package, support systems, enemy counter, enemy sensors, enemy
IADS, electronics, etc. etc. etc. For that matter, you can't very
easily or economically do "war" in training.

One of the things we were working on with the ATF (F-23) program was
low-cost desk-top trainers networked with both dome simulators and
computer-generated entities to create a combat scenario. While the
fidelity was unbelievably low if compared to actual flight, the task
wasn't to teach airplane/weapon operation but to try to teach
situational awareness--that "big-picture" or sixth sense that good air
warriors carry in their heads.

Surprisingly, a group of Fighter Weapons School, Top Gun, flight test
and operational USAF/USN aviators quickly found that they could get
immersed in the battle and almost forget that they were sitting at a
25" video monitor with a stick grip mounted on a desktop.

I used to compare it to watching a football game on a small screen TV.
Once you start watching you will often forget how small the display is
and you're simply concentrating on the game.

Tactics, maneuver, weapons employment, flight management, navigation,
systems operations, etc. could all be practiced. The only thing that
was missing was basic "stick-and-rudder".



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: fighter pilot hours?
> >From: "Jeff Crowell"
> >Date: 9/10/2004 7:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training
> >environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat.
> >
> >
> >Jeff
>
> Too bad Rumsfeld doesn't read this stuff.

You have evidence that Rumsfeld is cutting flight training hours? If so,
provide it--if not, shut up, 'cause you are lyin' again.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: fighter pilot hours?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 9/10/2004 10:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: fighter pilot hours?
>> >From: "Jeff Crowell"
>> >Date: 9/10/2004 7:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>
>> >We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training
>> >environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat.
>> >
>> >
>> >Jeff
>>
>> Too bad Rumsfeld doesn't read this stuff.
>
>You have evidence that Rumsfeld is cutting flight training hours? If so,
>provide it--if not, shut up, 'cause you are lyin' again.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer


When it comes to flying or any military aviation subject you are not qualified
by experience to take part in the conversation. Desk jockey's who avoid combat
not needeed here.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: fighter pilot hours?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 9/10/2004 10:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: fighter pilot hours?
> >> >From: "Jeff Crowell"
> >> >Date: 9/10/2004 7:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>
> >> >We've seen it again and again--try to save money in the training
> >> >environment and you guarantee increased losses in combat.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Jeff
> >>
> >> Too bad Rumsfeld doesn't read this stuff.
> >
> >You have evidence that Rumsfeld is cutting flight training hours? If so,
> >provide it--if not, shut up, 'cause you are lyin' again.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
>
>
> When it comes to flying or any military aviation subject you are not
qualified
> by experience to take part in the conversation. Desk jockey's who avoid
combat
> not needeed here.

So what you are really saying is that you were again caught mouthing your
usual inane, unsupported horsecrap, and can't in fact support your
statement--that figures. Your lyin' again.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:45:59 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote:

>Sims are great for buttonology and procedures, and can be a lot of
>fun (and they can scare the hell out of you sometimes).

I loved the sim segment from the short-lived and by-me-lamented TV
series on the American Fighter Pilot (or whatever the name). Our hero
had all the red buttons flashing at him at once.

I'm glad to hear your comments on the million-dollar flight sim. I
have a pal who believes that the Microsoft version on his home
computer has qualified him as one of the Few in the Battle of Britain.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>One of the things we were working on with the ATF (F-23) program was
>low-cost desk-top trainers networked with both dome simulators and
>computer-generated entities to create a combat scenario.

For a look at a Swedish variant of this, see this:
<http://www.flsc.foi.se/index_eng.html>

It can be noted that one of the, if not the, most expensive
pieces of hardware are the system controller/throttles.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
"Failure requires effort. That's why some people never fail." -Bengt Anderberg

[Jim Thomas]

I may have missed it in this thread, but it's important to note that
flying requirements (civilian as well as military) have evolved into
event requirements, rather than hours. Obviously, 100 hours in a
transport or bomber (mostly cruise time) aren't the same as 100 hours
of air-to-air or air-to-mud time in a fighter/attack aircraft. I don't
know what the requirements are today, but when I retired from the USAF
in 1987, requirements were in terms of instrument approaches,
landings, weapons delivery events, sorties (of various types), not
just hours.

My recollection, vague though it might be getting, is that for a large
part of my flying career the basic USAF requirement was 120
hours/year. Nobody I knew (in flying posts) got so few hours. But
remember the days when you had to fly 4 hours/month for flight pay
(which was a factor mostly in non-flying billets)? When I was a
student in the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), we mostly got
our hours flying in the back of the local C-130 or C-133. Such a deal.
Later, wiser heads removed the flying hour requirements for pilots in
non-flying jobs.

But I digress. Event-driven requirements are obviously the way to go.

Jim Thomas


Robey Price > wrote in message >...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Cub Driver
> confessed the following:
>
> >I fly about 50 hours a year and wish I could do more, just to stay in
> >the groove.
> >
> >Could I have stayed current in a jet fighter, flying about 140 hours a
> >year?

[firstfleet]

[QUOTE=Jim Thomas]
When I was a
student in the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), we mostly got
our hours flying in the back of the local C-130 or C-133.

Did you mean Convair C-131? I crewed for two years as a Douglas C-133 navigator, and I don't think anyone but assigned or attached crew members got time in the C-133. It was used for heavy logistic airlift only. Besides, sitting in the rear of a C-133 would have been excruciatingly uncomfortable. The noise and vibration were INTENSE.

For more info on the C-133, check my web site:

http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/c133bcargomaster/home.html.

My definitive C-133 history, Remembering an Unsung Giant: The Douglas C-133 Cargomaster and Its People, will be out in April 2006.

Cal Taylor
The C-133 Project