Simulator vs Trainer

[ArtKramr]

I recently posted an account of a B-26 mounted in a hanger used for training
purposes. I called it a simulator. But as I think back I begin to realise that
we never called it a simulator at that time. I think we called it "The trainer
in the hanger". And it makes sense since we called the Link Trainer a trainer,
not a simulator. I think the term simulater is a far more modern term that was
not generally used in 1943. This is an addendum to that original post.

Regards,

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

[Brian Colwell]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I recently posted an account of a B-26 mounted in a hanger used for
training
> purposes. I called it a simulator. But as I think back I begin to realise
that
> we never called it a simulator at that time. I think we called it "The
trainer
> in the hanger". And it makes sense since we called the Link Trainer a
trainer,
> not a simulator. I think the term simulater is a far more modern term that
was
> not generally used in 1943. This is an addendum to that original post.
>
> Regards,
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
*Link Trainer* Now that brings back memories !!!!

BMC

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Simulator vs Trainer
>From: "Brian Colwell"
>Date: 11/20/03 8:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cYgvb.445352$6C4.239776@pd7tw1no>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> I recently posted an account of a B-26 mounted in a hanger used for
>training
>> purposes. I called it a simulator. But as I think back I begin to realise
>that
>> we never called it a simulator at that time. I think we called it "The
>trainer
>> in the hanger". And it makes sense since we called the Link Trainer a
>trainer,
>> not a simulator. I think the term simulater is a far more modern term that
>was
>> not generally used in 1943. This is an addendum to that original post.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>*Link Trainer* Now that brings back memories !!!!
>
>BMC
>
>

I spent about 10 hours in Links. Not all that enjoyable.

Regards,


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

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>I recently posted an account of a B-26 mounted in a hanger used for training
>purposes. I called it a simulator. But as I think back I begin to realise that
>we never called it a simulator at that time. I think we called it "The trainer
>in the hanger". And it makes sense since we called the Link Trainer a trainer,
>not a simulator. I think the term simulater is a far more modern term that was
>not generally used in 1943. This is an addendum to that original post.
>
>Regards,
>
>Arthur Kramer

Incidentally we had the same thing in Greenwood NS when I went
through the Argus course, (1969).

We called it a trainer also. Was the cockpit from an Argus
mounted on hydraulic jacks to give some degree of movement. It
was connected to a big control panel outside which had duplicated
instruments and indicator lights to show what position the
switches and levers were set to in the 'cockpit'.

Was a great training aid, the examiners could simulate any number
of problems for the poor schmucks sweating it out inside, we all
hated it with a passion during our biannual check ride.
--

-Gord.

[PosterBoy]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >ubject: Re: Simulator vs Trainer
> >From: "Brian Colwell"
> >Date: 11/20/03 8:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <cYgvb.445352$6C4.239776@pd7tw1no>
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I recently posted an account of a B-26 mounted in a hanger used for
> >training
> >> purposes. I called it a simulator. But as I think back I begin to
realise
> >that
> >> we never called it a simulator at that time. I think we called it "The
> >trainer
> >> in the hanger". And it makes sense since we called the Link Trainer a
> >trainer,
> >> not a simulator. I think the term simulater is a far more modern term
that
> >was
> >> not generally used in 1943. This is an addendum to that original post.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >>
> >*Link Trainer* Now that brings back memories !!!!
> >
> >BMC
> >
> >
>
> I spent about 10 hours in Links. Not all that enjoyable.

On the other hand....
I learned to love the link and the linkstress at Bainbridge AB.
Dot Hinchcliffe..lovely, bright and understanding...was the operator who
made flying the jerky, noisy Link a thrill-filled ride a couple of times a
week before and during the T-6 transition. And provided all and sundry with
their first case of vertigo.
(Incidentally, Dot was a married lady, so out of bounds for this young
airman!)

Cheers.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Simulator vs Trainer
>From: "PosterBoy"
>Date: 11/20/03 11:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <zdjvb.446295$pl3.42468@pd7tw3no>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >ubject: Re: Simulator vs Trainer
>> >From: "Brian Colwell"
>> >Date: 11/20/03 8:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <cYgvb.445352$6C4.239776@pd7tw1no>
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> I recently posted an account of a B-26 mounted in a hanger used for
>> >training
>> >> purposes. I called it a simulator. But as I think back I begin to
>realise
>> >that
>> >> we never called it a simulator at that time. I think we called it "The
>> >trainer
>> >> in the hanger". And it makes sense since we called the Link Trainer a
>> >trainer,
>> >> not a simulator. I think the term simulater is a far more modern term
>that
>> >was
>> >> not generally used in 1943. This is an addendum to that original post.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Arthur Kramer
>> >> 344th BG 494th BS
>> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>> >>
>> >*Link Trainer* Now that brings back memories !!!!
>> >
>> >BMC
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I spent about 10 hours in Links. Not all that enjoyable.
>
> On the other hand....
> I learned to love the link and the linkstress at Bainbridge AB.
> Dot Hinchcliffe..lovely, bright and understanding...was the operator who
>made flying the jerky, noisy Link a thrill-filled ride a couple of times a
>week before and during the T-6 transition. And provided all and sundry with
>their first case of vertigo.
> (Incidentally, Dot was a married lady, so out of bounds for this young
>airman!)
>
>Cheers.
>
>
My use of the Link was purely voluntary. I would go down to the Link hanger
and bum stick time from the Sgt. in charge as long as the trainer was not in
use at the time. The only reason I did that was, as the war went on, my pilot
would give me some dual stick time in non combat situations. I got stick time
in B-26's. C-47.s, Cubs, Stinsons and even a FeisslerStorch which I could
eventualy fly alone. I iust thought that some Link time might give me better
proficiency. I didn't like it. I just did it. BTW the most flying fun I ever
had was shooting touch and goes off the cloud tops in the Marauder. Now that
was a kick.

Regards,

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