How Do You Checkout in P-38?
Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:54 pm
I would like to hear from anyone who has actually done a P-38 checkout in th e last few years, either as the check pilot or the one being checked. Since there are no dual control 38's what do you use t legally solo a 38.
???
Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:08 pm
What happened to the great thread Gunny Perdue had on checking out in "Ruff Stuff"????
Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:49 pm
Just re-read the Gunny's post and sat here wishing I had been born in either 1922 or 1962.
Mudge the geezer
Mudge the geezer
just kick the tires and light it up!
Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:09 pm
Although I never flew it< I have flown WITH Lefty Gardner back in the good ole days. I did an intensive operations check with him on the ground through run up and taxiing. It is a very straight forward aircraft other than the obvious twin engine quirks common to most twins, IE engine loss on take off etc.
FWIW of course...
FWIW of course...
Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:32 pm
The same process used to check out in any single control aircraft, demonstrate profieceny in the designated equivalent (T6 for fighters, B-18 for multis)and then you get an authorization to solo the aircraft, eventually you demonstrate prof. by doing all of the type rating requirements solo and observered from the ground by an EAE. If that all goes well, the type rating is issued.
That's the process I used on my AD as it is multi place - single controls.
That's the process I used on my AD as it is multi place - single controls.
38
Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:04 pm
Bipe, thanks for the link to "Gunny's " post. We had been looking for it. The checkout process was just what I thought it would be. They used a B-25 as the closest plane to simulate a 38. Of course not everyone is going to have Steve Hinton as an instructor. I guess using a Baron for an instrument approach may meet the legal reqirement, but it is not going to fly like a 38. If the 38 had authentic panel, the Baron instruments would be far different, but you could use an approach speed of 120 knots.
Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:03 am
Recently researching flying in the RAAF and RAF in the 1930s, there's a critical difference to modern flying, I think, in that what were called 'General Duties' pilots were highly trained as pilots, then expected to be able fly anything.
With a new type, type trainers, conversions etc were generally unheard of, and the pilot would be given an introduction by another pilot, maybe, with a couple of 'watch outs' and sent off solo. Pilot's notes as we know them didn't exist, at best being a few typed pages with rather vague instruction on them.
The first reaction I'm sure by many will be 'but they were simple then, and they're more complex now', which is both true and highly misleading.
Certainly the 'systems' element of flying, as well as the extras that aren't about operating the aircraft, but are about getting there, are far greater now. On the other hand, any aircraft is quite capable of killing the pilot if incorrectly flown, and for all the complexity of modern types, they are all much more conventional in controls and in a sense, performance. The first thing many people notice when flying a 1930s military type for the first time is how much a mess the cockpits and controls were, and control harmony was a bonus. Nasty stalls and handling characteristics were just part of the deal.
As a for instance, a 1930s RAAF pilot would learn on a DH-60 Moth, and Avro Cadet (conventional training biplanes) then go onto fly a Bristol Bulldog biplane fighter (the wings sometimes came off) a Westland Wapiti (a big, slow heavy general purpose biplane) and then go onto the Supermarine Seagull V (pusher biplane amphibian). It wouldn't be expected to get any special training to take up a four engine flying boat Shorts C class or Sunderland or a W.W.II single seat fighter from that background. No extra training would be expected or given, and I'd suggest the variety of marine, landplane and performance was as broad as many pilots experience today, given the lack of basic ergonomics and standardisation then.
This was the approach that most air forces went into W.W.II with.
With a new type, type trainers, conversions etc were generally unheard of, and the pilot would be given an introduction by another pilot, maybe, with a couple of 'watch outs' and sent off solo. Pilot's notes as we know them didn't exist, at best being a few typed pages with rather vague instruction on them.
The first reaction I'm sure by many will be 'but they were simple then, and they're more complex now', which is both true and highly misleading.
Certainly the 'systems' element of flying, as well as the extras that aren't about operating the aircraft, but are about getting there, are far greater now. On the other hand, any aircraft is quite capable of killing the pilot if incorrectly flown, and for all the complexity of modern types, they are all much more conventional in controls and in a sense, performance. The first thing many people notice when flying a 1930s military type for the first time is how much a mess the cockpits and controls were, and control harmony was a bonus. Nasty stalls and handling characteristics were just part of the deal.
As a for instance, a 1930s RAAF pilot would learn on a DH-60 Moth, and Avro Cadet (conventional training biplanes) then go onto fly a Bristol Bulldog biplane fighter (the wings sometimes came off) a Westland Wapiti (a big, slow heavy general purpose biplane) and then go onto the Supermarine Seagull V (pusher biplane amphibian). It wouldn't be expected to get any special training to take up a four engine flying boat Shorts C class or Sunderland or a W.W.II single seat fighter from that background. No extra training would be expected or given, and I'd suggest the variety of marine, landplane and performance was as broad as many pilots experience today, given the lack of basic ergonomics and standardisation then.
This was the approach that most air forces went into W.W.II with.
Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:55 am
I'm glad ya'll liked my notes on checking out on Ruff Stuff....
Speaking of flying different airplanes with no checkout.... it appears to me that once a pilot had checkout out on a couple of single engine and multi engine airplanes he was good to go.... my examiner for my Private ticket was just such a pilot in the USAAF in WWII. A very good friend of mine who flew Mosquito's as a Pathfinder during the war loaned me his copy of the RAF Transport Command's "Ferry Pilots Notes" FOUO.... I've scanned it and will be sending it back shortly.... the cool thing about it is that it lists those 'Gotchas', power settings, speeds, differences for a whole bunch of different aircraft types of WWII... the idea being a pilot would just be pointed at an airplane and told to take it to XXX base... he'd get in and pull out his notes and off he'd go.
gunny
Speaking of flying different airplanes with no checkout.... it appears to me that once a pilot had checkout out on a couple of single engine and multi engine airplanes he was good to go.... my examiner for my Private ticket was just such a pilot in the USAAF in WWII. A very good friend of mine who flew Mosquito's as a Pathfinder during the war loaned me his copy of the RAF Transport Command's "Ferry Pilots Notes" FOUO.... I've scanned it and will be sending it back shortly.... the cool thing about it is that it lists those 'Gotchas', power settings, speeds, differences for a whole bunch of different aircraft types of WWII... the idea being a pilot would just be pointed at an airplane and told to take it to XXX base... he'd get in and pull out his notes and off he'd go.
gunny
Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:58 pm
JDK wrote:Recently researching flying in the RAAF and RAF in the 1930s, there's a critical difference to modern flying, I think, in that what were called 'General Duties' pilots were highly trained as pilots, then expected to be able fly anything.
James,
When I went through the aircrew selection process at RAF Biggin Hill in the mid 70's, I was assigned to the category of "General Duties - Pilot", so the category was still in use then. I think it was then being used as a category for "Those who we are going to train as RAF pilots, but we haven't made up our minds what we are going to teach them in yet".
Julian
Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:10 pm
Sorry to wander way off topic, but it's interesting, isn't it? Gunny's point is a good one. In the UK in W.W.II the civilian Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA) pilots were expected to be able to fly most types (an expanding list as the war went on) solo, with nothing more than a single half-foolscap or A5 card as the total briefing.
Thanks Julian, good point. While the title remains, it's clear that the intent's changed. Most pilots of the 1930s RAAF certainly were posted sequentially to very different roles, and the concept of sticking to a specialisation (in a small air force) didn't exist.
It's notable that today most experienced RAAF pilots I've talked to have post training experience on transports, fast jet bombers, and often fast jet fighters as well as other types (maritime) plus a mix of fixed wing and rotary wing experience; again, a facet of a smaller air force (the NZ pilots seem to have a similar breadth of experience). Garry Cooper's book talks of the relative breadth of experience the RAAF exchange pilots had (including tailwheel time) when flying with the USAF in Vietnam, compared to their USAF peers.
Thanks Julian, good point. While the title remains, it's clear that the intent's changed. Most pilots of the 1930s RAAF certainly were posted sequentially to very different roles, and the concept of sticking to a specialisation (in a small air force) didn't exist.
It's notable that today most experienced RAAF pilots I've talked to have post training experience on transports, fast jet bombers, and often fast jet fighters as well as other types (maritime) plus a mix of fixed wing and rotary wing experience; again, a facet of a smaller air force (the NZ pilots seem to have a similar breadth of experience). Garry Cooper's book talks of the relative breadth of experience the RAAF exchange pilots had (including tailwheel time) when flying with the USAF in Vietnam, compared to their USAF peers.