How have advancements in aircraft simulators changed the requirements for training aircraft?

[helmutkohl]

Aircraft simulators are a lot more advance now. Realistic graphics, and significant improvements in computation that allows better accuracy in physics, etc

How has these advances affected the demand and design of trainer aircraft?

For example, the F-35 does not come in a twin seat version as it is often said that the ground based simulators are sufficient.

Does this reduce the need for basic and/or advance trainers?

It also seems that advance trainers now, more so than others, also perform duplicate roles as light combat aircraft especially in the air to air role.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IIRC, the course progression for pilots is a basic trainer early on, to learn the basics of flying. Think Cessna 152 or 172, though IIRC most militaries use a turboprop and expect the pilots to suck up the extra complications from retractable gear and controllable pitch prop (it's a couple extra things to keep track of, but not all that bad).

Then they go to an advanced trainer, a a Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) like the T38, T45 or T7 for fighter pilots or a King Air for multi engine pilots.

From there they can go to their Operational Conversion Unit for type-specific training.

 

[Hood]

I think that conversion trainers are likely to die off completely, I don't think that we'll see two-stick Tempests, SCAFs, NGADs and so on.
A good LIFT with the right kind of simulation equipment in the FCS and offering synthetic radar/EO inputs can probably give just as good a impression to a rookie pilot of the real thing.

But of course simulators are here to stay, you can fly 24/7 and never spend a penny on fuel and you can do cool stuff like have 20-30 students all flying a mission together from different bases (if you have a enough simulators) and throw in some AI Red Force targets to boot without needing an external company flying extra sorties to play the baddies at extra cost.
Of course you still need the real thing, but it cuts the bill and wear and tear.
I'm still in two minds whether the supersonic capability of T-7 is worth it, obviously the USAF think so but then they have been wedded to the T-38A for 60 years....

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think that conversion trainers are likely to die off completely, I don't think that we'll see two-stick Tempests, SCAFs, NGADs and so on.

I think we will, just to wrangle the drone wingmen. Think F-14 or F-15E, not F-15D.

 

[Foo Fighter]

AFIK, the current crop of turboprop trainers have automatic prop pitch adjustment. I thought it had been like that saince the PC-9 et al. Simulators for awareness, type and even role training? WHy not if it can enable pilots/aircrew to maintain type rating and training levels?

 

[helmutkohl]

I think that conversion trainers are likely to die off completely, I don't think that we'll see two-stick Tempests, SCAFs, NGADs and so on.
A good LIFT with the right kind of simulation equipment in the FCS and offering synthetic radar/EO inputs can probably give just as good a impression to a rookie pilot of the real thing.

But of course simulators are here to stay, you can fly 24/7 and never spend a penny on fuel and you can do cool stuff like have 20-30 students all flying a mission together from different bases (if you have a enough simulators) and throw in some AI Red Force targets to boot without needing an external company flying extra sorties to play the baddies at extra cost.
Of course you still need the real thing, but it cuts the bill and wear and tear.
I'm still in two minds whether the supersonic capability of T-7 is worth it, obviously the USAF think so but then they have been wedded to the T-38A for 60 years....

I remember watching this YouTube video of two ex USN pilots talking about simulators vs flying the real thing.
I don't remember the details, but I do remember that they said, while simulators have gotten really good at replicating the flying experience, one area it fails to replicate is the natural feel of things. Like jerky movements, the feeling of wind on your aircraft, feeling your aircraft react to things, etc. They rely on those too.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I remember watching this YouTube video of two ex USN pilots talking about simulators vs flying the real thing.
I don't remember the details, but I do remember that they said, while simulators have gotten really good at replicating the flying experience, one area it fails to replicate is the natural feel of things. Like jerky movements, the feeling of wind on your aircraft, feeling your aircraft react to things, etc. They rely on those too.

Very much so.

Had one time shortly after I'd been transferred from USS Georgia to USS Kentucky, at periscope depth I suddenly slam full dive on the fairwater planes, almost faster than the rate and acceleration meters can react. "WTF, Kenny?" "Big swell, Dive." We didn't change depth by more than 6".

 

[green.nova343]

I would say that simulators have their place. They've been in use since Edwin A. Link first developed his trainer back in 1931, & the USAF bought 6 from him in 1934.

National Museum of the USAF site

But I would imagine that a trainer, however advanced it is, can only do so much to simulate the actual flight experience. Even "realistic" videogames like Microsoft's Simulator series or the old Chuck Yeager Air Combat could only crudely simulate things like blacking out from G forces, or having to fight the airflow over your wings & fuselage while maneuvering.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The biggest benefit I see from simulation is to get the muscle memory and reaction times down in emergencies. Knowing what all the buttons do also assistes. Modern sims 'appear' to be OK as far as some physical factors but doubt they are quick enough just yet, to do it all.

 

[riggerrob]

IIRC, the course progression for pilots is a basic trainer early on, to learn the basics of flying. Think Cessna 152 or 172, though IIRC most militaries use a turboprop and expect the pilots to suck up the extra complications from retractable gear and controllable pitch prop (it's a couple extra things to keep track of, but not all that bad).

Then they go to an advanced trainer, a a Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) like the T38, T45 or T7 for fighter pilots or a King Air for multi engine pilots.

From there they can go to their Operational Conversion Unit for type-specific training.

Little Cessnas (150 and 172) are useful during the first phase of screening potential student pilots to see if they can pick up the basic stick and rudder skills.
While this an initial screening CAN be done in more complex airplanes, it only passes the brightest students. Mid-talented students will struggle with controllable-pitch propellers, retractable landing gear, etc.
The bottom third of potential students will be so overwhelmed by systems that they will not have enough brain-power free to simply fly the airplane.

While this sort of initial screening can be done on turboprop (see Pilatus), I doubt if it can be done on light jets (Canadair Tutor, Cessna T-37).
How and when you screen student pilots is a “big picture” question defined by budgets and training philosophies.
How many candidates are recruited? How many different types of aircraft can your Air Force afford?
How many millions of dollars are in the training budget (e.g. training a CF-18 pilot to operational status costs $6 million).

Side-by-side seating is best for teaching basic and intermediate skills.

Then students who are “pipelined” to fighters need time in tandem-seaters to develop external scanning procedures.

If they are headed for supersonic fighters, they need time in supersonic trainers (T-38 Talon or Red Tail). Many student pilots fail when they let a fast airplane fly ahead of their brains. Those “slower” pilots might still enjoy long careers in lower transport airplanes.

Emergency procedures can be practiced in ground-bound simulators, but hard-core skills (e.g. recovery from upset at low altitude) still need to be practiced in real airplanes.

Two-seat trainers often get forced into ground-attack or intercepting wandering airliners because they are the biggest and fastest airplanes that most Third-World and many Second-World air forces can afford.