Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Fighters or Heavy's?
- Thread starter Todd
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Fighters Vs. Heavies....hmmm
Todd-
I will give you two answers. The first is flippant, but accurate (as far as fighter pilots are concerned, anyway...)
There are two types of aircraft. Fighters and targets. Ah-hem, now that the testosterone is flowing freely, here is the other, more reflective answer.
As far as pay is concerned, both fighters and heavies pay exactly the same. The only thing that affects pay is rank and number of years in service. Generally, one will make rank as quickly in one type of aircraft as the other, so that is not a factor.
Fighters are more physically demanding due to the Gz pulled and, in many cases, the heat associated with poor airconditioning systems (especially down low in an Eagle!) and/or wear of anti-exposure suits, such as what many overwater fighter pilots must wear. Heavies must deal with other, not insignificant physical issues, such as circadian rythym disturbances and no-kidding LONG sorties that wear on you despite the ability to get up and stretch or visit the loo.
Are fighters more fun? Dunno. Never flew a heavy, so I can't compare the two. I know for sure that flying a fighter is like nothing you've ever done, and it is simply astounding to be in charge of such a fine piece of machinery tooling around at 500 feet doing 600 knots. "Wow" is an understatement. I have even used the term "1.2 hours of pure orgasm" to describe a typical fighter sortie, but that may be just a tad extreme.
I'll let the heavy drivers talk about their own satisfaction, but I can only imagine that the guys dropping food to the starving Afgans feel pretty good about their operational mission impact. In short, they have their moments in the sun as well.
Modern fighters such as the Eagle are very easy to fly difficult to master, and demand a tremendous amount of study, aggressiveness and determination to succeed. The good news is that if you make it to pilot training, you will quickly know if the rigors of formation flying and contact are what you want to do.
Best of luck!
Todd-
I will give you two answers. The first is flippant, but accurate (as far as fighter pilots are concerned, anyway...)
There are two types of aircraft. Fighters and targets. Ah-hem, now that the testosterone is flowing freely, here is the other, more reflective answer.
As far as pay is concerned, both fighters and heavies pay exactly the same. The only thing that affects pay is rank and number of years in service. Generally, one will make rank as quickly in one type of aircraft as the other, so that is not a factor.
Fighters are more physically demanding due to the Gz pulled and, in many cases, the heat associated with poor airconditioning systems (especially down low in an Eagle!) and/or wear of anti-exposure suits, such as what many overwater fighter pilots must wear. Heavies must deal with other, not insignificant physical issues, such as circadian rythym disturbances and no-kidding LONG sorties that wear on you despite the ability to get up and stretch or visit the loo.
Are fighters more fun? Dunno. Never flew a heavy, so I can't compare the two. I know for sure that flying a fighter is like nothing you've ever done, and it is simply astounding to be in charge of such a fine piece of machinery tooling around at 500 feet doing 600 knots. "Wow" is an understatement. I have even used the term "1.2 hours of pure orgasm" to describe a typical fighter sortie, but that may be just a tad extreme.
I'll let the heavy drivers talk about their own satisfaction, but I can only imagine that the guys dropping food to the starving Afgans feel pretty good about their operational mission impact. In short, they have their moments in the sun as well.
Modern fighters such as the Eagle are very easy to fly difficult to master, and demand a tremendous amount of study, aggressiveness and determination to succeed. The good news is that if you make it to pilot training, you will quickly know if the rigors of formation flying and contact are what you want to do.
Best of luck!
I forgot to add a bit about hours. Heavies typically fly many more hours per year than your average fighter pilot, but the type and effort per sortie make an interesting comparison.
Fighter pilots, depending on equipment, will fly on average around 12 sorties per month, with each sortie lasting around 1.3 hours for an F-15C driver and maybe 1.9 per sortie for an F-15E pilot.
Most fighter pilots these days will retire at twenty years with around 2600-3400 hours in the jet, which are far fewer hours than their heavy counterparts. As for follow-on jobs, however, most if not all airlines use some sort of "equalizer" to make the comparison of fighter and heavy hours work out in their hiring decisions. Given the complexity of their mission, and the fact that many fighters fly single seat, many hiring departments figure that the hours flown are of high quality and give the fighter pilots credit.
Hope this helps.
Fighter pilots, depending on equipment, will fly on average around 12 sorties per month, with each sortie lasting around 1.3 hours for an F-15C driver and maybe 1.9 per sortie for an F-15E pilot.
Most fighter pilots these days will retire at twenty years with around 2600-3400 hours in the jet, which are far fewer hours than their heavy counterparts. As for follow-on jobs, however, most if not all airlines use some sort of "equalizer" to make the comparison of fighter and heavy hours work out in their hiring decisions. Given the complexity of their mission, and the fact that many fighters fly single seat, many hiring departments figure that the hours flown are of high quality and give the fighter pilots credit.
Hope this helps.
Michael Knight
helping the innocent
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 103
Eagleflip gave you some good insight into fighters and touched on Heavies some. There is fun to be had in each community. There is no doubt in my mind that some people are better off in one community that the other due to their personal needs and one's own personality.
If you like all that upside down, G pulling stuff than fighters is where you want to be. Yes, you may pull a few G's in a Heavy but it will pale in comparison to a more nimble ride. Your chances of becoming an "Ace" as a heavy driver are close to zero.
If you want to travel around the world, stay in nice hotels, and get paid perdiem to enjoy your down time... go heavies. Yes, I like to fly but I prefer to travel. Yes, jet guys do go on the road but you don't see many of them crossing the pond that often. They don't "travel" as much as they are too busy dogfighting in the MOA's to get somewhere... unless there is free beer of course.
Also, in a heavy/tanker, during your long flights you can get up, stretch, use the head, put your steak in the oven, and then eat it as you watch the jet guys try to plug. Sure, they may make it to the O'club before you but you'll have already eaten and be ready for some brew.
Oh yea, couple of other things. Heavies don't usually wear helmets. Helmets have been known to lead to premature hair loss <grin>. Jet guys also have to wear G suits, although maybe that is cool.
I'm sure flying a jet is a lot of fun but don't let the jet guys fool ya, the best thing about being a jet pilot is telling everyone your a jet pilot.
Cheers,
Mike
If you like all that upside down, G pulling stuff than fighters is where you want to be. Yes, you may pull a few G's in a Heavy but it will pale in comparison to a more nimble ride. Your chances of becoming an "Ace" as a heavy driver are close to zero.
If you want to travel around the world, stay in nice hotels, and get paid perdiem to enjoy your down time... go heavies. Yes, I like to fly but I prefer to travel. Yes, jet guys do go on the road but you don't see many of them crossing the pond that often. They don't "travel" as much as they are too busy dogfighting in the MOA's to get somewhere... unless there is free beer of course.
Also, in a heavy/tanker, during your long flights you can get up, stretch, use the head, put your steak in the oven, and then eat it as you watch the jet guys try to plug. Sure, they may make it to the O'club before you but you'll have already eaten and be ready for some brew.
Oh yea, couple of other things. Heavies don't usually wear helmets. Helmets have been known to lead to premature hair loss <grin>. Jet guys also have to wear G suits, although maybe that is cool.
I'm sure flying a jet is a lot of fun but don't let the jet guys fool ya, the best thing about being a jet pilot is telling everyone your a jet pilot.
Cheers,
Mike
Goose17
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 528
Heavies
Yet another input on the heavy/fighter debate...
While both have their plusses and minuses, consider this...
I believe I had (now out of mil) the best of both worlds as far as military flying. I flew an MC-130H Combat Talon II for Air Force Special Operations. It is a heavy - a highly modified glass cockpit version of the C-130, but we flew it tactically. The best part of flying a heavy is going places and having a good time. We did that - flew all over the world. On the other hand, the best part of flying a fighter is the tactical flying. We did that too. Although we were not G-dawgs, a vast majority of our flying would be considered crazy by most. Imagine flying a 5 hour sortie at night, lights-out at altitudes ranging from 100 feet all the way up to 250 feet. All while using night vision, infrared equipment, terrain following radars and a ton of other gee whiz techno stuff. Also, the takeoff and landing were on some little piece of dirt again without lights using the above mentioned equipment. You do this to drop off interesting people and strange stuff to unique places. This really only touches what we did and what the current crews train for.
There are quite a few options within Air Force Special operations of which include: MC-130H (described above). MC-130E Combat Talon I (an older version of the MC-130H). MC-130P Combat Shadow (refuels helos inflight). AC-130H/U Gunships (death from above in a circle). MH-53J Pave-Low (armed helo). There are other options too.
I hate this to sound like a recruiting tidbit, but I am just trying to pass on some info. If you want to inquire more about Air Force Special Operations. Check out the home page: http://www.hurlburt.af.mil/index2.shtml
Goose17
Yet another input on the heavy/fighter debate...
While both have their plusses and minuses, consider this...
I believe I had (now out of mil) the best of both worlds as far as military flying. I flew an MC-130H Combat Talon II for Air Force Special Operations. It is a heavy - a highly modified glass cockpit version of the C-130, but we flew it tactically. The best part of flying a heavy is going places and having a good time. We did that - flew all over the world. On the other hand, the best part of flying a fighter is the tactical flying. We did that too. Although we were not G-dawgs, a vast majority of our flying would be considered crazy by most. Imagine flying a 5 hour sortie at night, lights-out at altitudes ranging from 100 feet all the way up to 250 feet. All while using night vision, infrared equipment, terrain following radars and a ton of other gee whiz techno stuff. Also, the takeoff and landing were on some little piece of dirt again without lights using the above mentioned equipment. You do this to drop off interesting people and strange stuff to unique places. This really only touches what we did and what the current crews train for.
There are quite a few options within Air Force Special operations of which include: MC-130H (described above). MC-130E Combat Talon I (an older version of the MC-130H). MC-130P Combat Shadow (refuels helos inflight). AC-130H/U Gunships (death from above in a circle). MH-53J Pave-Low (armed helo). There are other options too.
I hate this to sound like a recruiting tidbit, but I am just trying to pass on some info. If you want to inquire more about Air Force Special Operations. Check out the home page: http://www.hurlburt.af.mil/index2.shtml
Goose17
xhercdriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 80
The short answer is that if you want to have fun WHILE you're flying, fighters are probably your best bet. You'll be doing things pretty much every pilot wishes they could've done at one time or another.
But, if you want to have fun the REST of the time, i.e. when you AIN'T flying, then the heavies have it all over the fighters. For the most part, you'll be at better locations, either for permanent station or temporary duty, in heavies.
Heavies get more hours overall as well, and more instrument time, but the major airlines take this into account and some of them either prefer fighter pilots or use a modifier to make the fighter time more comparable. All fighter time is PIC after all.
The only other serious consideration is that fighter guys are more likely to get tagged to do a non-flying tour, due to the number of staff/ground jobs requiring fighter expertise vs. the available number of bodies and cockpits. A heavy driver who "just wants to fly" will probably be able to do it, the fighter guy will have a tougher time avoiding that desk/ground job.
Personally, I think there are NO "bad" Air Force flying jobs. Every plane has a good mission, with fun to be had both in and out of the cockpit.
But, if you want to have fun the REST of the time, i.e. when you AIN'T flying, then the heavies have it all over the fighters. For the most part, you'll be at better locations, either for permanent station or temporary duty, in heavies.
Heavies get more hours overall as well, and more instrument time, but the major airlines take this into account and some of them either prefer fighter pilots or use a modifier to make the fighter time more comparable. All fighter time is PIC after all.
The only other serious consideration is that fighter guys are more likely to get tagged to do a non-flying tour, due to the number of staff/ground jobs requiring fighter expertise vs. the available number of bodies and cockpits. A heavy driver who "just wants to fly" will probably be able to do it, the fighter guy will have a tougher time avoiding that desk/ground job.
Personally, I think there are NO "bad" Air Force flying jobs. Every plane has a good mission, with fun to be had both in and out of the cockpit.
Great input from all of the posts. Just to add a little more from the heavy perspective. I flew heavies (C-141s) for almost 20 years in the USAF. It allowed me to land and takeoff in 69 different countries and be involved in the Grenada, Panama, Desert Shield, Somalia, and Bosnia. I wouldn't change a day of that experience even if I am kicking myself, just a little bit, about not taking that fighter out of UPT 20 years ago. You can't go wrong either way. The lifestyle is great and will be challenging, no matter what you fly. Good luck and fly safe.
DaveGriffin
Registered Self-Abuser
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 569
DaveGriffin
Registered Self-Abuser
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 569
DaveGriffin
Registered Self-Abuser
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 569
AlbieF15
F15 Ret/FDX/InterviewPrep
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,764
Pay may be the same for both on the paycheck, but my 141 buddies at Charleston could pay mortgages with TDY checks some months. Per Diem flying to Europe and around the US was great.
Per diem in the garden spots of the middle east were only dollars a day, however, as chow halls and/or MREs were provided.
Albie
Per diem in the garden spots of the middle east were only dollars a day, however, as chow halls and/or MREs were provided.
Albie
bssthound
Enormous Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 541
Hope this helps:
I've seen both worlds as an F-4 backseater
and a KC-135 & WC-130 navigator. No, I'm
not a pilot on either but having a stick and
throttles in the back of a phantom is pretty
much like being a second tier star on a porn
set: you're in on some GREAT action!!
The F-4 was definitely more fun to fly. My
analogy was comparing a Porsche to a
greyhound. The heavies put us in better
locations for longer periods of time. I love
to travel and have seen a good bit of the
world thanks to the Air National Guard and
Air Force Reserve.
If you're more concerned about number of
hours logged the heavies are for you. If you
want to yank, bank, and really max
perform your jet, fighters are the way to go.
As far as one breed of pilot being "better,"
I've seen buffoonery and superb sticks
in both arenas. Case closed.
Congratulations. You have a golden
opportunity in front of you that many people
would give anything for. You have years
of fond memories and great buds in front
of you. Relish it, it'll be the best time of
your life!
I've seen both worlds as an F-4 backseater
and a KC-135 & WC-130 navigator. No, I'm
not a pilot on either but having a stick and
throttles in the back of a phantom is pretty
much like being a second tier star on a porn
set: you're in on some GREAT action!!
The F-4 was definitely more fun to fly. My
analogy was comparing a Porsche to a
greyhound. The heavies put us in better
locations for longer periods of time. I love
to travel and have seen a good bit of the
world thanks to the Air National Guard and
Air Force Reserve.
If you're more concerned about number of
hours logged the heavies are for you. If you
want to yank, bank, and really max
perform your jet, fighters are the way to go.
As far as one breed of pilot being "better,"
I've seen buffoonery and superb sticks
in both arenas. Case closed.
Congratulations. You have a golden
opportunity in front of you that many people
would give anything for. You have years
of fond memories and great buds in front
of you. Relish it, it'll be the best time of
your life!
DaveGriffin
Registered Self-Abuser
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 569
Re: "Going ugly early"
Once again, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I went through the second half of flight school with the Navy at Corpus NAS and I can assure you it was the Navy "going ugly early". In fact, I believe it was a Marine pilot who left with a girl one night affectionately known as "the Zepplin". Need I say more?
DaveGriffin said:
Once again, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I went through the second half of flight school with the Navy at Corpus NAS and I can assure you it was the Navy "going ugly early". In fact, I believe it was a Marine pilot who left with a girl one night affectionately known as "the Zepplin". Need I say more?
DaveGriffin
Registered Self-Abuser
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 569
Re: Re: "Going ugly early"
Come on Otto; you know as well as I that Marines do things like that just to prove to their buddies how tough they are.
You guys "go ugly early" because it is often the only way to find a date.
Fly Navy.
Otto said:
I believe it was a Marine pilot who left with a girl one night affectionately known as "the Zepplin". Need I say more?
Come on Otto; you know as well as I that Marines do things like that just to prove to their buddies how tough they are.
You guys "go ugly early" because it is often the only way to find a date.
Fly Navy.
Alright ladies, that's enough.
Another consideration is the TDY frequency--specifically deployments. Fighters, tankers, -130's tend to deploy, 30-60 days at a time, a few times a year. Transports: C-17, C-5, C-141 tend to go on more frequent, yet shorter trips.
I've heard my share of heavy guys wishing they flew a fighter, my guess is you don't hear many fighter guys wishing they flew a heavy. You need to decide how important getting up out of your seat, using the toilet, getting some coffee, grabbing a few freshly baked cookies, then sitting back in your seat is to you.
See
Another consideration is the TDY frequency--specifically deployments. Fighters, tankers, -130's tend to deploy, 30-60 days at a time, a few times a year. Transports: C-17, C-5, C-141 tend to go on more frequent, yet shorter trips.
I've heard my share of heavy guys wishing they flew a fighter, my guess is you don't hear many fighter guys wishing they flew a heavy. You need to decide how important getting up out of your seat, using the toilet, getting some coffee, grabbing a few freshly baked cookies, then sitting back in your seat is to you.
See
DaveGriffin
Registered Self-Abuser
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 569
SpeedRacer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 60
Lawn Darts vs. Big Jets!
This was getting pretty funny a little bit ago!!
You guys have said it all, pretty much covered all the bases (even with the ocassional "I am the greatest fighter pilot" dork - probably even shoots down his watch everyday at the O'Club!!!).
All I will offer is that is sure is nice to have four engines under my wing (C-141 if you havn't guessed) cruising over the cold North Atlantic vs. going single engine and wearing a "poopy suit" - if that's what you guys and girls still call it nowadays!!!
This was getting pretty funny a little bit ago!!
You guys have said it all, pretty much covered all the bases (even with the ocassional "I am the greatest fighter pilot" dork - probably even shoots down his watch everyday at the O'Club!!!).
All I will offer is that is sure is nice to have four engines under my wing (C-141 if you havn't guessed) cruising over the cold North Atlantic vs. going single engine and wearing a "poopy suit" - if that's what you guys and girls still call it nowadays!!!
Good Point
SpeedRacer, though unimpressed with inane fighter bravado, has a point.
When doing an ocean crossing in an F-15C from Spangdahlem, AB Germany to Langley AFB, VA, the weather guy briefed that the surface winds were about 30 kts or less for the route except for a low pressure area 500 miles south of Iceland. There we would find winds up to 50 kts. OK, we all thought, this is the North Atlantic. We'll never see it anyway...Wrong.
After the second refueling (in the weather, of course), we broke into the clear at that very point. The winds down there were nothing short of biblical. I kid you not, from our lofty perch at 25K or so, a full 40% of the ocean's surface was white with sea foam from the wave action. Our survival time in a raft down there was probably about 10 minutes, just a tad shorter than the 6 to 10 hours it would have taken to get a rescue 130 out there.
I just turned up the lights and adjusted the seat down, hoping that the engine troop that rebuilt my trusty F-100s was a happy camper.
SpeedRacer, though unimpressed with inane fighter bravado, has a point.
When doing an ocean crossing in an F-15C from Spangdahlem, AB Germany to Langley AFB, VA, the weather guy briefed that the surface winds were about 30 kts or less for the route except for a low pressure area 500 miles south of Iceland. There we would find winds up to 50 kts. OK, we all thought, this is the North Atlantic. We'll never see it anyway...Wrong.
After the second refueling (in the weather, of course), we broke into the clear at that very point. The winds down there were nothing short of biblical. I kid you not, from our lofty perch at 25K or so, a full 40% of the ocean's surface was white with sea foam from the wave action. Our survival time in a raft down there was probably about 10 minutes, just a tad shorter than the 6 to 10 hours it would have taken to get a rescue 130 out there.
I just turned up the lights and adjusted the seat down, hoping that the engine troop that rebuilt my trusty F-100s was a happy camper.
Last edited:
HueyPilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 207
Best deal in the AF...
This is purely my own opinion, but having flown helos for the Army for a few years, I guess I've had a little experience outside my current world. If you want to pull some Gs, then go fighters, but if you could care less, then fly C-21s. Yes, the little Learjet. We fly operational sorties AND we get our fair share of good deals. Tomorrow, if my jet isn't assigned a mission, we'll get to take it anywhere we want for a 'training' sortie. How about lunch in Durango, Colorado? Or how about Key West? Maybe a few overhead tactical patterns for some fun before we land for food? Or lets bet how fast the jet will climb to 10,000 feet today while doing a max-performance climb...
Anyways, that's my little recruiting input from the Lear crews...
Good luck with anything you decide on.
This is purely my own opinion, but having flown helos for the Army for a few years, I guess I've had a little experience outside my current world. If you want to pull some Gs, then go fighters, but if you could care less, then fly C-21s. Yes, the little Learjet. We fly operational sorties AND we get our fair share of good deals. Tomorrow, if my jet isn't assigned a mission, we'll get to take it anywhere we want for a 'training' sortie. How about lunch in Durango, Colorado? Or how about Key West? Maybe a few overhead tactical patterns for some fun before we land for food? Or lets bet how fast the jet will climb to 10,000 feet today while doing a max-performance climb...
Anyways, that's my little recruiting input from the Lear crews...
Good luck with anything you decide on.
It's been beaten to death, but here's my .02. Being a heavy dude myself, I had a chance to see the world, stay in some nice hotels (few bad ones too) and fly with some of the coolest dudes/dudettes to hang out with. Everytime I flew the FRED, it never seized to amaze me that such a humungous beast can actually get airborne. I have to admit that sitting on my butt for 8+ hours at a time got old, but on the lighter side, napping in the bunks was very relaxing-not to mention food at every stop (dont' forget to work out when you're out on the road).
From speaking with my buddies flying fighters, the general consensus is that they are very happy "when they are flying" (key phrase here). However, these guys/gals work too hard, in my opinion. From what I'm told from my fighter buddies, typical fighter pilot works 12 hours in the office when they are not flying, which includes studying in the vaults.
I was never a fighter wannabe (just an airline pilot wannabe), but I have to admit that flying a fighter would be awesome, but just that........"flying". It's too bad that not everybody gets to fly the T-38 like the old days; not that it's a fighter, but it did help in deciding what you wanted to fly. My advise to you would be to follow your dreams and never look back and regret. If your dream is to fly fighters, go for it! There are definitely pros and cons to EVERYTHING. For me, it was an easy decision; I wanted to spend time with my family, fly, and enjoy life. I never thought I would say this, but if you decide to go heavies and later in your flying career you miss going inverted and flying close to another aircraft, you can always fly the T-6 (T-37 replacement or soon to be). Good luck and God bless!
From speaking with my buddies flying fighters, the general consensus is that they are very happy "when they are flying" (key phrase here). However, these guys/gals work too hard, in my opinion. From what I'm told from my fighter buddies, typical fighter pilot works 12 hours in the office when they are not flying, which includes studying in the vaults.
I was never a fighter wannabe (just an airline pilot wannabe), but I have to admit that flying a fighter would be awesome, but just that........"flying". It's too bad that not everybody gets to fly the T-38 like the old days; not that it's a fighter, but it did help in deciding what you wanted to fly. My advise to you would be to follow your dreams and never look back and regret. If your dream is to fly fighters, go for it! There are definitely pros and cons to EVERYTHING. For me, it was an easy decision; I wanted to spend time with my family, fly, and enjoy life. I never thought I would say this, but if you decide to go heavies and later in your flying career you miss going inverted and flying close to another aircraft, you can always fly the T-6 (T-37 replacement or soon to be). Good luck and God bless!
Ask yourself this question:
When you finally talk the Babe o' Justice into having dinner at your snake ranch bachelor pad, do you want the picture on the fridge to be of you ascending the ladder to your F-22 or of you slurping coffee and scarfing a TV dinner in the cockpit of your C-17?
On the other hand, if you don't hang out with women who are so shallow as to judge you by your flying equipment, then fly whatever YOU want.
When you finally talk the Babe o' Justice into having dinner at your snake ranch bachelor pad, do you want the picture on the fridge to be of you ascending the ladder to your F-22 or of you slurping coffee and scarfing a TV dinner in the cockpit of your C-17?
On the other hand, if you don't hang out with women who are so shallow as to judge you by your flying equipment, then fly whatever YOU want.
AArider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Posts
- 46
Here is my 2 cents from someone who has done BOTH. Fly fighters first (while your young). Then find a Heavy unit to finish out your career. You get the best of both worlds !! I'll tell you, the flying is quite different in both platforms, with one not being any harder than the other (flying wise). I believe there is more to learn as a fighter guy though with all the friendly and enemy weapon systems/threats. Either way, the ground gets smaller as you pull back on the stick/yoke. Good luck either way.
The Jet Sorts You Out
I haven't gone through UPT yet (hoping the AFROTC UPT board will be kind to me this March), but I'll tell you what a bunch of people from my Det. have said. The jet (the Tweet) sorts you out. I suppose you can update that to the turboprop sorts you out for the Navy and T-6 types. What I mean is that during phase II of UPT, especially the aerobatics phase, you'll figure out if you enjoy the yank and bank stuff or you'd like the bigger jets. I know one guy at Altus in the RTU for KC-135Rs that g-loc'd unexpectedly once in 37s and from that day on swore he had no business in a single place aircraft. Just an example. I know plenty of my peers that don't just want to be pilots, but want to be Eagle drivers or 130 drivers. My advice would be this - don't try to get a specific cockpit, try to do well enough in UPT, especially 37s, that when you have to choose a track you'll be in a good position to pick what you want and you'll have enough first hand experience to know.
Just my $.02
I haven't gone through UPT yet (hoping the AFROTC UPT board will be kind to me this March), but I'll tell you what a bunch of people from my Det. have said. The jet (the Tweet) sorts you out. I suppose you can update that to the turboprop sorts you out for the Navy and T-6 types. What I mean is that during phase II of UPT, especially the aerobatics phase, you'll figure out if you enjoy the yank and bank stuff or you'd like the bigger jets. I know one guy at Altus in the RTU for KC-135Rs that g-loc'd unexpectedly once in 37s and from that day on swore he had no business in a single place aircraft. Just an example. I know plenty of my peers that don't just want to be pilots, but want to be Eagle drivers or 130 drivers. My advice would be this - don't try to get a specific cockpit, try to do well enough in UPT, especially 37s, that when you have to choose a track you'll be in a good position to pick what you want and you'll have enough first hand experience to know.
Just my $.02
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
Question Carbon Cub EX-3/FX-3 door behind air filter?
- Latest: Cactus Charlie
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
