Patmack T-6A Comments

[Hugh Jorgan]

I certainly agree with the difference in challenge between the two patterns. No war here, just observations. The very simple navy pattern teaches a student how to make a final turn, roll out in the groove and land. The Air Force pattern teaches a student how to fly an Air Force pattern. Having instructed in both patterns, I can't even begin to express the amount of frustration involved with trying work on a student's landings when they have to be a freaking lawyer in the process. Yes, the radios might be a bit more cluttered, but as a student in T-34's I got from 10-12 landings per sortie. As an IP in the AF command, I witnessed students mostly getting on the order of 5 or 6 landings per sortie...but got real good at figuring out when they could pull closed, when they had to go around the box or break out or do just about anything else other than land...on second thought, no they didn't.

Regarding the 90 degrees angle of bank limit...Sure it's necessary for the types of manuevers that must be done at certain times in the pattern, but in the short time I was at AETC, there were two fatal mishaps due to accerlerated stalls in the final turn.

I never really warmed up to the AF pattern for teaching, but it was a lot of fun to play around in without students.

 

[Spur]

As far as leaving the gear down in the pattern, I don't think throwing the handle up and down makes it all that much more exciting.

No, but pulling a 6 g closed from the offset sure does

 

[Tweetdrvr]

Can you imagine the abuse it would take (on top of what they get now) if you start putting the gear up and down on each plane 50-70 times a day more than what they get?

You would get a 1957 model T-37 with 20,000 hours at 1.35 per sortie that averages the 5-6 landings on each student ride as previously mentioned which works out to about 74,000 total landings (the mx dudes tell me they keep the actual numbers in the computer) and almost half of those were accrued during the pre solo hard landing phase of training.

So if a T-37 is worth $250K, that works out to $3.38 per landing. At $4Mil apiece a T-6 would have to survive long enough to reach 1.18 million landings to get the cost per landing to the same value. Whether you do it the Navy way with the gear hanging in the pattern or the AF way and raise it on each closed pattern, it won't survive that long.

 

[Kuma]

I've taught in both patterns also. Everyone has made accurate accounts of the patterns so far, but I'm not sure how Talon can make the statement that T-34 patterns are "as far from carrier ops as you can get". Sure, T-44 and C-12 patterns may be different, but they are training P-3 pilots and KC-130 pilots (and obviously they don't need ship board type training). I was given the opportunity to fly with the T-2C squadrons at Meridian for a month a couple of years ago and other than putting a "15 second in the groove" requirement and flying the ball on final, they were the same. Maybe a carrier aviation type pilot should give us the scoop here. Shipboard helicopter patterns are similar to the T-34 pattern also.

Naval pilots fly almost a constant airspeed, 30 AOB (other than the break) and refrain from aggressive changes of attitude in the pattern (training for the low vis environment that the sea gives us).

What no one has mentioned is the ASD...Average Sortie Duration. The Air Force has a 1.1-1.3 ASD and the Navy has a 2.0 ASD. It seems to me that both services are happy with the product after flight school/UPT so neither program is broken.

IMHO, after seeing both patterns and training philosophies up close and personal for a long time, I believe that the AF enhances pilots' SA by doing the complex AF pattern, while the Naval service enhances pilots' SA by doing EPs in the air. Two different ways of achieving the ultimate goal - an aviator who can think and fly at the same time.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

What no one has mentioned is the ASD...Average Sortie Duration. The Air Force has a 1.1-1.3 ASD and the Navy has a 2.0 ASD. It seems to me that both services are happy with the product after flight school/UPT so neither program is broken.

IMHO, after seeing both patterns and training philosophies up close and personal for a long time, I believe that the AF enhances pilots' SA by doing the complex AF pattern, while the Naval service enhances pilots' SA by doing EPs in the air. Two different ways of achieving the ultimate goal - an aviator who can think and fly at the same time.

Fully Concur.

And if the tweet didn't run out of gas so fast, and you could spend more time in the pattern, I think you'd have the best of both worlds.

 

[BMD]

experience?

Talon should have started his post, "In my vast experience..."

 

[Talon]

Alright, alright,
I'm not experienced, I know. I thought that would be obvious by my mindless rantings anyway.
The stuff I said about carrier ops was based on conversations I've had with carrier guys about their pattern. I was intrigued by what I saw the T-45 guys doing and asked around about it. Seems to me like hanging around in the stack until it's your turn and then doing a break for a 3 mile straight-in (or thereabouts?) is considerably different from what the T-34s do. But that's just me. I don't know nothin' about nothin', I know. (seriously, no sarcasm) And then I know even less about what the rotorheads do. That's a whole different world to me.

I guess I'm just a little bitter about not zipping around at 200kts, 7gs in a little toy like the T-6 anymore. I didn't realize I was having fun at the time, but I was.

The EPs in the pattern do add an entirely different challenge, so yes, both ways of doing business get the job done in the end.
It's allll good!