Most-Loved Trainer

[Double T]

A wide variety of aircraft were used by warring nations to introduce their future "aces" to flight-training.
What was the "first-flight" trainer--single-engine--for each of the major combatants?
Whose was "most-loved" by respective cadets?
Which was the most-hated?

This is a weak catagory of mine...
Tim

[GregP]

Some of the trainers were as follows. I omitted the "one off" aircraft taht were built in quantities of only 1 or 2. As to which is "most beloved," it depends on which country you learned to fly in. I'm sure each country's instructors loved their trainers and each country's students cursed them equally loudly ... until they learned to fly them.

I have flown a North American AT-6 Texan, have ridden in a Chipmonk (not a WW2 trainer), and have sat in or worked on several communist block trainers including a ride in a MiG-15 UTI.

Hope this list helps a bit ... it is not comprehensive, but is more "representative" of the trainers out there from 1939 - 1945.



1) U.S.A.:
- 1935. Single-engine. Monoplane. North American T-6 / AT-6 Texan. Canadians called it the Harvard. T = Trainer, AT =Advanced Trainer. 2-Seat, 550 - 600 HP radial. Affectionately called the "Yellow Peril" due to the Yellow color of USAAC trainers. 20,000 built. Still in service in places.
- 1935. Single-engine. Monoplane. Curtiss CW-19. 450 HP. 25 built.
- 1935. Single-engine. Monoplane. Curtiss CW-22. 420 HP. 496 built.
- 1940. Single-engine. Monoplane. Curtiss-Wright SNC-1. 420 HP. 305 built.
- 1941. Twin-Engine Monoplane. Curtiss AT-9 Jeep. 295 HP. 791 built.
- 1941. Single-engine. Monoplane. Ryan PT-22 Recruit. 160 HP. 1,023 built. (PT = Primary Trainer_.

2) Italy:
- 1938. Single-engine. Monoplane. SAI 7. 2-Seat 280 HP. 145 built.
- 1940. Twin-Engine Monoplane. CaproniCa.313. 750 HP each. 215 built.

3) Germany:
- 1933. Single-engine. Biplane. Arado AR.66C. 240 HP. 6,000 built.
- 1938. Single-engine. Monoplane. Arado AR.79. 105 HP. 60 built.
- 1938. Single-engine. Monoplane. Ar.96. 240 HP. 11,546 built.
- 1943. Single-engine. Monoplane. Ar.396. 600 HP. 292 built.

4) UK:
- 1935. Twin-engine. Monoplane. Avro 652A Anson. 335 HP each engine. 1,028 built.
- 1937. Single-engine. Monoplane. de Havilland Don. 525 HP. 50 built.
- 1938. Single-engine. Monoplane. Miles M-18. 150 HP. 4 built.

5) Australia:
- 1940. Single-engine. Monoplane. Commonwealth Ca-1 Wirraway. 600 HP. 755 built. Loosly based on the North American T-6 Texan, but was definitely an Australian design. Spawned the Boomerang fighter.
- 1941. Single-engine. Monoplane. Commonwealth Ca-6 Wackett. 175 HP. 200 built.

6) France:
- 1939. Twin-engine. Monoplane. Hanriot H.232. 220 HP each. 60 built.
- 1939. Twin-engine. Monoplane. SNCAC NC.232. 220 HP each. 55 built.
- 1941. Twin-engine. Monoplane. SNCAC NC.702. 444 HP each. 110 built.
- 1945. Single-engine. Monoplane. SIPA S.10. 572 HP. 30 built.

7) Czech Republic:
- 1933. Single-engine. Biplane. Letov S.328. 420 HP. Not sure how many built.

8) Switzerland:
- 1945. Single-engine. Monoplane. Pilatus P-2. 465 HP. 25 built, but spawned a series of trainers still in production.

9) Japan:
- 1939. Single-engine. Monoplane. Tachikawa Ki-55. 510 HP. 1,389 built.

10) Yugoslavia:
- 1940. Single-engine. Monoplane. Aero-2. 145 HP. 248 built.

11) Latvia:
- 1940. Single-engine. Monoplane. VEF I-17. 125 HP. Not sure how many built.

[Ricky]

Greg, did you forget the dH82 Tiger Moth?

[Jemiba]

If we are talking about the wartime, or pre-wartime trainers,
for France I would say, the Morane-Saulnier 315 and 230, first
flown around 1930 .

[Kutscha]

How could you leave out the Stearmans/Boeings Greg?;)
PT-13, PT-17, PT-18 for the USAAF, N3N for the USN

To add to Greg's list:

US - BT-9(NA64), Vultee BT-13, BEECH AT-11 "KANSAN"

Soviets - Po 2

Germany - Bucker Bu131

Canada - Fleet Fort, Finch, Cornell, Cessna Crane, Airspeed Oxford

(Canada also built a molded wood fuselage Anson - for the other thread)

Belgium - Stampe SV-4

The Anson, Ar66, and Ar96 were not originally designed as trainers though.

Greg, was not the Yellow Peril the Stearman/Boeing?

[Mark J]

As a primary trainer, the Tiger Moth
Advanced trainer, the Harvard. flown in one of these last year...fun!

cheers

[Lightning]

Hi Double T,

Good topic! (I'm surprised one of us didn't think of it sooner.)

When we're talking about "loved", "hated", "favorite", etc., the choices are very subjective, so here is my list of US trainers:

Most Loved: Boeing PT-13/17 "Stearman"

Most Hated: BT-13 "Vultee Vibrator"

Most Efective: North American AT-6 "Texan"

My Favorite: Ryan PT-22 "Recruit" (Mainly because I received my first airplane ride in one. :))

Kutscha and GregP have provided a pretty comprehensive list of the successful trainers around the world, so I won't try to improve upon it.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Most hated on the British side was probably the Fairey Battle.
Admittedly it was not a 'primary' trainer, but it sure was hated!

[GregP]

:)
I knew a short starting list would bring out the "How could you forget the my favorite!" people, and then the list would be filled out.

Glad that my ploy worked so well!

Actually, I didn't forget these aircraft, I just started out with a short list, kind of like the "Obscure Types" lists that set off a wave of new and different obscure types.

Please continue! :)

You are right about the "Yellow Peril" generally being the Stearman, but I have heard it applied to the AT-6 by owners (they might be wrong), and they say it was a general term due to the dangerous nature of flight training in 500+HP aircraft with an unskilled student trying to do new maneuvers.

The AT-6 few just fine, but was not a forgiving aircraft in a stall. Since it was supposed to train you to get into a P-51, maybe the vicious stall was a GOOD thing. In any case, the AT-6 is not particularly hard to fly.

[Mark J]

Just out of curiosity, I had a look at my Luftwaffe book and found a lot more German trainer aircraft

Arado AR 76 advanced trainer. only a few built
Arado AR 199 seaplane trainer only 2 built
Bucker BU 133 aerobatic trainer
Bucker BU 181 trainer/liaison
FW 44 primary trainer
FW 56 advanced trainer
FW 58 multirole trainer/transport
Gotha Go 145 primary trainer, tactical support in Russia, nearly 10000 built
Heinkel He 72 primary trainer
Heinkel He 74 advanced trainer 3 built
Siebel Si 204 crew trainer/transport

cheers

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Just out of curiosity, I had a look at my Luftwaffe book and found a lot more German trainer aircraft

Arado AR 76 advanced trainer. only a few built
Arado AR 199 seaplane trainer only 2 built
Bucker BU 133 aerobatic trainer
Bucker BU 181 trainer/liaison
FW 44 primary trainer
FW 56 advanced trainer
FW 58 multirole trainer/transport
Gotha Go 145 primary trainer, tactical support in Russia, nearly 10000 built
Heinkel He 72 primary trainer
Heinkel He 74 advanced trainer 3 built
Siebel Si 204 crew trainer/transport

cheers



[/quote]
Hi Folks,

Did the Russians just use one type for training? Any one have details?

[Kutscha]

Yes Groggy they did. There was a 2 seat version of the I-16 for example. Navigators, multi engine types and bomb aimers would need a/c to train in.

[Tophe]

It seems this topic is closed for a long time, more than a full week - as far as seriousness is concerned, so… I am daring to dream on the "most-loved-trainer" subject, twin-boom-enthusiasts sub part:
– What is the best trainer to learn piloting a P-38 Lightning?
– A trainer-Lightning! With a front cockpit added in the weapon-less nose: PT-38!
– Why 2 expensive engines? Why learning to handle 2 engines as a start?
– Use a single-engined Lightning! Twin-booms allow a pusher layout: PT-38A!
– What about baling out?
– Use a lateral engine: PT-38B!
– Why learning to handle asymmetry?
– Use a nose engine: PT-38C… but this would be sad: not better than a T-6…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_P-38T_g.jpg

[montanamotor]

Tophe,

and what about the four-engined-Lightning - the BT 38 (push/pull/left/right) - for training of bomber-crews...? :D

Cheers!

Montanamotor

P.S.: Okay, this last one was no trainer - but one should not forget about the famous "Tankbuster"-Lightning - the A 38: Push/pull, with two 37 mm-caliber M9-anti-tank-guns at the tips of the Booms... "Boom! boom!". Neat, ain't it?

Cheers!

[Tophe]

So… here are illustrated the Montanakheed Lightning trainers TA-38 and BT-38, with the A-38 goal also.
Thanks for enriching the collection with these not-much-known ones…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_P-38Mo_h.jpg

[montanamotor]

Err, hmm,

I think the B 38 is still missing - that one with the push/pull center bubble AND the two standard-boom-tip-engines, Tophe...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Tophe]

Here is the Montanakheed B-38, in its 2 versions: first YB-38 then bubble B-38A. Everything's possible in Montana...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_P-38Mo_j.jpg
Despite their codes, they were trainers because:
1- There is power enough to take off big weights but no room to carry them internally. So the goal was just training in a 4-engine plane.
2- This is a trainer thread/topic and I am not a hijacker... just a dreamer...;)

[montanamotor]

Supercool, Tophe! [8D]

But, for shure, the B 38 could be converted to a bombing plane, also. With four 2000 pound-bombs hung under it's wings, two of which inside and two outside the booms, it would have been a frightening ship-destroyer, with 6000 HP at hands, first for hauling bombs to the target, and second for evasive action after the drop...

THAT'S evasive: 900 km/h plus should clear all rear airspace from unfriendly fighters! Keep on drawing, Tophe!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

:D

[Tophe]

Reaching 900km/h? 560mph? Uh... That would cause severe airflow problems and may require a Variable Geometry (of external wings):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_P-38Mo_l.jpg
What is the relation with trainers anymore? Uh... You know probably that the USAF had a supersonic trainer, code T-38. Lockheed T-38 Lightning yes, or almost (Northrop T-38 Talon was a fake official name to fool the spies, I've heard, but don't tell it around you, this is top secret).

[Lightning]

Hi Tophe,

Good to see you're still dreaming! I love it!

One thing, though. I think Cessna stole your design concept for the TA-38 and the BT-38 in the form of their "Skymaster." I'd look into that if I were you. It sounds like the grounds for a juicy (and lucrative) lawsuit. [}:)]

Regards,
Lightning

[Tophe]

Dear Lightning,
we do not pretend we are the creators of the push-pull twin-boom layout: back in 1910, the Canton-Unné already featured it...

[Double T]

Tophe:
I think I've been a bad influence on you... haha.
Intriguing illustrations... we'll continue to do our best to keep you creatively inspired.

On another mission, that B-38 might also make an outstanding torpedo-plane. Possibly even able to carry TWO torpedos? Look-out Bristol Beaufighter!

Tim

[Grifo]

Filling some gap for Regia Aeronautica trainers:

Nardi FN.315
IMAM Ro.41
Breda 25

Cheers :)