Warbirds VS Jets

[maguireted]

As you know, I live in France with my daughter yet (because about my health).Yesterday, I had a discussion with Hilde (my daughter). She also makes virtual flying in FSX.
I was flying the B-17 A2A and she said "it's easier than flying a 747/400!!
I said "What!" On a jet is all automatic !!"
She replied "it is more difficult a 747 plane compared to an old people plane !" Was !! unglaublich!!"Du compare me as a "has-been or what".Hilde said, "Dad flew an F-15 and it was certainly difficult. ja ja, sicherlich! So ....
bitte meine Freunde, I'm right or not ,older aircraft are more difficult than jets.
It's Hilde VS Anna, who's wrong . Thank you for your answers. Sincerely yours , Anna

Excuse me my mistakes in english text.I speak English very well but sometimes I write it badly ,Anna .

[IanP]

I'd say they're different, personally.

Modern commercial aircraft, such as an A340, a B777 or a B747-400, are highly automated, computerised and very easy to fly - but you have to fly them in a different way, obeying much more stringent rules.

Modern military aircraft such as the EuroFighter, F-22 and F-35 are the same. They're very easy to fly, freeing up the pilot's workload to fight them instead.

However you don't have to go back far, particularly in commercial aircraft, to find that the jets (early B737s, B727s, early B747s, DC-8s and DC-9s) were pretty heavy work to monitor. Hence you often still carried a flight engineer as part of the crew. Those, I would say, were not a much lower workload, if at all, than a WW2 or 1950s piston aircraft - they just broke less frequently!

The Century Jets (particularly the Deltas and Starfighter), MiG-21 and MiG-23? A totally different kettle of fish. You had to fly, look after the systems and seriously look after the engines, usually on your own, or they'd bite and probably kill you.

Of course this is a question about flying, so you'll find as many different answers as the number of people you ask. :d

Cheers,

Ian P.

[PRB]

I would think a modern 747 would be more difficult because there are so many more complex systems to understand annd operate in order to make it go. INS, comminucations, hydraulics, electrical, ... all these systems have to be monitored and not abused, while flying.

Which one is more difficult to actually fly? I don't know. Fliger747, and a few others here who fly these big jets for real, could have something more meaningful to add. In FSX, I find the 747 to be no more difficult than a B-17, except that it's much easier to "overspeed" a 747, or any of the airliners, and while landing it really really helps to be flying all the correct speeds for various flap settings.

[maguireted]

Thank you very much for this informations, but the B-17 and P47 are very difficult to fly. I think a 747 is not easy but my daughter may be trying to pride ....However , I love you , my little Hilde ( 28 years old ) .Best Regards , Yours Anna

[Bjoern]

Maybe the B-17 is easier to fly than the 747 because it's smaller and much slower...

Modern airliners, at least the real ones, require much less attention while flying but if something goes wrong in the systems you'll need the knowledge of a flight engineer for troubleshooting.
In older planes, you had another brain storing all the systems knowledge for you on board, while from the DC-9 and 737 on, that extra brain got replaced by automatic systems (Ian...;)) while you and your co-pilot needed much more systems knowledge instead, making you kind of an engineer with a pilots license.

[falcon409]

Personally, although I never flew a Warbird but did fly a modern Fighter (if only for one hour), I would say that Warbirds were difficult until the pilot mastered the basics of whatever airplane he was flying, after that I would think it more intuitive. Warbirds, at least the Fighters, were void of a lot of the complicated systems that the Bombers possessed. A Fighter Pilot and his airplane understood each other on a level different from the bigger airplanes, at least that's my view of it.

Modern aircraft, are not terribly different on a basic level, but the systems overload experienced by a lot of pilots takes the personal side out of it that early pilots enjoyed. Even for the modern Fighter Pilot, as systems become more and more complex, probably wonders at what point he'll become obsolete. . .something the early hero's of the skies never dreamed would be possible.

I guess it all comes down to what "Floats yer Boat" so to speak. I don't fly Commercial Jets at all, seldom if ever fly Business Jets. . .most of my time is spent between GA, LSA or Fighters. I'm a "seat of the pants" pilot and I like it that way.

[Bjoern]

Modern aircraft, are not terribly different on a basic level, but the systems overload experienced by a lot of pilots takes the personal side out of it that early pilots enjoyed.

Actually even a flying calculator like an Airbus A320 can still be flown "personally" if you switch off the autopilot. And many pilots use that opportunity.
The only thing different is the method of control. Cables and direct feeedback got replaced by electrics and indirect feedback and a computer now makes sure that the (sometimes irrational) human in command doesn't do too many bad moves that can endanger the aircraft.
But you can still slam it down on the runway or glide in like a leaf if you want to.

Really, the only things different from back to now is safety and ease of use. Flying itself is still the same.


Even for the modern Fighter Pilot, as systems become more and more complex, probably wonders at what point he'll become obsolete. . .something the early hero's of the skies never dreamed would be possible.

The more complex the systems get, the more aids the pilot will get as well. As creatively as our gray matter can analyze situations and draw conlusions, it can be overloaded fairly easily and that is generally *not* what you want when it's a matter of life and death.

The obsolescence of fighter pilots just lies within the "life and death" thing. With life being regarded as fairly prescious nowadays, measures are taken that you won't endanger too many of 'em if you need to settle your differences with AtoA and AtoG munitions.

[IanP]

This is a lot about management versus piloting, isn't it?

My original response was based on pure pilotage rather than being able to deal with systems failures and suchlike. Even then, modern aircraft make dealing with a systems problem much easier than it used to be...

1940s airliner: (Cabin crew chief knocks on door) "Captain, we can smell smoke."
2000s airliner: (Master Alarm goes off, FO looks at the EICAS) "Captain, we have an overheat warning on the aft cargo bay sensor. Automatic extinguisher has discharged."

As Bjoern says, you can hand fly anything, but the systems will do their best to smooth out the ride, to stop you crashing to to generally make things easier. You didn't have them back in the bad old days. You have a lot more systems to learn about now, but perhaps the total understanding of them is less. These days, when a jet fails, you get on the radio for a mechanic. You don't try and nurse it back, then fix it yourself at some basic no-facilities strip in the middle of nowhere. For starters, you don't have the computer with you most of the time that's required to tell you what's wrong with a modern engine anyway!!!

I'm not so sure about your theories regarding pilots now, though, Bjoern - what Ed says is already coming true. The US military are already deploying autonomous drones that can engage targets without human input. Whether human input is currently required or not under RoE is comparatively minor. The drones can - and have demonstrated that they can - engage without needing someone to push the button.

Now where's me tinfoil hat gone, to defeat the Rise of the Machines? :d

Cheers.

Ian P.

[Bjoern]

The drones can - and have demonstrated that they can - engage without needing someone to push the button.

But can they judge themselves *what* they engage? And who designates the targets in the first place? A computer that can tell an enemy truck from a civilian one? ;)

We're quite advanced, but not *that* advanced (yet).

[robert41]

Iam not a RW pilot, but in FS the A2A B17 Accusim is much more of a challenge to fly than the default 747/400. I find the 17 flies very well and is easy to manage. I usually do not fly jets very often, prefer older vintage piston aircraft. The reason I came to FSX, more realism.

[maguireted]

honestly, I would say this, I am right and I'm wrong, I think. Hilde perhaps has right and wrong .... thank you my friends , to fly is more difficult in fact in our brains :mixedsmi: , Cheers , yours , Anna

[falcon409]

But can they judge themselves *what* they engage? And who designates the targets in the first place? A computer that can tell an enemy truck from a civilian one?
No, not a computer, but a trained pilot sitting at a console not so different from what we do every day when we load FSX to fly. It happens every day over Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to the point of having the ability to engage another aircraft in aerial combat, but imagine it for many of the current "support Missions" flown by pilots that can take as much as 15+ hours in the cockpit. It would be a great asset.


We're quite advanced, but not *that* advanced (yet).
No not yet. . .but it's coming. At some point in the future, aircraft will have morphed into a vehicle capable of such radical maneuvers that a "human" pilot will no longer be able to survive in a combat situation. . .it will happen.:salute:

[Bjoern]

No, not a computer, but a trained pilot sitting at a console not so different from what we do every day when we load FSX to fly.

That's not what Ian was indicating. Even if the human is sitting miles away on the ground, he/she is still flying an aircraft and making all the descisions.

Ian indicated something like an AI, which just isn't possible (yet).


No not yet. . .but it's coming. At some point in the future, aircraft will have morphed into a vehicle capable of such radical maneuvers that a "human" pilot will no longer be able to survive in a combat situation. . .it will happen.:salute:

At some point there'll also be viruses and EMPs targeted specifically at drone control installations so I'll doubt us humans will lose the edge to machines. ;)

[falcon409]

That's not what Ian was indicating. Even if the human is sitting miles away on the ground, he/she is still flying an aircraft and making all the decisions.

Ian indicated something like an AI, which just isn't possible (yet).

At some point there'll also be viruses and EMPs targeted specifically at drone control installations so I'll doubt us humans will lose the edge to machines. ;)
It's all a matter of opinion Bjoern and everyone has one. This Forum proves that every single day. Fact is none of us know for sure and everything is really just based on conjecture. I'm a "Fighter Pilot Wannabe" and would always hope that the true "human" pilot could never be replaced and hopefully in our lifetime that won't happen. Someday though, it will, eventually in the cockpit will sit something that looks real and sounds real. . .but won't be. (que the "Twilight Zone Theme"):wavey:

[Bjoern]

Someday though, it will, eventually in the cockpit will sit something that looks real and sounds real. . .but won't be. (que the "Twilight Zone Theme"):wavey:

That's an awesome ending for a speculative post. :d

[CheckSix]

I have to agree with Falcon. AI will rule the future. Having a member of family flying Pred's I have been enlightened considerably as to what these air vehicles (I refuse to callem aircraft :D) are capable of and what is coming down the pipes in the not too distant future.

Virus's. EMP weps et al? Do you honestly think that the designers of these vehicles haven't already considered and prepared / preparing for these and other possible threats?

The future is not human :(

[Brett_Henderson]

This is really apples and oranges (and pears, on cherries and cucumbers) :wiggle:


The only way to quantify it (especially simming) for a "which is easier" question; is to really narrow the scope with a qualifier such as; which is esaier to fly realistically. And that goes beyong the series of tasks to get airborne; hold heading/altitude, navigate and land.

Even a C172 dificulty 'rating' would be mission specific. Flying 100nm from one small airport to another in beautiful weather, is a completely different task than pushing the range limits in poor weather on a long, multi-leg flight. Just the flight planning alone is a different league... let alone navigating and fuel management.

Getting a 747 up into the air, and to another runway in one piece aint that hard. Doing it realistically is a different story.. ala speed/altitude restrictions; passenger comfort; economy/schedule; SIDs/STAR; emergency-readiness, and so on..

As for the B-17... are you replicating era flying and navigating ? .. or .. just putting along withe a GPS ? Are you beating the snot out of those old radials ? .. or .. flying in a way that will allow them to fly again tomorrow ?

In other words.. this is a near impossible comparison..

[Bjoern]

Virus's. EMP weps et al? Do you honestly think that the designers of these vehicles haven't already considered and prepared / preparing for these and other possible threats?

Newton's third law: Actio <-> Reactio.

It won't necessarily be an immediate reaction, but there *will* be one!


The future is not human :(Not human as in great automation - yes.
Not human as in AI - not sure about that.



- Edit: Heya, Brett! :wavey:

[Brett_Henderson]

Hi Bjoern.. :wavey:

[dominique]

Let me sum up the issue in a less intellectual way :

1- The zombies are overwelming your town and you flee to the airport to escape.

2- You have 30 years of simming experience but no time in the cockpit of a real plane, ever.

3- There're only two (fueled) planes on the tarmac : a 747 and a B17.

4- The zombies are howlin' near but they're slow (zombies usually are). You've 30 minutes.

5- What aircraft would you (say most of us) be able to start up and help you to fly away ?

The B-17 of course...

I rest my case.

[IanP]

The demonstator video I watched (I think it was on The Register, but their search engine is useless and I loathe Lewis Page, their "military" guy) was of a drone programmed to engage anything within a certain radius of a fixed point. A remote vehicle was driven in, a missile was launched and hit the target. No-one pressed the button, it was entirely autonomous (according to the guy commentating the video).

So the future is already here - it's just that we don't use it right now.

dominique: Dunno. Can I try both and see? :d

You'd be able to run further in the B747 than the B17...?

[Brett_Henderson]

Let me sum up the issue in a less intellectual way :

1- The zombies are overwelming your town and you flee to the airport to escape.

2- You have 30 years of simming experience but no time in the cockpit of a real plane, ever.

3- There're only two (fueled) planes on the tarmac : a 747 and a B17.

4- The zombies are howlin' near but they're slow (zombies usually are). You've 30 minutes.

5- What aircraft would you (say most of us) be able to start up and help you to fly away ?

The B-17 of course...

I rest my case.

Wow.. that would make quite a FSX mission.. lol

But there is no case to rest .. that is a bizarre scenario, no real mission.. aimed at simply getting an airplane up into the air .. and using REAL airplanes :wiggle:

We could add that the only zombie-free zone is across an ocean.. and rest a case on THAT scenario..

[dominique]

the only zombie-free zone is across an ocean.. and rest a case on THAT scenario..

It depends on which body of water we are talking. Finding your way across the Pacific with a sextant might be tricky for a simmer. On the other hand crossing the Channel or the Mediterranean shouldn't be a problem.



dominique: Dunno. Can I try both and see? :d


Really, it's your call, Ian. Just remember that zombies are slow but very determined. How long to program a FMS ?

[IanP]

I'll plant a Frozen Pea Shooter and a Wallnut. That'll slow 'em down...

Although you can take off first, then program the FMC later. Or just punch a DIRECT TO into modern 747s with a GPS. Just assume MTOW with Flaps 10 or so and rotate at around 160KIAS or so.

Anyway. Getting off topic. I still maintain my stance that the difficulty or otherwise is highly subjective and exact aircraft specific. ;)

[Alan_A]

There was a different version of this discussion earlier this season during a Speed TV (US) Formula 1 telecast. The commentators - I think it was Varsha and Hobbs - were talking about the skills required to drive a 1950's vs. 1960's vs. modern F1 car and concluded there was really no comparison. There's a vast difference between what was required of Fangio (no power sterering, no seatbelts, oil spewing at you from the engine out front), Jim Clark (the car is all power and no grip, it's as likely to go airborne as hold the turn) and Alonso (deep knowledge of aero, ability to manage all the computerized engine settings, work with the engineers on software-mediated balance settings)... One man wouldn't have the skills or experience to compete effectively in the others' eras.

Re: airplanes - my impression (which owes a lot to A2A and Accu-sim, plus a lot of reading) is that in the 1940's, at the end of a long technology race, powerplants and aerodynamics had outrun the pilot's ability to control them, so as a pilot, you were forced to spend a lot of time keeping the engine from blowing up and the aircraft inside its performance envelope. Development after that involved simplifying the mechanics (jets are easier to operate than radial engines), then automating the systems to allow the pilot to spend more time flying, or managing the flight, or in the case of a combat a/c, fighting. But as others have pointed out, the systems require knowledge and management themselves. So basically there's been a change in culture - from wrestling with big unruly mechanical systems to mastering the intricacy of computer-based ones.

For my own personal enjoyment, there's something about big unruly radials. Call me Fangio...

[SADT]

As much as 2nd gen. jets are easier to fly than 1st gen. jets, I prefer the latter as in 2nd gen. jets I feel like I am flying a staid computer, not a magnificent flying machine.

[maguireted]

Her SADT , I am agree with you on this point of view, is what I told my daughter. Best Regards, Anna

[warchild]

I have to agree with Falcon. AI will rule the future. Having a member of family flying Pred's I have been enlightened considerably as to what these air vehicles (I refuse to callem aircraft :D) are capable of and what is coming down the pipes in the not too distant future.

Virus's. EMP weps et al? Do you honestly think that the designers of these vehicles haven't already considered and prepared / preparing for these and other possible threats?

The future is not human :(
I wish the future were simply, not war.. but thats another thread, for another forum somewhere in the future..

[warchild]

The more i program these things, the more i find myself abandoning the newer technologies. Its not that they are hard to fly, you dont fly them, you program them, and frankly, i got better things to do than punch in a bunch of crap to and FMC and let it have all the fun.
Personally, i dont think you can compare todays aircraft with yesterdays aircraft. They only thing they have in common, is wings ( and even that isnt always the case any more ).
You can do things with some of the newer aircraft that was unimaginable during world war two or korea or even viet nam. You can literally dance some of these things through the sky. Pirouette like a prima ballerina and play with the eagles. Its as absolutely close to actual flying that man can ever achieve. But thats the technology doing that. 3D vectored thrust with active canard-elevator pairs and a computer keeping you from flipping over like a flap jack.. it all goes into allowing the aircraft to go beyond anything that has existed before, but i dont think its pilotage or human flying.. Is it any easier than in the past?? Hell no.. Just very different. its a difference i stand in awe of, but have no love for.
The B-17, B-24, Lanc, B-25s, these were brute force machines.. the B-17 was the only one designed to be "pretty", because it was designed in the wonderful pre war art deco period where idealisms and innocence were the call of the day By the end of the war, even it wasnt too pretty. The planes were designed for only one thing.. get the mission accomplished at any cost.
I cant say that flying modern jets is any more difficult than flying an old B-17. Ideals and requirements have changed so much that theres little relation between them. I can say one thing though..
The hardest plane to fly, past present or in the future, is the one you havent flown yet.
Pam

[warchild]

Let me sum up the issue in a less intellectual way :

1- The zombies are overwelming your town and you flee to the airport to escape.

2- You have 30 years of simming experience but no time in the cockpit of a real plane, ever.

3- There're only two (fueled) planes on the tarmac : a 747 and a B17.

4- The zombies are howlin' near but they're slow (zombies usually are). You've 30 minutes.

5- What aircraft would you (say most of us) be able to start up and help you to fly away ?

The B-17 of course...

I rest my case.

Actually, 'd choose the 747, but then, i know boeing's control flow ( and if i'm being chased, i aint worrying about GPS ). However, you make a point.. Once started, the 17 is far less complex. The 747 has a block diagram on the overhead panel showing what switches turn on the apu.. The 17 has no such luxury.. However, had you said the only two planes were a 17 and a tupolev then yahh.. i'm choosing the 17.. it has machine guns, and ive never been able to start the tupolev..