Talk:Percival Provost

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

ab initio v basic

Why not just call the Provost a "basic" trainer? Why "ab initio"? Is the author a lawyer, inter alia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBrodman (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ab-inito" and "basic" seems to have been used interchangeably at the time - for example see here from Flight's archives- one problem is that the meaning of basic training seems to vary from operator to operator - for example the AT-6 (i.e Harvard) was originally designated a basic trainer by the USAAC.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because 'ab initio' means 'from the beginning' and only that - 'basic' does not. Basic can also mean 'simple', 'crude', 'undeveloped', 'unsophisticated', etc.

The RAF called it an 'ab initio' trainer because it was the first aircraft type a trainee pilot would be given instruction on, i.e,, from the beginning of his/her pilot instruction.

FYI the RAF also referred to the Tiger Moth and Chipmunk in the same manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last Piston Engined Basic Trainer?

According to the article the Percival Provost was the last ever basic trainer operated by the RAF - this is clearly incorrect in some way as the Grob Tutor T1 is still in service as an elementary flight trainer (not to mention the De Havilland Chipmunk and Slingsby Firefly that preceded it). As the Provost was replaced by the Jet Provost, might it mean that the Provost was the last piston engined advanced trainer in RAF service? Jellyfish dave (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chipmunk had not been used as a trainer in the RAF for a long time and I dont think the civil-operated Fireflies were actually operated by the RAF or used for basic training. Have to agree that the Tutor is used for elementary training but again as civil contract aircraft not strictly operated by the RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that whilst they're not strictly owned by the RAF, they are certainly operated by the RAF. Jellyfish dave (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the Tutor at Cranwell is fairly recent so I suspect the quote is from earlier, and certainly the official fast jet route still starts with the Tucano I believe. Perhaps we can just change it to say it was the last basic trainer until the introduction of the Tutor for elementary training in 20XX. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question would be whether the Tutors (and the earlier Fireflies and Bulldogs) count as basis trainers or as something else. As far as I know they are used for "Elementary" training (i.e. pre-basic) and by the University Air Squadrons. Of course, the difference between elementary and basic training may be a bit obscure to the average reader.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was good enough for the RAF Museum, the official historical body of the RAF, to produce this statement, it should be safe enough to detail in this article. Kyteto (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]