# Easiest Warbird to Fly?



## Ronald-Reagan (Oct 18, 2008)

Hey folks, new guy here. Great site! 

What would you kids say was the easiest warbird to fly? Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft. For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?" 

North American P-51D Mustang
Republic P-47D Thunderbolt
Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat
Curtis P-40E Warhawk (or Kittyhawk if you prefer)
Bell P-39D Airacobra
Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Lockheed P-38J Lightning

As I understand it, the Mustang is a sports car with a relatively high stall speed (100mph?) and, as such, requires some skill and respect to fly. And the Corsair (my favorite warbird) flies like a dream, I hear, but requires some serious skill for take-offs and landings... and the nerves to calmly ignore the oil slowly coating the windscreen  

Being a "tricycle" configuration, the P-38 probably has the best site lines for take-offs and landings, but then you have the whole twin-engine thing to worry about (though certainly a welcomed worry for many fighter pilots). 

But for the average, relatively new pilot... coming from T-6 Texan training, let's say, how would you rank the above aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness" or "ease of operation" overall?

And for comparison's sake, I don't object to throwing in a Spitfire, Zero, and/or Bf-109 or FW-190. Thanks!


Fred B.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## <simon> (Oct 18, 2008)

Should've made a poll for this Fred!

Good question though, i'm thinking maybe the P-47 (my fav) just because for learner or new pilots it can be relatively 'docile' and easy to fly, with a nice wide undercarriage for take offs and landings.

I think your right about the Mustang and i think the P-40 also took a certain degree of skill to fly. The Corsair would probably be a handful on landing, with that long great nose and the twin wasp radial, not sure about the Hellcat.. How do they perform?

Anyway cheers,
Simon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2008)

I do not think anyone can actually chime in on this.

There is not a single member of this forum, who has flown all of these aircraft to make a comparison.

Bill has flown the P-51D and that is about it.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 18, 2008)

Any one of the airplanes can kill a novice, and fast. Even experienced warbird operators have been killed in everything on the list. While I haven't flown any of them, I have been around them long enough to see how they take-off, land and handle approached in crosswinds, etc. I would say the P-39 would be the "easiest" of the list because of the tricycle landing gear and single engine. That alone makes take-offs and landings safer because of visibility. I don't know how it would be CG-wise with the engine behind you, but I have spoken with vets that flew P-38s and P-39s and they liked the way the P-39 flew.

Too much power on a Mustang will torque-roll the aircraft, even at cruise. On landings, it will kill you fast. Mustangs are beautiful warbirds, but like any older airplane, can be tricky.

I have heard that a Lightning with an engine out on takeoff or landing can be a real handful. One of my P-38 veteran friends stated that if he had had an engine out in his first 20-30 hours of flying the type, it probably would have killed him.

Any tail dragger is a pain to taxi. The wide track of the P-47 makes it even trickier on narrower taxiways. That is why you often see the crew chief on the wings for taxiing in the old war movies. It's big and it's heavy too.

I will add that the narrow track of the landing gear on the spitfire and the 109 make landings quite an experience, and ground loops are much easier to get into with the Spitfire and the 109. Add the off-camber angle of the 109 and you have a real handful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Oct 18, 2008)

Hi Ronald,

>For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?" 

Just judging non-systematically from comparisons I've read in various pilot accounts, here's an approximate order:

Easy:

- Grumman F8F
- Bell P-39D Airacobra (unless it spins ...)

Good:

- North American P-51D Mustang
- Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat

Average (or "good but greater workload/higher forces"):

- Republic P-47D Thunderbolt
- Curtis P-40E Warhawk (or Kittyhawk if you prefer)

Tricky:

- Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
- Lockheed P-38J Lightning

You have to be careful with this kind of comparison though as there is usually considerable disagreement on the impact of about any handling flaw you could imagine.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2008)

I'd go with a P-39. As far as its spin characteristics - the pilot would have to induce the spin. As long as the aircraft is being flown by the numbers especially "low, slow and dirty" there shouldn't be any problems.


----------



## Timppa (Oct 18, 2008)

In accident statistics the P-39 stands out like the proverbial sore thumb, in that it was the most dangerous plane to fly.
From Army Air Forces Statistical Digest (tables 174 and 214), continental US only :

ACCIDENT RATES, rate/1000 hours	
Plane deaths accidents wrecked planes
P-38 0.42 1.54 0.83
P-39 0.61 2.98 1.33
P-40 0.20 2.04 0.55
P-47 0.19 1.28 0.47
P-51 0.18 1.07 0.46


----------



## HoHun (Oct 18, 2008)

Hi Timppa,

>In accident statistics the P-39 stands out like the proverbial sore thumb, in that it was the most dangerous plane to fly.

Hm, I belive when I looked at these figures, I seemed to notice some amount of random variation between statistics for different periods, so I'm not sure how reliable conclusions from these figures are.

Additionally, there might be other effects ... for example, it appears possible that the P-39 was used for the training of students fresh off the T-6 to a higher degree than the types that were still in first-line operational service, and you'd expect a higher accident rate from such students, regardless of the plane type.

Not to say the P-39 might not have been dangerous to fly ... perhaps it was a case of "great characteristics except for the flaw that kills you" 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## evangilder (Oct 18, 2008)

Yep, a lot of pilots used the P-39 in _training_, which would obviously make for a higher number. What really sticks out is the P-38. As an operational fighter (which the P-39 really was not), the P-38 is a handful for a novice.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Any one of the airplanes can kill a novice, and fast. Even experienced warbird operators have been killed in everything on the list. While I haven't flown any of them, I have been around them long enough to see how they take-off, land and handle approached in crosswinds, etc. I would say the P-39 would be the "easiest" of the list because of the tricycle landing gear and single engine. That alone makes take-offs and landings safer because of visibility. I don't know how it would be CG-wise with the engine behind you, but I have spoken with vets that flew P-38s and P-39s and they liked the way the P-39 flew.
> 
> Too much power on a Mustang will torque-roll the aircraft, even at cruise. On landings, it will kill you fast. Mustangs are beautiful warbirds, but like any older airplane, can be tricky.
> 
> ...



I've actually been told by Warren Peglar- an RCAF pilot that was on 'exhchange' with dad's group - transitioning from Spit IX to Mustang, that the Spit landed much better than a 51 with much less tendency to ground loop, particularly in a cross wind. I was suprised to hear that but it has been confirmed by other guys that flew both. He said it was literally like being on tracks compared to the 51.

I have also been told by guys that flew the P-47, P-51 and P-38 that the Jug was more forgiving on take off and landing than the other two.

Dad liked the Fw 190A(8?) better than the D-9 and Me 109K that he flew after the war but the 190 was a two seater and probably pretty light. He never flew a Spit but he did fly the 47, 38, 40, 39 and liked the 51 far better. I know Hoover feels the same way.

I don't know how 'like' translates to judgement about ease of flying.

This is definitely a 'charm school' poll.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2008)

I've been told that the P-40 was notorious for over-heating while on the ground...so the rule was, get moving or get seized.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2008)

Timppa said:


> In accident statistics the P-39 stands out like the proverbial sore thumb, in that it was the most dangerous plane to fly.
> From Army Air Forces Statistical Digest (tables 174 and 214), continental US only :
> 
> ACCIDENT RATES, rate/1000 hours
> ...



That's misleading though - when did those accidents happen? If it was during simulated combat training I would agree. You also have to look at the time frame and compare hours and sorties to get a true perspective of how all these aircraft really compare. I think I seen a table that showed normal ops - take off and landings and the P-38 and P-39 were on top.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2008)

drgondog said:


> This is definitely a 'charm school' poll.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 18, 2008)

GrauGeist said:


> I've been told that the P-40 was notorious for over-heating while on the ground...so the rule was, get moving or get seized.



That is actually not an unusual thing - aircraft like ram air cooling!

I'm surprised about the P-38 being difficult to fly - seems like it would be on relatively easy to operate. Maybe one day I'll get the chance


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2008)

I'm looking at the chart (table 214) that Timppa mentioned and I see that the figures seem to reflect a total loss number for all continental incidents since it doesn't break the categories down into sub-cats (i.e.: training, combat simulation, transport/ferry, etc).

Also looks like the biggest killer of pilots was the P-47 while the least goes to the P-51 for the years of 1942 through 1945.

The chart is here: http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t214.htm

By the way, check out the numbers of the "Advanced Trainers" category found on the lower half of the chart...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2008)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm looking at the chart (table 214) that Timppa mentioned and I see that the figures seem to reflect a total loss number for all continental incidents since it doesn't break the categories down into sub-cats (i.e.: training, combat simulation, transport/ferry, etc).
> 
> Also looks like the biggest killer of pilots was the P-47 while the least goes to the P-51 for the years of 1942 through 1945.
> 
> ...



It's interesting to note that the two fighter a/c with lowest fatality/accident ratio's were the A-36 and P-40 at nearly 1:10 compared to 1:4 for P-38 - implying a lot more ground accidents (ground loops, taxi collisions, etc) for the A-36 and P-40


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I'm surprised about the P-38 being difficult to fly - seems like it would be on relatively easy to operate.


No comprehensive twin engine aircraft training early in the war - engine out and you're toast!

I'd have to say though in looking at a P-38 it seems no more difficualt to fly than any other twin I've seen or flown.


----------



## Ronald-Reagan (Oct 18, 2008)

Wow, you guys are impressive. I realize it was a potentially arguable, perhaps even unanswerable, topic. But I was curious is all. I also understand that any plane can kill you. 

I guess what I was getting at is this: Most fans like the bada$$ fighters like the P-51D, F4U-4, FW-190 and Mark XIV. And if money were no object, one of those is the warbird most would be likely to try and purchase. But maybe that same fan has only ever flown Cessna's and Mooney's. 

So I assume his (or her) first step would be to begin "fighter training" at one of the modern schools specializing in Warbird training... perhaps in a AT-6, right? And then I guess you'd advance to oral training by a current pilot of the type you purchased? 

Since the TF-51 is pretty much the only dual-control fighter in this case, most of your advanced training wouldn't be "hands on," so to speak, would it? Do they use simulators for advanced (F4) Corsair training, for example? 

With thorough and proper training, how much more dangerous would it be to land and fly out of your own private airstrip in, say, a F4 Corsair than in a Cessna 185? Like everything else, I imagine it would get easier with repetition, right? I mean, by the end of his tour the ('43-'44) VMF-214 vet probably thought the Corsair was the easiest plane in the world to fly, eh? 

Anyway, thanks for the comments thus far! It's been very interesting and educational. Btw, didn't the P-39 rely on a long shaft that was known to malfunction on occassion? Could that account for some of the accidents in the data?


Fred B.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2008)

Ronald-Reagan said:


> Wow, you guys are impressive. I realize it was a potentially arguable, perhaps even unanswerable, topic. But I was curious is all. I also understand that any plane can kill you.
> 
> I guess what I was getting at is this: Most fans like the bada$$ fighters like the P-51D, F4U-4, FW-190 and Mark XIV. And if money were no object, one of those is the warbird most would be likely to try and purchase. But maybe that same fan has only ever flown Cessna's and Mooney's.
> 
> ...



As I look back in it - one of the more novel things "instructor dad" did with me is teach a hotter landing techniques early with more airspeed over the fence, and keep the tail high for about 1/2 the roll. We did that in the Cessna 140, then the AT-6. At first, I usually landed 'several times' in a 51 with a three point technique but was steadier in the two wheel/tail high landing until I had enough landings to manage both techniques to his satisfaction.

I suspect the two main differences is that ground effect is less noticable and visibility much better in a 110+ mph tail high landing than a three point at 100-105.

A decent pilot with good judgement can fly these things - stupidity kiiled more than lack of talent.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2008)

By the way, welcome to the forum, Ronald-Reagan...that's a great name, too!

I've flown a number of piston powered aircraft in the past without any trouble, but even with a measure of experience, there'll be situations that can cause an incident (such as weather, equipment, and so on) for any pilot regardless of thier skill level.

I would be willing to bet that a number of those accidents listed would have been from equipment malfunction or tower oversight, etc. But even "clipping" a wing on a roll-out had the possability of making it to an accident report.

I can honestly say though, that the vast majority of warplanes take a certain set of skills to manage them, as they are rarely like a trainer, and this may have lead to a good number of accidents by thier new pilots through inattention, mishandling, etc.

As far as I know, the P-39 was pretty dependable and didn't have trouble with the mainshaft. I would figure that if the mainshaft failed, it would injure the pilot due to it's passing under thier seat (it ran through the cockpit much like a rear-wheel drive car's driveshaft does). The one thing I would think that would be a challenge to a new pilot of the P-39, would be the difference in the center of gravity, but beyond that, I'd have to rely on one of the experts here who have far better info than I do


----------



## davparlr (Oct 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'd have to say though in looking at a P-38 it seems no more difficualt to fly than any other twin I've seen or flown.



Compared to most other twins of the day, the engine high power and light fighter weight appears to make single engine control rather touchy. I suspect minimum engine out airspeed would be very high with full power. You would have to be very careful on go-around. The Mosquito would be similar. Counter rotating props and tricycle gear would make some aspects easier than single engine figthers.



GrauGeist said:


> The one thing I would think that would be a challenge to a new pilot of the P-39, would be the difference in the center of gravity,



CG is a design point for stability. I doubt the P-39 CG location was particularly unique. However, Mass location near CG could possible make the aircraft quite agile and/or touchy. I have not read any reports that this was a problem.


----------



## buzzard (Oct 18, 2008)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the F6F Hellcat. Most sources usually comment on its docile low speed handling and landing characteristics. Eric Brown certainly liked it. And yeah, I know that he could probably land anything...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 18, 2008)

Improper loading in the nose (ie the armament) on the P-39 could lead to serious stability promlems. (as the Soviets discovered when the cannon was removed)

I believe there were some problems with the P-39's gearbox (throwing oil) and occasional vibration problems with the extention shaft. (though iirc these mostly occured on early aircraft; P-39D and earlier)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 18, 2008)

From what I've read, a major cause for ground accedents with the P-40 was its tendency to ground loop. (in the air, it was apparently a faily pleasant aircraft to fly, with good control harmonization and stability, except for the P-40D/E/Kittyhawk-I/Ia which had some lateral stability pronlems -particularly in dives-)

Then there are aircraft not on the list, like the Brewster Buffalo which was supposedly had exceptionally friendly handeling on the ground and in the air. (and apparently made good advanced trainers after being withdrawn from combat duty in the US)


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2008)

Hi RR

Interesting topic, and one that is almost impossible to answer for landlubbers like me. I can only report a few bits and pieces thast I have read here and there. I dont claim any sort of expertise at all in this subject

The Seafires carrier landing characteristics were pretty vicious, a combination of the narrow landing gear and big wing area leads me to suspect that they had a tendency to "bounce" on landing, something not good for a carrier based aircraft. Even land based spitfires suffered a higher accident rate than Hurricanes, which had a reputation as docile and forgiving for young inexperienced pilots.

Beaufighters had landing characteristicws that could be termed "tricky, which was partially solved in later marks by increased dihedral in the tail. I believe this issue arose from the direction of the rotation of the propellers (torque???), which gave the aircraft bad handling characteristics at low speed. 

The mossie was apparently docile and easy to fly, despite its very high performance. I have no idea why...but the Mossie looks right, leading one to think that they ARE right. Typhoons early on had some problems in the tail, and the engine in them was a big thumper. I believe they were a big handfull to control. Would be interested to hear from our German friends as to the problems they perceive in their aircraft parks. We have pretty much debunked the myth that the Me109 suffered a high accident rate (compared to its other german contemporaries) in landings and take Offs (in another thread) but I suspect that the germans as a whole suffered high rates of attrition compared to the Allies as the war progressed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

All good stuff folks but the bottom line - an aircraft configured with a tri-cycle landing gear is going to be easier to fly, at least on take off and landing. One could master a taildragger but in the long run it would be like comparing a bicycle to a unicycle. Once you're in the air, its pretty easy, take off and landings are the challenge - especially in cross winds.


----------



## TonyM (Oct 19, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'd go with a P-39. As far as its spin characteristics - the pilot would have to induce the spin. As long as the aircraft is being flown by the numbers especially "low, slow and dirty" there shouldn't be any problems.



I beg to differ on this one. The P-39 was involved in 395 fatal accidents in the US during WWII--a great majority of these accidents were spin related. The P-39 had a tendency to enter viscious end-over-end spins that were almost impossible to recover from. Many P-39 accident reports contain the phrase "unfavorable spin characteristics of the P-39 airplane." 

During the research of my book FATAL ARMY AIR FORCES AVIATION ACCIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1941- 1945, I discovered that on 5 Nov 1942 that a special test flight was flown to examine the P-39 spin characteristics and the end-over-end spin phenomenom. Well guess what happened? The test pilot was killed when he failed to recover from a deliberate spin. 

P-39 spin characteristics also made for good dinner conversation. At dinner on 20 Sept 1942, 2nd Lt. Henry C. Garcia stated, "If a fellow uses his head, he can always bring a P-39 out of a spin." Well guess what happened on 21 Sept 1942? Lt. Garcia was killed when he failed to recover from a spin in a P-39D airplane. The P-39 could be a very dangerous airplane for those sloppy enough to let it get into a spin. It seems to be that very seldom were the spins that killed hundreds of P-39 pilots deliberately induced. 

See the AAF Aircraft Accident Report for the test flight mentioned above:

AAF Aircraft Accident Report Microfilm
Call # 46137, 5 November 1942, Accident # 1.

Every documented fatal P-39 spin accident that occurred in the United States during World War II can be found in:

FATAL ARMY AIR FORCES AVIATION ACCIDENTS 
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1941-1945

TonyM.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2008)

Great info, Tony...I didn't know that. 

I know the Jug had the '39 beat on fatalities, but the spin issue has me wondering...

Was that fatal spin the result of an inherent design flaw, or the result of inexperienced pilots?


----------



## TonyM (Oct 19, 2008)

GrauGeist,

Perhaps a little of both. The center of gravity on the P-39 airplane probably contributed and the relative inexperience of the pilots involved aggravated the problem I would reckon. 

The Republic P-47 airplane was involved in 462 fatal accidents in the United States during World War II. There were probably more P-47s produced than P-39s I would guess, so if that is true then the 395 fatal P-39 accidents really stand out. Don't know the production numbers for both airplanes, but it makes an interesting comparison. 

TonyM.


----------



## Amsel (Oct 19, 2008)

Thankyou Tony, this is the same information I have. Pilots hated the P-39.


----------



## Ronald-Reagan (Oct 19, 2008)

So do you guys think, like drgondog's route, that progressing from a Cessna 140, to an AT-6, to an F4U-4 Corsair would be a realistic (safe) transition? 

My brother was a private pilot (Cessna 152), and a good family friend was a private pilot (Cessna 172), but I don't know anyone personally with experience flying warbirds. The family friend died as a passenger in an Aeronca Champ, but I don't think he ever piloted a tail dragger himself. 

Thanks for the warm welcome, btw! 


Fred B.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 19, 2008)

Was the problem most prominant on the early P-39's. I've read comments on how these characteristics were improved on the later models. At least a note on the improvements on the P-39N, and moreso with the later Q.

I've also read that a significant contributor to the instability was one of the changes made at Wright field in the name of "streamilining". Along with the fateful deletion of the turbocharger, the rear fusalage was lenghtened which shifted the CoG further aft and worsened the XP-39's (alryeady somewhat marginal) stability. 
(additionally the wings were clipped back -increasing wing loading and stall speed- and, probably the only positive change, the vertical stabilizer was enlarged which solved the lateral instability problems)


----------



## TonyM (Oct 19, 2008)

Try this website for model by model accident stats:

United States Army Air Forces in World War II

TonyM.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 19, 2008)

Amsel said:


> Pilots hated the P-39.



This seemed to be less of an issue with the Russian pilots, probably due to similar handeling peculiarities of the I-16.


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Oct 19, 2008)

I've always heard that the Hellcat was a pilot's plane, and in flight sims it's not bad to fly. I still suck at flying it into combat. I once asked Jason Somes, one of the pilots at the CAF in Camarillo, about flying the Hellcat and Bearcat. He said they're both great to fly. 

As for the P-39, I guess it depends from pilot to pilot. I once started "An Ace of The Eighth," and the guy said he really liked flying the P-39 the short time he did. Preferred it over the P-40.

Anyway, no matter what you fly, it is probably best to train like they did during the war, in a T-6 Texan. I'm no pilot, but all the guys around me who fly Mustangs, Hellcats, Bearcats, Zeros, and more agree that time in a trainer like the Texan is really important.


----------



## Timppa (Oct 19, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's misleading though - when did those accidents happen? If it was during simulated combat training I would agree. You also have to look at the time frame and compare hours and sorties to get a true perspective of how all these aircraft really compare.



I have no data on sorties, only flying hours. It is possible that different planes were used for somewhat different type of training. As long as there is not detailed breakdown, one can only speculate.
Below is a more detailed yearly comparison (1942 is left out because flying hours are not available, so the numbers are slightly different than in my first post).


----------



## Timppa (Oct 19, 2008)

The operational loss rate of F4U's (i.e., not directly caused by the enemy) remained significantly higher than F6F's.(comparison 1944-45, when both operated from carriers and with (supposedly) similar missions):






And the conclusion:


----------



## trackend (Oct 19, 2008)

Not being an aviator I can only guess but I would of thought something like the Piper Cub, Storch, Lysander or Stringbag would be the most forgiving of ww2 aircraft to fly having such slow stall speeds it must give the pilot much more correction time if they **** up.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 19, 2008)

The easy aircraft to fly was the Fairey Swordfish. I recall an airshow pilot saying the Swordfish could be flown by anyone with a ppl.

An intersting note on the Hurricane is a BOB airshow pilot who had 3000 hours jet time but the Hurricane was a total bag of spanners. He wondered how anyone could have a few hours and then flown into combat. He didn't find it easy.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 19, 2008)

trackend said:


> Not being an aviator I can only guess but I would of thought something like the Piper Cub



This is the sort of logic I was thinking of as well. Mr Google kept pointing me to the Ercoupe as the "safest and easiest aircraft to fly".

According to the article it could be soloed in an 8-hour day.








I know it's not a "warbird", but it was considered as a drone...

PQ Series

...and it was the first American aircraft to be fitted with JATO...


----------



## HoHun (Oct 19, 2008)

Hi Trackend,

>Not being an aviator I can only guess but I would of thought something like the Piper Cub, Storch, Lysander or Stringbag would be the most forgiving of ww2 aircraft to fly having such slow stall speeds it must give the pilot much more correction time if they **** up.

The Lysander actually had some interesting characteristics that would exclude it from the "easy" categroy in my opinion ... effectiveness of elevator control depended strongly on trim, and trim took a lot of time to change. Elevator trim also depended strongly on the power condition as the propeller slipstream would make the horizontal tail more effective so that applying power for a go-around would immediately mess up your trim.

That's nothing really serious, but it meant that you had to be ahead of the aircraft at all times, and failure to pay close attention to the trim at take-off and landing might get you into difficulties.

I guess the reason for these characteristics is the intended use as artillery spotter, making stability in constant-speed level flight an important issue. The Lysander was not built for extreme STOL - unlike the Fieseler Storch, which reportedly required much pilot attention to keep it on a straight and level flight path on a hot day with some turbulence.

As usual in aviation, it's a trade-off ... 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Soren (Oct 19, 2008)

The Storch would be a very good candidate, esp. because of its very low stall speed and docile nature because of the slots.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 19, 2008)

Hi Graeme,

>This is the sort of logic I was thinking of as well. Mr Google kept pointing me to the Ercoupe as the "safest and easiest aircraft to fly".

>According to the article it could be soloed in an 8-hour day.

The German attempt at a safe and easy aircraft to fly was the Zaunkönig. If I remember correctly, Eric Brown reported that they tested one at RAE Farnborough, and taught a "ground lubber" to fly it in a very short time, maybe actually a day.

The Akaflieg Braunschweig demonstrated ease of use for the type in 1955 by converting ten glider pilots to the Zaunkönig with just some minimal ground schooling and no dual instruction on motor aircraft.

However, former Luftwaffe experte Heinz Bär died in a Zaunkönig in 1957 ... while trying to demonstrate extreme slow flight to a commission of the Deutscher Aeroclub. Perhaps this serves to demonstrate that you are only safe if you keep away from the edges of the envelope.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## mkloby (Oct 19, 2008)

Ronald-Reagan said:


> So do you guys think, like drgondog's route, that progressing from a Cessna 140, to an AT-6, to an F4U-4 Corsair would be a realistic (safe) transition?
> 
> My brother was a private pilot (Cessna 152), and a good family friend was a private pilot (Cessna 172), but I don't know anyone personally with experience flying warbirds. The family friend died as a passenger in an Aeronca Champ, but I don't think he ever piloted a tail dragger himself.
> 
> ...



Sure it's a natural progression - I began with C-172, then T-34C, C-12B, TH-57B/C, and MV-22B.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

TonyM said:


> I beg to differ on this one. The P-39 was involved in 395 fatal accidents in the US during WWII--a great majority of these accidents were spin related. The P-39 had a tendency to enter viscious end-over-end spins that were almost impossible to recover from. Many P-39 accident reports contain the phrase "unfavorable spin characteristics of the P-39 airplane."
> 
> During the research of my book FATAL ARMY AIR FORCES AVIATION ACCIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1941- 1945, I discovered that on 5 Nov 1942 that a special test flight was flown to examine the P-39 spin characteristics and the end-over-end spin phenomenom. Well guess what happened? The test pilot was killed when he failed to recover from a deliberate spin.
> 
> ...



Good info Tony but the point here is where and when are these spins being induced? I think you'll find that many of the spin related P-39 accidents happened during aerobatic or combat training. Flying the aircraft in normal ops, take off, patterns and landings shouldn't be that dangerous, again maintaining the published numbers.

Also you need to look at the time periods - in 1943/ 44 the P-40 was right behind the P-39. Why? Because of the heavy training environment both aircraft were being flown in stateside. 150 - 200 hour pilot in either aircraft is a lot to ask for at least by today's standards. Throw in the fact that most aircraft were tail draggers and compounds the situation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

Ronald-Reagan said:


> So do you guys think, like drgondog's route, that progressing from a Cessna 140, to an AT-6, to an F4U-4 Corsair would be a realistic (safe) transition?
> 
> My brother was a private pilot (Cessna 152), and a good family friend was a private pilot (Cessna 172), but I don't know anyone personally with experience flying warbirds. The family friend died as a passenger in an Aeronca Champ, but I don't think he ever piloted a tail dragger himself.
> 
> ...



I think Bill hit it in the money for the most part with the exception of going from a Cessna 140 into a T-6. That's a alot of airplane when compared to a Cessna 140. In the middle maybe a Cessna 170 or even a 150 HP Super Cub, but Bill managed it fine!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Compared to most other twins of the day, the engine high power and light fighter weight appears to make single engine control rather touchy. I suspect minimum engine out airspeed would be very high with full power. You would have to be very careful on go-around. The Mosquito would be similar. Counter rotating props and tricycle gear would make some aspects easier than single engine figthers.


Actually duing engine out you reduced power on the good engine - the P-38 had no critical engine and in the early war years the transition training into the P-38 was almost non-existent.



davparlr said:


> CG is a design point for stability. I doubt the P-39 CG location was particularly unique. However, Mass location near CG could possible make the aircraft quite agile and/or touchy. I have not read any reports that this was a problem.


Actually the P-39 had 2 CG points - one at the station lines and another at the water line. They had to me maintained pretty close to each other especially when doing any type of aerobatic maneuvers.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 19, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think Bill hit it in the money for the most part with the exception of going from a Cessna 140 into a T-6. That's a alot of airplane when compared to a Cessna 140. In the middle maybe a Cessna 170 or even a 150 HP Super Cub, but Bill managed it fine!



Joe - you would be right. I didn't mention V-35 time because it was tricycle gear. What he put me through was an interesting transition

What I think I said earlier is that I went from Cessna 140 to back seat in a 51 for ~ 20+ hours of following him through the manuevers, rudder pressure, stick, etc in the 51.. then to the back seat of an AT-6, then to solo on the AT-6. The 140 was strictly for tail dragger sensation.

Then it was Him in back seat in the 51 and me in front for about 10 more hours of dual, mostly takeoffs and landings... with particular emphasis on touch and go's.

I believe that anyone who moved from Cessna 140-180, V-35, etc without a methodical approach to acquaint one with Mr Torque and Mr Rudder on take off is a medium to high accident probability. The AT-6 was an amazing difference from both the 140 and the V-35.

In other words I could not agree with you more. I actually think someone today with game simulator experience could easily fly a J-3 or the 140 right away (not safely relative to procedures) but takeoff, go around, set up and land. but NOT step from low time 140 to AT-6..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

On the money Bill and that V-35 time is perfect for complex training. What described was probably a lot more training than was was given during the war in preparing a low time fighter pilot for flying high performance tail draggers.


----------



## TonyM (Oct 19, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good info Tony but the point here is where and when are these spins being induced? I think you'll find that many of the spin related P-39 accidents happened during aerobatic or combat training. Flying the aircraft in normal ops, take off, patterns and landings shouldn't be that dangerous, again maintaining the published numbers.
> 
> Also you need to look at the time periods - in 1943/ 44 the P-40 was right behind the P-39. Why? Because of the heavy training environment both aircraft were being flown in stateside. 150 - 200 hour pilot in either aircraft is a lot to ask for at least by today's standards. Throw in the fact that most aircraft were tail draggers and compounds the situation.



FlyboyJ,

Yes, you are right. Most of the P-39 spin accidents occurred while the airplane was being used and not while flying in the pattern or on climb out. But the P-39 spin phenomenom was serious enough to prompt the AAF to conduct a seperate test of an in-service aircraft. I have been finding that some of these spin accidents were happening overseas but no where near in the numbers they were happening in the states, probably indicating the growing experience of the pilots. 

TonyM.


----------



## Amsel (Oct 19, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The easy aircraft to fly was the Fairey Swordfish. I recall an airshow pilot saying the Swordfish could be flown by anyone with a ppl.
> 
> An intersting note on the Hurricane is a BOB airshow pilot who had 3000 hours jet time but the Hurricane was a total bag of spanners. He wondered how anyone could have a few hours and then flown into combat. He didn't find it easy.


That is interesting. Maybe worthy of its own thread.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The easy aircraft to fly was the Fairey Swordfish. I recall an airshow pilot saying the Swordfish could be flown by anyone with a ppl.
> 
> An intersting note on the Hurricane is a BOB airshow pilot who had 3000 hours jet time but the Hurricane was a total bag of spanners. He wondered how anyone could have a few hours and then flown into combat. He didn't find it easy.





Amsel said:


> That is interesting. Maybe worthy of its own thread.



I have found over the years many high time fighter pilots with all type of jet time have difficulty in flying tail draggers and light GA aircraft. The big key is the lack of power and in the case of tail draggers understanding what the aircraft will do on take off and landing, especially in a cross wind.

My father in law once told me that an F-16 pilot with little GA experience will kill himself quicker in a Cessna 172 than the 172 driver in an F-16.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 19, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> On the money Bill and that V-35 time is perfect for complex training. What described was probably a lot more training than was was given during the war in preparing a low time fighter pilot for flying high performance tail draggers.



I suspect the fact that I was his only (known) son and the fact that my mother would have killed him if I screwed up had a lot to do with the process - and I was 15 going on 16 when I got my license and the intial flights in the 51. He told me I was retarded and he needed the extra time taeching me how to fly.

Dad had 3 hours in a 51 before his first combat mission. The fact that he 2000 hours at the time had nothing to do with it, of course.

I still miss him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I suspect the fact that I was his only (known) son and the fact that my mother would have killed him if I screwed up had a lot to do with the process - and I was 15 going on 16 when I got my license and the intial flights in the 51. He told me I was retarded and he needed the extra time taeching me how to fly.
> 
> Dad had 3 hours in a 51 before his first combat mission. The fact that he 2000 hours at the time had nothing to do with it, of course.
> 
> I still miss him.



Great info Bill!


----------



## mkloby (Oct 19, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I suspect the fact that I was his only (known) son and the fact that my mother would have killed him if I screwed up had a lot to do with the process - and I was 15 going on 16 when I got my license and the intial flights in the 51. He told me I was retarded and he needed the extra time taeching me how to fly.
> 
> Dad had 3 hours in a 51 before his first combat mission. The fact that he 2000 hours at the time had nothing to do with it, of course.
> 
> I still miss him.



I'm not sure exactly what you mean having 2000 hours has nothing to do with it - I'm guessing you're talking mostly about monkey skills. While every a/c is different, hours and experience in the cockpit are very valuable in general, especially since wiggling sticks is only one aspect of aviation.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 19, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you mean having 2000 hours has nothing to do with it - I'm guessing you're talking mostly about monkey skills. While every a/c is different, hours and experience in the cockpit are very valuable in general, especially since wiggling sticks is only one aspect of aviation.



I was being 'ironic'. 

Given that most USAAF fighter pilots came into ETO with 250-300 hours, the old man was stuck in Training Command for three years. He graduated in Class40-A, so he was part of the pre-draft build up in USAAF so he had a tougher flight school and accumulated a lot of hours.

At he time he came to ETO he actually had 2200 hours total time in every trainer, in the B-26, the P-40, the P-47, the B-25 and the P-39..all he did at Goxhill was fly the Link to demonstrate that he could still IFR, read the 51 Handbook and get 3+ hours in Touch and Go and a little formation time. 

Prior to that however he flew P-40's for six months at Sarasota and accumulated about 180 hours in it so he wasn't a stranger to long nosed, powerful tail draggers.

He never flew the P-38 - at least no log time.


----------



## Ronald-Reagan (Oct 19, 2008)

Thanks Bill and everyone! I see there's no easy answer to my original question. Can someone give me an estimate of suggested flight time by type before advancing (I realize there's more to proficieny than flight time alone, but I mean in general and assuming average learning ability)? We'll use a variation of Bill's example:

Cessna 140, Areonca Champ or Piper Cub
Cessna 170, Super Cub or Stearman Kaydet
AT-6 Texan, Navy SNJ 

And the final advancement is, let's say, to the F4U-4 Corsair.

Would something like a Cessna 195 be advised as an intermediate between the 170 AT-6? I know it probably couldn't hurt, but would it be necessary? 


Fred B.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 19, 2008)

If you want to include all the aircraft used in combat or millitary operations durring the war (as with the Cub, Storch, and Swordfish), you may want to consider the Po-2. Polikarpov Po-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

Ronald-Reagan said:


> Would something like a Cessna 195 be advised as an intermediate between the 170 AT-6? I know it probably couldn't hurt, but would it be necessary?
> 
> 
> Fred B.



Its funny, I was thinking about that as well. The 190/ 195 could be a little tricky, I knew at least 2 people who ground looped them, one was damaged. I guess planting the tail too early could be a problem if you're caught in a cross wind or gust.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 19, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually the P-39 had 2 CG points - one at the station lines and another at the water line. They had to me maintained pretty close to each other especially when doing any type of aerobatic maneuvers.



I think I need a bit more info. As far as I know, there is only one cg point, which has three components, longitudinal (station line?), vertical (waterline?) and lateral, which every aircraft has. If you are saying that both the longitudinal and vertical cg components of the cg point must be closely maintained, I would understand, but I am confused about the two points.

You always have to be careful of the cg, as new pilots found out about the P-51 with a full fuselage tank.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I think I need a bit more info. As far as I know, there is only one cg point, which has three components, longitudinal (station line?), vertical (waterline?) and lateral, which every aircraft has. If you are saying that both the longitudinal and vertical cg components of the cg point must be closely maintained, I would understand, but I am confused about the two points.


Both the "horizontal" and "vertical" cg components had to be maintained - 2 CGs - Just like on some helicopters. Check out page 20A of the P-39Q flight manual.

Also with all this talk about the P-39 spinning, check out page 16, Paragraph 14, the first sentence!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 19, 2008)

The notes on spin recovery are interesting. 

-Power off, *Stick full back*, then apply full opposite rudder and (once rudder effect is noticable) push stick full foreward and apply ailerons. (rudder must be initially applied when spin is slowest)


Is the "stick full back" step usual for spin recovery?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The notes on spin recovery are interesting. Stick full back. Isn't it usually stick full foreward to recover from spins?




Perhaps the first guy to survive an episode in a '39 had the stick all the way back and that became the approved recovery method...

praying feverishly was optional....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The notes on spin recovery are interesting.
> 
> -Power off, *Stick full back*, then apply full opposite rudder and (once rudder effect is noticable) push stick full foreward and apply ailerons. (rudder must be initially applied when spin is slowest)
> 
> ...



Normally you would go opposite rudder and full forward on the stick so the spin "breaks." Bell probably established that procedure to ensure that you would have rudder effectiveness prior to breaking the spin.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 19, 2008)

What were the training requirements for say the USAAC before they saw a front line fighter?

How many hours in what type?

Interesting that the P-40 was used as an advanced trainer but does this translate to say a P-47?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2008)

The Basket said:


> What were the training requirements for say the USAAC before they saw a front line fighter?
> 
> How many hours in what type?
> 
> Interesting that the P-40 was used as an advanced trainer but does this translate to say a P-47?


I think it depended on the need.

Here's an interesting story...

What did it take to be a WWII fighter pilot?


----------



## mkloby (Oct 20, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The notes on spin recovery are interesting.
> 
> -Power off, *Stick full back*, then apply full opposite rudder and (once rudder effect is noticable) push stick full foreward and apply ailerons. (rudder must be initially applied when spin is slowest)
> 
> ...



When I flew T-34C's the spin recovery procedure was full opposite rudder and stick slightly fwd... break spin then recover from nose low. Every aircraft is different though.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 20, 2008)

and I thought the '38 would be easy, because of props rotating outward and very little torque......

edd


----------



## Timppa (Oct 20, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Both the "horizontal" and "vertical" cg components had to be maintained - 2 CGs



More precisely the the cg range has to be within certain limits, in every aircraft. As the fuel and ammunitions is usually not at the cg, the exact cg location varies when the fuel and ammo is used. In case of P-39, the nose wheel (up or down) affects also, hence 2 cg's shown.
The P-39 nose gun ammunition , when used, had a noticeable effect on handling.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 20, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Normally you would go opposite rudder and full forward on the stick so the spin "breaks." Bell probably established that procedure to ensure that you would have rudder effectiveness prior to breaking the spin.



That's interesting because most "manuals" on the net tell you to put the stick in neutral position. But maybe I'm confusing spin and stall here.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2008)

Timppa said:


> More precisely the the cg range has to be within certain limits, in every aircraft. As the fuel and ammunitions is usually not at the cg, the exact cg location varies when the fuel and ammo is used. In case of P-39, the nose wheel (up or down) affects also, hence 2 cg's shown.
> The P-39 nose gun ammunition , when used, had a noticeable effect on handling.


Here's something interesting form Wiki...


_Some World War II airplanes were notoriously prone to flat spins when loaded erroneously, such as the Bell P-39 Airacobra. The P-39 was a unique design with the engine behind the pilot's seat and a large cannon in the front. *Without ammunition or a counterbalance load in the nose compartment, the P-39's center of gravity was too far aft to recover from a spin*. Soviet pilots did numerous tests of the P-39 and were able to demonstrate its dangerous spinning characteristics. Bell then issued a recommendation to bail out if the airplane entered a spin. North American P-51 Mustangs with auxiliary fuel tanks not originally designed for the P-51 suffered from the same problem. Similarly, the Vought F4U Corsair was reputed to have appalling stall and spin recovery characteristics, even in the "clean" (no stores) configuration._



KrazyKraut said:


> That's interesting because most "manuals" on the net tell you to put the stick in neutral position. But maybe I'm confusing spin and stall here.


You might be confusing spin and stall recovery, although every plane is a little different. Most planes I've flown that can be spun have you apply opposite rudder and bring the sick full foward to berak the spin, reducing engine power first. In a Cessna 152 the "break" is very pronounced when you come forward with the yoke. In a Cessna 172 its really hard to get the aircraft spin even with full power.


----------



## Soren (Oct 20, 2008)

In my experience you usually recover from a spin by pushing the stick forward and applying full opposite rudder (compared to spin), like FLYBOYJ said.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 20, 2008)

It should be noted that, in the specific case of the Airacobra, these were Flat spinns, so that may be part of the reason for the different recovery method. (that and it apears that the spin was rather difficult to break, the manual emphasizing how important it was to apply rudder when the spin was slowest, being an ocillating spin)


If the amunition load had such a significant effect, you'd think the spin characteristics of the 20 mm armed versions would be worse. (D-1, P-400, and some D-2's; as the Hispano M1 + 60 rounds would weight ~1/2 that of the 37 mm M4 with 30 rounds)


----------



## davparlr (Oct 23, 2008)

I've heard that the B-17 was an easy aircraft to fly. Of course, there was a flight engineer handy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I've heard that the B-17 was an easy aircraft to fly. Of course, there was a flight engineer handy.


FEs always fly the aircraft - the pilots just steer!


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 23, 2008)

That's very true. They also take orders from the pilot to stop fuel flow etc. Say if an engine is damaged. and there feathering it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> That's very true. They also take orders from the pilot to stop fuel flow etc. Say if an engine is damaged. and there feathering it


That was in WW2 - today the pilot "asks" the FE to do something....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 23, 2008)

Is the "braided c_h_ord" comment intentional, or is it a typo?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2008)

intentional.....


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 24, 2008)

okay


----------



## renrich (Oct 26, 2008)

I had an uncle who flew both P39s and P47s in WW2. He mentioned something about that in a spin in the P39 the pilot was sometimes beat up badly by hitting his head on the sides of the canopy. It was designed for a pilot no more than 5 ft 8 in. I got the distinct impression he preferred the P47. In Dean's "America's 100 Thousand," he states that the Corsair and P40 were the most difficult to land of the fighters although the F4F could be a handfull to land on a landing strip although easy on a carrier. There is a persistent story which may or may not be true about a Texas oil man after WW2 who had a wife who had a private ticket and who wanted a Corsair. He wanted a divorce and did not want to go to that expense and trouble. He bought her the Corsair and sure enough she killed herself trying to land it.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> FEs always fly the aircraft - the pilots just steer!




The navigator was there to yell "Hee" and "Haw" to the pilots and throw banana pills.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2008)

renrich said:


> I had an uncle who flew both P39s and P47s in WW2. He mentioned something about that in a spin in the P39 the pilot was sometimes beat up badly by hitting his head on the sides of the canopy. It was designed for a pilot no more than 5 ft 8 in. I got the distinct impression he preferred the P47.



In terms of stalling characteristics you can't get much farther apart than those two, the P-47 having a very forgiving stall by all accounts I've read. (the P-38 did too -being pretty much impossible to spin accedentally, though in its case this was partially due to the lack of torq -with both engines at the same power settings obviously)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

BTW - the P-38s POH also said that intentional spins were prohibited.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 1, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Not being an aviator I can only guess but I would of thought something like the Piper Cub, Storch, Lysander or Stringbag would be the most forgiving of ww2 aircraft to fly having such slow stall speeds it must give the pilot much more correction time if they **** up.


I too am not a pilot, but I was going to say the same thing and for the same reason.
One other plane missing from your list, HoHun, is an Auster.
I understand its basically the British version of an L-4 (Piper Cub).
IIRC, the plane lived through to the 60's, both in military service and private aviation.
The attached pic is an Auster Mk.V, built in 1944. The nose is a bit different from the versions that came along later (due to an engine change, I suppose).

There was some early discussion about T/O and landing of a Spitfire.
Not long ago, I ran across a sort of Pilot's report concerning that very thing and I came away with the understanding that the Spit was actually a very easy plane to take-off and land.
I think there was something about a relatively low stall speed, so the pilot did a big half circle, upon landing, in order to keep the runway in his sights for as long as possible, all the while slowing the plane.
By the time he cut the throttle, he flaired it and made a 3-point landing.
I got the impression he thought that would be a much harder task than it really was.
I'll search around for the article and if I find it, I'll post the link in this thread.



Elvis


----------



## chuckn49 (Nov 5, 2008)

I find this thread to be interesting both as an aviator and a fan of the P-38. I do have some small amount of time in several tail draggers from an L-5 to BT-13 and all of them offer unique challenges to any pilot. Most of us modern pilots are rather spoiled by the landing, takeoff and taxing virtues of the tricycle gear.

However, my brother did fly the P-38 and the P-51. I enjoyed many conversations with him about the various virtues of each type. He always loved the P-38 the most. 

Anyway, I know he felt that the P-38 in the hands of a competent pilot was a very forgiving airplane, in general, with the one exception he always mentioned of its dive problem. Here, too, he felt a competent pilot would avoid that difficulty.

I discussed with him the obvious question of an engine out on take-off and he used to grin saying, "I'd rather have an engine out in a P-38 on takeoff than in a P-51 any day. After all, there is only one possible outcome in the '51." I do know that he mentioned the biggest mistake rooky pilots made in that situation with the P-38 was failing to come back on the power of the good engine until they had control before advancing it back up. Most fighter pilots in those days had little or no multi-engine training, apparently, which meant they had very little power out trainng when transitioning into the P-38. 

Nevertheless, because of its counter-rotating props, he felt it was an exceptionally stable aircraft on take-off and landing with little of the torgue issues facing a single engine plane, especially noticeable in a tail dragger.

He never flew the P-39 so I have no information on its handling characteristics. However, I once discussed the rather high accident rate for the P-38 which he felt was contributed to by the fact that they were so inherently stable taxiing, etc. that they were a favorite aircraft for difficult fields such as those in the Pacific Islands and the Aleutians. He observed that when you fly airplanes into and out of mud holes you are bound to have very high landing, take-off and taxiing accident rates. 

Apparently, a couple of his buddies from flight school ended up in the Aleutians where the tricycle landing gear and multi-engine reliability of the P-38 was seen as a definite asset. I know he did have a little time in the P-40 and thought it was a horrible taxiing plane.

I realize this is all anecdotal and far from the usual scientific standards valued in these discussions, but I thought I'd throw it in for whatever value it has.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 5, 2008)

I've read that the P-39 was used in similar "mud hole" locations, due to the ground handling characteristics and the ground clearance allowed by the tall tricycle landing gear. (with many taildraggers having problems with the mud, particularly with a bomb or drop tank on the belly)


----------



## Graeme (Nov 5, 2008)

HoHun said:


> If I remember correctly, Eric Brown reported that they tested one at RAE Farnborough, and taught a "ground lubber" to fly it in a very short time, maybe actually a day.



Afternoon Henning!

Lucky for the Concorde programme that the "ground lubber" in question survived...?!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 6, 2008)

> The P-39 had a tendency to enter viscious end-over-end spins that were almost impossible to recover from.



Well the Il Sturmovik game got that right. Spins in the P-39 almost always end up fatal for the plane, and often the pilot too. When you fly with an average rated wingman in the game, he's always getting killed due to poor spin tactics.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 6, 2008)

T-37 spin recovery procedures

1.	Throttles-Idle
2.	Rudder and Ailerons-Neutral
3.	Stick-Abruptly Full Aft and Hold
4.	Rudder-Abruptly Apply Full Rudder Opposite Spin Direction and Hold
5.	Stick-Abruptly Full Forward One Turn After Applying Rudder 
6.	Controls-Neutral After Spinning Stops and Recover From Dive 


T-38 spin recovery procedures

1. Handgrips raise
2. Trigger pull


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2008)

davparlr said:


> T-37 spin recovery procedures
> 
> 1.	Throttles-Idle
> 2.	Rudder and Ailerons-Neutral
> ...



IIRC the T-38 procedures were universally adopted for F-4, F-8 and always at the 'ready' for the F-14?


----------



## HoHun (Nov 6, 2008)

Hi Graeme,

>Lucky for the Concorde programme that the "ground lubber" in question survived...?! 

Thanks, that was a bit of the story I had forgotten  That's a high-value guinea pig Brown was using!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## davparlr (Nov 15, 2008)

drgondog said:


> IIRC the T-38 procedures were universally adopted for F-4, F-8 and always at the 'ready' for the F-14?



IIRC, the T-38 and F-5 were extremely difficult to spin. I think test pilots had to use unusual techniques to force spins.


----------



## VMF-214 (Nov 16, 2008)

Just wanted to say many thanks to Ron for creating this thread and many thanks as well to all who have contributed so much info to it! I really enjoyed reading the seven pages, thus far. 

All the best - Always!


----------



## magnu (Nov 16, 2008)

I remember reading a comment on the Piper Cub from aircraft international "The Piper Cub an aircraft so safe it can barley kill you". At the field I used to fly from was a WW2 vet cub and the pilot used to open the cabin door on approach as his stall warning.
As far as the discussion of trike vs. tail dragger goes most aircraft of the period were tail draggers so that is what the pupils of the time would have experience of and not really be a factor for someone just out of a T6
The toe, heel braking difference may have caused some consternation though. As far as a first time fighter goes I would have to go with the Hurricane. Good visibility when ground handling, wide track undercart with plenty of travel, good low speed characteristics and docile in the air


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2008)

magnu said:


> As far as the discussion of trike vs. tail dragger goes most aircraft of the period were tail draggers so that is what the pupils of the time would have experience of and not really be a factor for someone just out of a T6


With hindsight being 20/20 had tricycle been the norm for combat aircraft of the period, there would of been fewer accidents and washouts because of zero time student attempting to master "torque abundant" tail draggers, especially in a cross wind. The design philosophy of the day was to go with a tail wheel configuration as it did better on dirt fields and adding the nose gear increased complexity and weight.



magnu said:


> The toe, heel braking difference may have caused some consternation though.



As far as I know, with the exception of the Piper Cub, most US military aircraft had toe brakes. I know there were a number of aircraft made with the now popular "Soviet Style" of differential braking through a single bicycle grip on the stick.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2008)

Speaking of Piper Cubs, how is yours coming along Joe?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Speaking of Piper Cubs, how is yours coming along Joe?


It's basically complete - I'm going to post some info in my thread about it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2008)

Looking foward to it as always.


----------



## Warren Peglar (Mar 16, 2010)

Hello everbody...I'm Fl/Lt Warren Peglar..retired...served with the RCAF, RAF, and the US 8th Air Force.
During WW11 I flew, in combat, Spitfires, P51's, and Tempests. If you wondered which was the easiest aircraft to land I think you might consider my opinion. It was the Spitfire...once on the runway, it was almost hands off the control column....I trained on Harvards (AT6) and that helped greatly in landing the 
P51. Because of the large fuselage, the Mustang, on landing, wanted to ground-loop!! Any cross-wind landing was an adventure! The Tempest was also difficult to put down. Hope this helps in the discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## magnu (Mar 16, 2010)

Welcome to the forum and thank you for your input. It's good to hear from someone with firsthand experience, as for most of us we can only speculate


----------



## Njaco (Mar 16, 2010)

Welcome to the forum Mr. Peglar! Unfortunately. I think a few of the members that posted here have moved on. But that doesn't mean your input will be wasted! I would love to hear some more. Check out some of the other threads, usually in the "Aviation" section where many threads ask similar questions. Welcome!


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 17, 2010)

Warren Peglar said:


> Hello everbody...I'm Fl/Lt Warren Peglar..retired...served with the RCAF, RAF, and the US 8th Air Force.
> During WW11 I flew, in combat, Spitfires, P51's, and Tempests. If you wondered which was the easiest aircraft to land I think you might consider my opinion. It was the Spitfire...once on the runway, it was almost hands off the control column....I trained on Harvards (AT6) and that helped greatly in landing the
> P51. Because of the large fuselage, the Mustang, on landing, wanted to ground-loop!! Any cross-wind landing was an adventure! The Tempest was also difficult to put down. Hope this helps in the discussion.


Mr Peglar I'm going to assume this link is yourself I hope you stay around so we can pick your brains , its nice to meet someone who did a bit of their training at 9 EFTS

Warren Peglar


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

Thank you Mr. Peglar.

You have confirmed what I have heard B of B pilots say about the Spitfire - "forgiving and a joy to fly". 

MM


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2010)

Boone Guyton, the guy who flew most of the test hours for the F4U during it's development flew the Spitfire and the Zero and said that both were delightful and easy to handle. The FW190, except for some stall characteristics must have been very pilot friendly since prop control, mixture and supercharger were all automatic, controlled by the throttle. For US warbirds, the Hellcat, except for being a tail dragger was reputedly very docile with few bad habits.


----------



## baldpuki (Mar 17, 2010)

For what it is worth, my father who flew Mustangs in combat and also had about 100-200 hours in Corsiars as a liason to the Navy, siad that he couldn't make a bad landing in the Corsair. Wide gear and great shock absorbing capability. He said most of the time, he didn't even know when it hit the ground.


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2010)

That was the late war Corsair, though, because early models could be very difficult in landings. To me, the interesting point about the Corsair was that many fighters, as they evolved during the war picked up some bad flying characteristics because of more power, more weight, perhaps other changes. Some later models of the Spitfire were not as delightful to fly as earlier models, I understand, as well as the A6Ms and FWs and ME109s. However, each successive model of the Corsair during WW2, as it evolved was reportedly a more biddable airplane, in spite of the big performance gains.


----------



## timmo (Mar 17, 2010)

Of 45 flown, I'll go for the Hurricane - despite the 'bag of of spanners' label.

So docile that you could do finals actually on the stall. An interesting profile!

I note the comment on toe brakes. Well - they stopped you dead - unlike ours. Consequently, I've seen more than one nose-over in a 

Comment on the Spitfire - so true!!

= Tim


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 17, 2010)

like was said before none of them are going to be "entry level" aircraft and very few here have flow or been in one. but i will give you what i know from listening to my father...who did fly some of these.
the P40 would be my choice. the fact being it was used as a trainer ( advanced ) in 43/44. it was user friendly enough to be used in that role. my dad went from a PT19 to BT13 to AT6 and finally P40. he was in Georgia and yes while waiting in line to take off most guys had to shut the engines off or would overheat. he liked the plane. after the progression of the others he enjoyed taking it up. he did say it had a quirk on landing or take off i cant recall.... he didn't sit in a P51 until he got to the UK and had 10 hours seat time before going on his first mission. 
the P39 was what his group originally flew but had transitioned to 51s prior to my dad getting in. still have his souvenir 37mm round on the shelf. from what i gather the 39 had a tendency to "tumble"..not spin out but nose over tail tumble ( maybe because of the placement of the engine was behind the pilot?). once in this tumble there was no recovery. this may be why the accident/death was higher on this craft than others. they would let guys take them up and intentionally get it into the "tumble" and try to devise a maneuver to bring it back under control. at that time no one could....a majority of them were sold to the russians.
the P38....is a twin engine with duel engine and propeller controls....its more complicated to fly a twin than a single engine. but it and the P39 are tricycle gear and that is a bit easier to land ( not taking into acount anything else ) than a tail dragger.... at least to me...but then it might be all dependent as to what you were taught in.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 17, 2010)

Warren Peglar said:


> Hello everbody...I'm Fl/Lt Warren Peglar..retired...served with the RCAF, RAF, and the US 8th Air Force.
> During WW11 I flew, in combat, Spitfires, P51's, and Tempests. If you wondered which was the easiest aircraft to land I think you might consider my opinion. It was the Spitfire...once on the runway, it was almost hands off the control column....I trained on Harvards (AT6) and that helped greatly in landing the
> P51. Because of the large fuselage, the Mustang, on landing, wanted to ground-loop!! Any cross-wind landing was an adventure! The Tempest was also difficult to put down. Hope this helps in the discussion.



Welcome aboard. Tell us a bit about your flying experiences, what models, where, comparisons etc. Generally, everyone is hungry for info from people with first hand experiences.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2010)

Hi Warren and welcome aboard, appreciate the input. How much rudder authority did each aircraft comparatively have in cross winds? I've flown only light taildraggers and always wondered how they'd compare to warbirds.

One of out members (Bill) has flown P-51s and have provided some great insight on flying these aircraft, just wanted to get a second opinion (no offense Bill, I'd fly with you any time, any day).


----------



## MikeGazdik (Mar 18, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hi Warren and welcome aboard, appreciate the input. How much rudder authority did each aircraft comparatively have in cross winds? I've flown only light taildraggers and always wondered how they'd compare to warbirds.
> 
> One of out members (Bill) has flown P-51s and have provided some great insight on flying these aircraft, just wanted to get a second opinion (no offense Bill, I'd fly with you any time, any day).



On the link to Mr. Warren Peglar's website, there are photos of him with Bill's father!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

MikeGazdik said:


> On the link to Mr. Warren Peglar's website, there are photos of him with Bill's father!



Thanks Mike!


----------



## ppopsie (Mar 19, 2010)

I flew L-21B a lot. It was a nice small airplane, and was easy to land than the DH-82a Tigermoth. In case of biplane and you flew from the rear seat, you cannot see the ground well when making a hold off than the SuperCub. That is only what I can say.

BTW quotes from 
PROOF DEPARTMENT TACTICAL COMBAT SECTION ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND COMMAND EGLIN FIELD, FLORIDA 
FINAL REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-51 TYPE AIRPLANE 30 December 1942

"d. Pilots become completely at home in this aircraft immediately after the first take-off due to the remarkable sensitivity of control, simplicity of cockpit, and excellent flying characteristics.
"The flying characteristics of the P-51 are exceptionally good and the aircraft is very pleasant and easy to fly.
"A pilot flying this plane for the first time feels immediately at home when this ship leaves the ground, and he has a feeling that he has flown this ship for a large number of hours. 

It is amazing such style of writings made in a wartime official document.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 21, 2010)

interesting P 39 stuff. was surprised to see it was used in the pacific to the extent it was. always hear about P 40 there but not too much about 39s.


P-39 Airacobra Aces of World War 2 - Google Books


----------



## Robert98948 (Oct 19, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not think anyone can actually chime in on this.
> 
> There is not a single member of this forum, who has flown all of these aircraft to make a comparison.
> 
> Bill has flown the P-51D and that is about it.



Opps, didn't mean to repost. The easiest ww2 aircraft to fly is the De Havilland Mosquito. I think it's name is the reason it's forgotten. It has 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin liquid cooled engines. Over 400 mph with ease, fly and climb with 1 engine. It could carry a 4000lb.load. It was a fighter-bomber, 20mm cannon 4 50 cal. Machine guns and 8 rockets for ships. Only 11 lost in first 1000 sorties. You can let go of the stick while turning and it flies perfectly. It's a very easy stick to control. It was a British aircraft but the United States used this plane. Sadly there are few still flying. I think 3, I have been lucky enough to get a ride quite a few times since I maintain one that still flies.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 19, 2019)

I nominate the T-41, L-17, and L-3 in no particular order!


----------



## Airframes (Oct 19, 2019)

Don't know of any Mossies armed with four 50 cals - 4 x 20mm and 4 x .303, yes.
And although nice to fly, it could turn and bite you fatefully,, if not careful with asymetric power settings.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> Opps, didn't mean to repost. The easiest ww2 aircraft to fly is the De Havilland Mosquito. I think it's name is the reason it's forgotten. It has 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin liquid cooled engines. Over 400 mph with ease, fly and climb with 1 engine. It could carry a 4000lb.load. It was a fighter-bomber, 20mm cannon 4 50 cal. Machine guns and 8 rockets for ships. Only 11 lost in first 1000 sorties. You can let go of the stick while turning and it flies perfectly. It's a very easy stick to control. It was a British aircraft but the United States used this plane. Sadly there are few still flying. I think 3, I have been lucky enough to get a ride quite a few times since I maintain one that still flies.


I think that with an engine out they are very difficult to fly.


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2019)

I'll tell you what a very active P-51 pilot told me. I asked him how difficult it was to fly a P-51. His answer was, "How hard can it be? It was designed to be flown by 19-year-old kids with 250 hours in a T-6." What he meant, as he explained, is that it is NOT a SIMPLE aircraft to fly but, if you have 250 hours in a WWII advanced trainer, it also isn't too difficult as long as you follow the rules of P-51 flying.

I take that to mean that I, who has hours in Cessna and Pipers, would likely kill myself trying to fly one by myself without any type training, but that it isn't especially difficult if you have some decent experience in complex (meaning constant-speed prop and rectactable landing gear) aircraft with WWII fighter-type wing loading and some decent horsepower. I have leaned over a friend's shoulder and played with the control stick while in the back seat of a P-51, and it flew EXACTLY as I imagined with would. We were at cruise power. 

So ... not much help, but also not totally unknown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 19, 2019)

GregP said:


> I'll tell you what a very active P-51 pilot told me. I asked him how difficult it was to fly a P-51. His answer was, "How hard can it be? It was designed to be flown by 19-year-old kids with 250 hours in a T-6." What he meant, as he explained, is that it is NOT a SIMPLE aircraft to fly but, if you have 250 hours in a WWII advanced trainer, it also isn't too difficult as long as you follow the rules of P-51 flying.
> 
> I take that to mean that I, who has hours in Cessna and Pipers, would likely kill myself trying to fly one by myself without any type training, but that it isn't especially difficult if you have some decent experience in complex (meaning constant-speed prop and rectractable landing gear) aircraft with WWII fighter-type wing loading and some decent horsepower. I have leaned over a friend's shoulder and played with the control stick while in the back seat of a P-51, and it flew EXACTLY as I imagined with would. We were at cruise power.
> 
> So ... not much help, but also not totally unknown.



Funny how we see the same thing with 20 series Learjets, MU2's. It isn't too difficult as long as you follow the rules of _insert name of airplane being flown here_ flying. (And stay proficient. Not just current)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> Opps, didn't mean to repost. The easiest ww2 aircraft to fly is the De Havilland Mosquito. I think it's name is the reason it's forgotten. It has 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin liquid cooled engines. Over 400 mph with ease, fly and climb with 1 engine. It could carry a 4000lb.load. It was a fighter-bomber, 20mm cannon 4 50 cal. Machine guns and 8 rockets for ships. Only 11 lost in first 1000 sorties. You can let go of the stick while turning and it flies perfectly. It's a very easy stick to control. It was a British aircraft but the United States used this plane. Sadly there are few still flying. I think 3, I have been lucky enough to get a ride quite a few times since I maintain one that still flies.


Errrr, NO. 

It was an easy aircraft to fly if you were properly *TRAINED* to fly it. It could take several hundred hours to get proficient in flying a high performance twin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> Opps, didn't mean to repost. The easiest ww2 aircraft to fly is the De Havilland Mosquito. I think it's name is the reason it's forgotten. It has 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin liquid cooled engines. Over 400 mph with ease, fly and climb with 1 engine. It could carry a 4000lb.load. It was a fighter-bomber, 20mm cannon 4 50 cal. Machine guns and 8 rockets for ships. Only 11 lost in first 1000 sorties. You can let go of the stick while turning and it flies perfectly. It's a very easy stick to control. It was a British aircraft but the United States used this plane. Sadly there are few still flying. I think 3, I have been lucky enough to get a ride quite a few times since I maintain one that still flies.



Sorry but none of that shows that it was the easiest to fly. The fact that it has two engines already kind of takes it out of the running, especially for pilots with less experience.

And any aircraft trimmed properly by the pilot will do the same in a turn when taking your hands off of the control. I can do that with the Piper Cherokee I fly. It can fly perfect circles without losing or gaining altitude as long as I trim it correctly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 19, 2019)

Fascinating thread. I have yet to read it all and someone my have already mentioned this but judging from what ive read pilots say independent of carrier oparations the F6f was apparently a dream to fly as were most of the early war Japanese types.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

I think, apart from all the take off and landing nonsense and that complicated stuff about stalling and snap rolls an' all, it is much easier flying a plane 40MPH faster than your opponent than 40MPH slower. You can then go back home and practice your three point landings.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I think, apart from all the take off and landing nonsense and that complicated stuff about stalling and snap rolls an' all, it is much easier flying a plane 40MPH faster than your opponent than 40MPH slower. You can then go back home and practice your three point landings.


The part missing there - Emergencies. The thing that will kill you quicker than any enemy.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The part missing there - Emergencies. The thing that will kill you quicker than any enemy.


True, but I assume those risks are evenly distributed, from what I have read there were some very dangerous planes for inexperienced pilots that were not at the top end of the performance envelope. Like the Dewotine 520 as an example.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> True,* but I assume those risks are evenly distributed*, from what I have read there were some very dangerous planes for inexperienced pilots that were not at the top end of the performance envelope. Like the Dewotine 520 as an example.



Not really - while some aircraft are more of a handful than others, a properly trained pilot should be considering emergency procedures during every aspect of flight. Now, during the heat of combat is this possible? Probably not, but that's where extensive training kicks in enabling a pilot to recognize an emergency while occupied with another task, but at the end of the day, easier said than done.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really - while some aircraft are more of a handful than others, a properly trained pilot should be considering emergency procedures during every aspect of flight. Now, during the heat of combat is this possible? Probably not, but that's where extensive training kicks in enabling a pilot to recognize an emergency while occupied with another task, but at the end of the day, easier said than done.


That was actually my point, did anyone lobby for guns to be fitted to a Texan A-6 because it was easier to fly? To an inexperienced pilot all of these planes are potentially dangerous to an experienced pilot they are all pretty much the same but all pilots would prefer 40MPH on their opponent to just get out of a bad situation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> That was actually my point, did anyone lobby for guns to be fitted to a Texan A-6 because it was easier to fly? To an inexperienced pilot all of these planes are potentially dangerous to an experienced pilot they are all pretty much the same but all pilots would prefer 40MPH on their opponent to just get out of a bad situation.


Agree - 

Actually T-6s were fitted with guns and used in primary gunnery training

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 19, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree -
> 
> Actually T-6s were fitted with guns and used in primary gunnery training


And by New Zealand. I believe one actually shot down an A6m if memory serves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Oct 19, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> And by New Zealand. I believe one actually shot down an A6m if memory serves.


 dunno about a new zealand tr shooting down a zero but an australian wirraway did shoot down a zero. ( luckiest australian meets unluckiest japanese ).
And no the the wirri aint a t6 it may look like one and perform much the same but the basic structure is very different.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 19, 2019)

rednev said:


> dunno about a new zealand tr shooting down a zero but an australian wirraway did shoot down a zero. ( luckiest australian meets unluckiest japanese ).
> And no the the wirri aint a t6 it may look like one and perform much the same but the basic structure is very different.


I think your right it was Wirraway. The point of confusion being that several articles on the net say the Wirraway was a liscence built T6 so I thought they were one in the same plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think your right it was Wirraway. The point of confusion being that several articles on the net say the Wirraway was a liscence built T6 so I thought they were one in the same plane.



The Wirraway was based on the NA-16, the NA-16 evolved into T-6

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Oct 20, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Wirraway was based on the NA-16, the NA-16 evolved into T-6


 If the wirraway had come before the t6 it would be seen as a natural evolution but as it came after it is a bit of an oddity.
Lots of minor differences but the big one is the the fuselage wooden formers and fabric covering as opposed to the metal covered t6


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2019)

rednev said:


> If the wirraway had come before the t6 it would be seen as a natural evolution* but as it came after it is a bit of an oddity.*
> Lots of minor differences but the big one is the the fuselage wooden formers and fabric covering as opposed to the metal covered t6


No it didn't come after - read what I wrote. The Wirraway was based on the NA-16, the predecessor to the T-6. The NA-16 first flew in 1935.

_"*The Texan originated from the North American NA-16 prototype (first flown on April 1, 1935) which, modified as the NA-26*, was submitted as an entry for a USAAC "Basic Combat" aircraft competition in March 1937. The first model went into production and 180 were supplied to the USAAC as the BC-1 and 400 to the RAF as the Harvard I. The US Navy received 16 modified aircraft, designated the SNJ-1, and a further 61 as the SNJ-2 with a different engine."_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 20, 2019)

Easiest warbird to fly?

Piper L-4?

(ducks and sneaks out of room)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 20, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Easiest warbird to fly?
> 
> Piper L-4?
> 
> (ducks and sneaks out of room)



You might be right...lol


----------



## Elmas (Oct 20, 2019)

I had the possibility to interview some Italian Pilots that made the last courses in T-6, early '60s.
They told me that it wasn't such an "honey" to fly, but a plane that had to be treated with the utmost respect.
Certainly there were Pilots and.. Pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2019)

Elmas said:


> I had the possibility to interview some Italian Pilots that made the last courses in T-6, early '60s.
> They told me that it wasn't such an "honey" to fly, but a plane that had to be treated with the utmost respect.
> Certainly there were Pilots and.. Pilots.



I almost had an opportunity to fly in a T-6, my friend Doug Gilliss had a lot of time in them, he said the same thing, said they could be squirly when taxiing in high winds (like any taildragger). We have to remember the T-6 was an advanced trainer and had to have some degree of instability to get students ready for the next level.


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2019)

The AT-6 was also designed to "bite" harder than a basic trainerr. It does not have a benign stall and will usually drop one wing or the other and wind up in a spin if you don't handle it correctly with proper use of rudder and elevator. It was designed that way so that pilots who mastered the AT-6 could make easier transition into fighters. Basic trainers (the "BT" series) flew very well. The "AT" series were almost all designed to make you ready for combat aircraft, and were purposely not "easy" to fly by comparison with the BT aircraft.

That doesn't mean thay didn't fly well. It means you needed to practice good rudder control and they likely did not have good stall characteristics when compared with basic trainers. They weren't bad-flying aircraft ... they typically just demanded good pilot technique to fly well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert98948 (Oct 20, 2019)

The De Havilland Mosquito is very easy to fly and only 7 per 1000 were lost during sorties in ww2. 2 engine, 2400hp. You can fly it with 2 fingers on the stick. It's really that easy. It's very light, wood body and wings. Thanks, robert p.s. watch The DH Mosquito in WW11 on youtube


----------



## Robert98948 (Oct 20, 2019)

Also the United States used the dh 98 because it was so easy to fly. It was used in about 20 countries during the war.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 20, 2019)

And ........ wait for it !


----------



## Robert98948 (Oct 20, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> Also the United States used the dh 98 because it was so easy to fly. It was used in about 20 countries during the war.


It cruises at 270mph and a top speed of over 400mph unloaded. Won't stall till 98mph. It flew 28,000 missions and lost 193 aircraft. That's a lose of .07 percent


----------



## Robert98948 (Oct 20, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> It cruises at 270mph and a top speed of over 400mph unloaded. Won't stall till 98mph. It flew 28,000 missions and lost 193 aircraft. That's a lose of .07 percent


I think that's. 007 percent.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 20, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> Also the United States used the dh 98 because it was so easy to fly. It was used in about 20 countries during the war.


 The Mosquito as the dh 98 was not used by the USA because it was easy to fly, it was used because it had qualities as a PR aircraft that were hard to beat.


----------



## Robert98948 (Oct 20, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> I think that's. 007 percent.


My grandfather was a bomb loader and had to patch up all aircraft. The inside was not pretty. But the mosquito had a crew of 2. It was a fighter/bomber. A mark 6 mosquito flew 213 missions and holds the record for most missions. It also survived the war. Any pilot could fly a dh 98 mosquito. It's a dream to fly. It's even a great glider. Even climb with 1 engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> My grandfather was a bomb loader and had to patch up all aircraft. The inside was not pretty. But the mosquito had a crew of 2. It was a fighter/bomber. A mark 6 mosquito flew 213 missions and holds the record for most missions. It also survived the war. Any pilot could fly a dh 98 mosquito. It's a dream to fly. It's even a great glider. Even climb with 1 engine.



Any pilot? even one that never flew a twin engine aircraft???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert98948 (Oct 20, 2019)

I'm sorry I ment knts. Not mph. 110 knts. Fully loaded and 95/98 knts. With the gear down on the dh 98 mosquito.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 20, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> My grandfather was a bomb loader and had to patch up all aircraft. The inside was not pretty. But the mosquito had a crew of 2. It was a fighter/bomber. A mark 6 mosquito flew 213 missions and holds the record for most missions. It also survived the war. Any pilot could fly a dh 98 mosquito. It's a dream to fly. It's even a great glider. Even climb with 1 engine.


Much as I admire the Mosquito to pretend that it had a loss rate of 0.007% or 0.07% as a fighter bomber is ludicrous. It was a long range heavy fighter and/or a bomber and/or a PR aircraft you cant pick and choose which you want to suit or case then present the statistic you like.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert98948 (Oct 20, 2019)

You should check out the Amiens raid. They used the mark 6 mosquito because it was easy to fly. 250 mph 50 ft. above the water with 4 500 lb. bombs. It could take a lot of damage and make it home. The pilots I have talked to that flew the mosquito loved the plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> You should check out the Amiens raid. They used the mark 6 mosquito because it was easy to fly. 250 mph 50 ft. above the water with 4 500 lb. bombs. It could take a lot of damage and make it home. The pilots I have talked to that flew the mosquito loved the plane.


Robert - you're posting some very elementary comments on here. Some of our members have been studying this subject matter for dozens of years, there are others who actually worked on these airframes to include the Mosquito, there are some on here who have actually flown warbirds and have several thousand flight hours. You're repeating a previous posted opinion (with little substance to back up your point) so please refrain from the repetitive narrative.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 20, 2019)

The Amiens raid (somewhat controversial, according to recent research) was but one low-level operation carried out by 140 wing of 2 TAF, with raids on Gestapo Headquarters at Oslo, Aarhus and Copenhagen being just as notable, when FB.VI Mosquitos carried *two *500lb bombs, at low level all the way, actually flying down the streets in Copenhagen at one point. They also carried out many other 'specialised' operations and, according to those crews who took part, some of whom I had the pleasure, and honour, to call friends, the use of the Mosquito had absolutely nothing to do with it's being easy to fly !
As I've mentioned elsewhere, although a truly superb aircraft, like most high-performance types (or even a Cessna), it could turn and bite the unwary pilot, sometimes fatally, as others on this forum, very experienced in the world of military aviation ( and world war two aircraft history and performance etc) will no doubt confirm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 21, 2019)

Robert98948 said:


> You should check out the Amiens raid. They used the mark 6 mosquito because it was easy to fly. 250 mph 50 ft. above the water with 4 500 lb. bombs. It could take a lot of damage and make it home. The pilots I have talked to that flew the mosquito loved the plane.


In the Amiens raid 2 Mosquitos were lost from 19 aircraft, 4 of which were instructed not to attack.
In the Copenhagen raid 4 were lost from 20 aircraft
In the Aarhus raid 1 aircraft from 24 was lost.
In the Oslo raid 1 aircraft from 4 was lost.
In the two raids of three aircraft to shut down Goerings radio broadcast 1 aircraft was lost.

These high profile and successful raids were extremely high risk, all of them had loss rates that were considered unsustainable which was generally above about 4%. Losing one plane from three or four or four from twenty is an almost a suicidal rate of losses, no pilot would finish a tour of missions. To suggest loss rates of 0.07% or even 0.007% for the mosquito does those men a great disservice.


----------



## Joe Broady (Oct 22, 2019)

According to Steve Hinton Jr., "'A Mustang is a very easy airplane to fly. On landing, they track straight, they don’t land slow like some other airplanes, and there’s no bad characteristics to them.' To keep him sharp, he prefers something that requires more stick-and-rudder skills, such as a 65hp Luscombe. 'I like to go out at dawn or dusk, and you can go out and do 40 touch-and-goes in under an hour.' For formation flying or aerobatics, a T-6 or Mustang is more suitable. 'If I had to fly one airplane for the rest of my life, I would take the Stearman, with the open cockpit and the constant challenge of perfecting flying the airplane.'"

"Reno Air Race Champion Steve Hinton Jr And His Airplane Voodoo" By Maria Morrison
Reno Air Race Champion Steve Hinton Jr And His Airplane Voodoo | Aero-News Network
Reno Air Race Champion Steve Hinton Jr And His Airplane Voodoo | Aero-News Network

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 23, 2019)

I perfectly imagine that for a Pilot like Steve Hinton Jr., "A Mustang is a very easy airplane to fly….”

I would have been surprised of a contrary statement…

Of course Top Brass of Air Force were firstly concerned to have an airplane of a superior performance (speed, climb rate, range) than that of the enemy, but were also concerned for not having too many young and inexperienced Pilots killed_.”You employ two hours to make an airplane, but you employ twenty years to make a Pilot…”_

Italian Pilots I personally interviewed in the past, that initially flew T-6s, then flew G-59s and finally P-51s

Memorie di un pilota: le immagini e i ricordi del Tenente Alberto Scano - Aviation Report

and from memories of others

main index

were unanimous saying that while G-59 was a _“Padre di famiglia”_* Mustang, as it was known in Italy, well deserved his name.
If we see just the different wing profiles between the two we can understand why.

*Father of a (huge) family, Italian aeronautical language, of an aeroplane capable of understand and save, if not in all, but at least in some occasion, a young and inexperienced Pilot’s neck…


----------



## spicmart (Oct 23, 2019)

The Ki-100 had a relatively high-aspect-ratio wing with quite a long wingspan (12.00 m) for a fighter of its size.
So a lot of wing to support the plane. It had a reputation of being able to be flown by even the youngest of rookie pilots and giving them a fighting chance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 23, 2019)

spicmart said:


> The Ki-100 had a relatively high-aspect-ratio wing with quite a long wingspan (12.00 m) for a fighter of its size.
> So a lot of wing to support the plane. It had a reputation of being able to be flown by even the youngest of rookie pilots and giving them a fighting
> chance.
> 
> ...


As a side note I think the ki100 is one of the realy under appreciated planes pf the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 23, 2019)

Nobody discussed the Zero and Hayabusa......
Put together Japan did not build much more than 17000 of these planes.
Both had gentle landing and take off characteristics..
I suspect they had less training casualties as a result.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Much as I admire the Mosquito to pretend that it had a loss rate of 0.007% or 0.07% as a fighter bomber is ludicrous. It was a long range heavy fighter and/or a bomber and/or a PR aircraft you cant pick and choose which you want to suit or case then present the statistic you like.



Pilots shouldn't have to deal with badly behaved aircraft; they already have enemy combatants trying to kill them.


----------



## spicmart (Oct 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> As a side note I think the ki100 is one of the realy under appreciated planes pf the war.



Or one of the most overrated, depending how you see it. Having a much better power-to-weight ratio than its predecessor, the Ki-61, it outclassed the latter in every aspect of dogfight other than speed and dive I suppose, because the radial engine was much draggier.
They say it could fight a Mustang, but I think only if the Pony pilot plays by the Ki-100 strength.
But which pilot at this stage of war would engage in a low-speed dogfight with supremely agile yet slow Japanese fighters?
At this stage of war anything reliable and easy to maintain and fly would be hailed as outstanding by Japanese personell.
I think the Ki-100 was able to outfight the Hellcat, against faster US fighters I really have my doubts.
Was it really the best Japanese fighter?


----------



## pbehn (Oct 23, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Pilot's shouldn't have to deal with badly behaved aircraft; they already have enemy combatants trying to kill them.


I agree, but was making a different point. A loss rate of 0.007% is 7/100,000 missions. The bomber credited with the most missions was Mosquito F-Freddie which completed 213 missions. Some of the raids I quoted above had loss rates of 25% and 33%.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 23, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Or one of the most overrated, depending how you see it. Having a much better power-to-weight ratio than its predecessor, the Ki-61, it outclassed the latter in every aspect of dogfight other than speed and dive I suppose, because the radial engine was much draggier.
> They say it could fight a Mustang, but I think only if the Pony pilot plays by the Ki-100 strength.
> But which pilot at this stage of war would engage in a low-speed dogfight with supremely agile yet slow Japanese fighters?
> At this stage of war anything reliable and easy to maintain and fly would be hailed as outstanding by Japanese personell.
> ...



I understand it was quite effective against the F6F and the B-29 which implies a rather large performance envelope since the two allied aircraft mentioned operated at significantly different altitudes. Against a Mustang? Probably not so hot. Still a decent last ditch airplane that is under appreciated.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 23, 2019)

From what I read the easiest warbird to fly in terms of actually a novice actually flying with minimum training would be Fairey Swordfish.


----------



## GregP (Oct 23, 2019)

It's funny you chose the F6F, Spicemart, since the Hellcat had the best air-to-air kill ratio of ANY fighter series used by the U.S.A. in the entire war by a rather wide margin and made more aces than any other mount. The Ki-100 was maneuverable, but the F6F was faster, climbed better, was WAY better armored, and was our best fighter at turning (not so much rolling). Many say the FM-2 had the best kill ratio, but the FM-2 properly belongs with the F4F family of aircraft. Taken as a series, the F4F wasn't even close to the F6F, and it also never fought in the major front-line battles. It gained a great reputation in mop-up operations from Jeep carriers in places the main fleet had bypassed. These small bases normally didn't have the cream of the crop of Japanese opposition to start with and, once bypassed, weren't a major threat to anybody who was reasonably alert.

The F6F-5 was some 30 mph faster and the F6F-3 was maybe 20 - 25 mph faster than the Ki-100.

The Ki-100 had a slight armament advantage with 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 50-cal, but not a large advantage. A hit on the F6F would result in some major damage, but so would a full volley of 6 * 50-cal versus the Ki-100. The thing to remember is that the 20 mm cannon and the two MG did NOT have the same ballistics. If you were hitting with the 50s, you were missign with the 20s and vice verse. It would have been MUCH better to have four 20s.

All this has been discussed at length in here and I'm not saying anything you didn't already know. Cheers.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 24, 2019)

GregP said:


> It's funny you chose the F6F, Spicemart, since the Hellcat had the best air-to-air kill ratio of ANY fighter series used by the U.S.A. in the entire war by a rather wide margin and made more aces than any other mount. The Ki-100 was maneuverable, but the F6F was faster, climbed better, was WAY better armored, and was our best fighter at turning (not so much rolling). Many say the FM-2 had the best kill ratio, but the FM-2 properly belongs with the F4F family of aircraft. Taken as a series, the F4F wasn't even close to the F6F, and it also never fought in the major front-line battles. It gained a great reputation in mop-up operations from Jeep carriers in places the main fleet had bypassed. These small bases normally didn't have the cream of the crop of Japanese opposition to start with and, once bypassed, weren't a major threat to anybody who was reasonably alert.
> 
> The F6F-5 was some 30 mph faster and the F6F-3 was maybe 20 - 25 mph faster than the Ki-100.
> 
> ...



Take issue that Japanes did not have the cream of the Crop.
Their Fighter Pilots were very good throughout the war.
Just not enough of them and survivors were shipped back to Japan.
Leaving a ton of perfectly good aircraft behind.

FM2 did meet fighter Japanese Navy opposition and against the Zeke was a good match.
It was agile and no slouch as most of the engagements were at low and mid altitudes. 
FM2 had the 1350 HP radial engine with taller Tail and Rudder.
Would give the Corsair or F6F fits in a dogfight.


----------



## HarryMann (Oct 24, 2019)

Ronald-Reagan said:


> Hey folks, new guy here. Great site!
> 
> What would you kids say was the easiest warbird to fly? Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft. For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?"
> 
> ...


Spitfire easiest by far !


----------



## Elvis (Oct 24, 2019)

Ronald-Reagan said:


> Hey folks, new guy here. Great site!
> 
> What would you kids say was the easiest warbird to fly? Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft. For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?"
> 
> ...


My guess would be an Me-262, or possibly a Gloster Meteor.
When the jets started to replace the prop aircraft, after the war, a lot of pilots exclaimed how easy the jets were to fly, due to their simplicity.
Stick, rudder and the _Go-Lever_. No mixture controls or prop settings to worry about, just shove the throttle forward (or back) if you wanna go faster.
Only two jets I know that actually served during the war were the Schwable and the Meteor.

Elvis


----------



## glennasher (Oct 24, 2019)

Elvis said:


> My guess would be an Me-262, or possibly a Gloster Meteor.
> When the jets started to replace the prop aircraft, after the war, a lot of pilots exclaimed how easy the jets were to fly, due to their simplicity.
> Stick, rudder and the _Go-Lever_. No mixture controls or prop settings to worry about, just shove the throttle forward (or back) if you wanna go faster.
> Only two jets I know that actually served during the war were the Schwable and the Meteor.
> ...



They might be easy to fly, by a really experienced pilot, but managing the engines was pretty sporty, from what I've read. I think the early jets were pretty troublesome in that regard. The P-80 Lockheed DID kill some pilots while they were learning engine management, and the throttle response wasn't the best, and I'm sure the Swallow was no different. Dunno enough about the Meteor to say anything.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 24, 2019)

...but the OP only wanted to know which fighter/interceptor was easiest to fly.
I was just trying to answer the question presented.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 24, 2019)

American ace Richard Bong was killed flying the P-80, total time in aircraft, 4hrs 15min

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Frank G. (Oct 24, 2019)

Ronald-Reagan said:


> Hey folks, new guy here. Great site!
> 
> What would you kids say was the easiest warbird to fly? Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft. For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?"
> 
> ...


I had worked with Corky Meyers on a couple of projects. During one of our conversations I asked him that very question since he was a chief test pilot for Grumman aircraft corporation.

He said unequivocally it was the F6F hellcat because we design for Young pilots with less than 200 hours of flying time.v during one of our conversations I asked him that very question since he was a lead test pilots for Grumman aircraft corporation and did much of the testing and development on the F6F.

He said, unequivocally, it was the F6F hellcat because we designed for young pilots with less than 200 hours of total flying time. He had flown most of the aircraft on the list of this question, and he thought they were very fine aircraft is their own right (especially the Spitfire); but from the standpoint of ease of flight it was the F6F- cockpit size, instrument panel/cockpit layout, ground and deck handling, control balance, stall characteristics, etc. All which are considerations for “piloting” a bird.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Oct 24, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> American ace Richard Bong was killed flying the P-80, total time in aircraft, 4hrs 15min


Bong died due to his inexperience with the aircraft, not because "Jets are bad".


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 24, 2019)

Don't think I said that "Jets are bad". Let me check.........nope! He died because of the fuel system transfer I believe as did a test pilot


----------



## Elvis (Oct 24, 2019)

You didn't have to...it was implied.


----------



## Barrett (Oct 24, 2019)

Haven't had time to skim the entire thread but it looks almost entirely fighter-centric.
The SBD was "a baby buggy of a carrier plane." When we started flying ours, the conventional wisdom was "Flies like a big SNJ." Which was largely true.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2019)

glennasher said:


> They might be easy to fly, by a really experienced pilot, but managing the engines was pretty sporty, *from what I've read*.



I think you read some over-exaggerations. It's true that if you slammed the throttles in either direction you could do some pretty bad things to the turbine, at least a flame out, but that was typical through out the first and second generation of jet fighters and early trainers. Once you learn and understand the acceleration and deceleration characteristics, turbine aircraft are real easy to fly. As an old instructor once told me about flying the L29, "It takes a bit to spool up but it also take a bit to slow it down, you just have to stay ahead of the jet." I found this to be typical on some the jet trainers I had the opportunity to fly (L29, L39, T-33, MiG-15UTI and Fouga Magister)

I'll let the more experienced jet-jocks chime in on this anytime.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Don't think I said that "Jets are bad". Let me check.........nope! He died because of the fuel system transfer I believe as did a test pilot



He died because he didn't switch on an auxiliary boost pump and his engine flamed out on takeoff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Perkins (Oct 24, 2019)

Not sure about the easiest to fly, but I spoke with an old F4U Corsair driver and he said it waz a bit$h to land. He was terrified in any kinda crosswind & said because of the long cowling, it was tough to taxi because the tailwheel was cable controlled, at slow speeds it was impossible to S turn.


----------



## BobB (Oct 24, 2019)

A former Marine pilot who flew F6F, F8F, F4U and AD-1 in advanced training in 1950 said that the F6F flew like a big Cub. He had just completed primary training and carqual in SNJ so his idea of "easy to fly" would be different from that of a Cessna 150 driver but he had some light airplane experience before being accepted for USMC flight training. And a Cub is said to be easy to fly but hard to fly right.


----------



## rednev (Oct 24, 2019)

The easiest wardbird to fly was probably one of the grasshopper series L2 L3 L4 .
despite not being hairy chested beasts they did serve on front line .

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 24, 2019)

Nope, ya'll are missing the boat. The easiest warbird to fly is a T-41.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 25, 2019)

...nevermind….


----------



## Elmas (Oct 26, 2019)

Elmas said:


> I had the possibility to interview some Italian Pilots that made the last courses in T-6, early '60s.
> They told me that it wasn't such an "honey" to fly, but a plane that had to be treated with the utmost respect.
> Certainly there were Pilots and.. Pilots.
> 
> View attachment 557398



I forgot to say that this picture was taken exactly over the Taranto Naval Base.
I don't think that sailors, from Admirals ro Recruits, didn't take too well this aerobatics exibition over their heads, after what happened 12 Nov. 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 26, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Nope, ya'll are missing the boat. The easiest warbird to fly is a T-41.


L-4s were in combat. Were T-41s?
(seriously asking)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2019)

As this was a resurrection of an old thread, I'll quote the OP's first post:

_"Hey folks, new guy here. Great site!

What would you kids say was the easiest warbird to fly? *Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft*. For example, how would you rank the following aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness?"

North American P-51D Mustang
Republic P-47D Thunderbolt
Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat
Curtis P-40E Warhawk (or Kittyhawk if you prefer)
Bell P-39D Airacobra
Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair
Lockheed P-38J Lightning

As I understand it, the Mustang is a sports car with a relatively high stall speed (100mph?) and, as such, requires some skill and respect to fly. And the Corsair (my favorite warbird) flies like a dream, I hear, but requires some serious skill for take-offs and landings... and the nerves to calmly ignore the oil slowly coating the windscreen 

Being a "tricycle" configuration, the P-38 probably has the best site lines for take-offs and landings, but then you have the whole twin-engine thing to worry about (though certainly a welcomed worry for many fighter pilots).

But for the average, relatively new pilot... coming from T-6 Texan training, let's say, how would you rank the above aircraft in terms of "user-friendliness" or "ease of operation" overall?

And for comparison's sake, I don't object to throwing in a Spitfire, Zero, and/or Bf-109 or FW-190. Thanks!


Fred B."_


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 26, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> L-4s were in combat. Were T-41s?
> (seriously asking)


Nope, but still a "T" designation and thus a "warbird" like a U-3 or a T-42.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 26, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As this was a resurrection of an old thread, I'll quote the OP's first post:
> 
> _"Hey folks, new guy here. Great site!_
> 
> ...


_*"Specifically wondering about U.S., non-trainer, fighter/interceptor type aircraft*." - Well that took the wind out of my smart-a s s sails._

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Big Jake (Oct 31, 2019)

According to a friend who flew "everything", the F4U is a much easier airplane to fly than a P-51 but as someone else commented, any airplane will kill you if you don't pay attention and respect... It's quite interesting how the US training was set up - you started with the most difficult airplane (a Stearman), progressed to a lesser evil (a T-6) and then graduated to the easiest of them all (relatively speaking - any fighter)...
Jake


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 1, 2019)

How about the Hurricane? Legend has it that after the first historic flight, George Bulman said to Sydney Camm, ‘It’s a piece of cake, I could even teach you to fly it,’ after he landed.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Nov 2, 2019)

If I may add to Flyboy’s repeating of the original OP, he did quote “..... for example...” & went on to list what types of warbirds were considered easiest to fly. I interpreted his original opening remarks to mean WWII type aircraft that served or were designed  to serve in combat during that era. That’s why he gave a short list of aircraft to begin with; to help narrow down the types of which aircraft would be classified A) as a warbird as defined within the narrow scope of his definition & B) did it fly or serve in combat to have enough pilots, to subjectively describe what they considered “easy.” Not trainers converted or modified into warbirds such as the Piper L-4s & Cessna T-41s which, by the way is just a military designation for the venerable -172 that came into existence long after the war was over. 

L-4s did serve in the war, but did they serve in combat? That answer is “affirmative” because in addition to serving as liaison or even FACs (Forward Air Control) it was also occasionally field modified to be equipped with rockets. But was it originally designed for combat? To that, I’d have to question.

So in keeping what is the easiest warbird to fly would have to include the skill level of the pilot (which may or may not be a reflection of his training), the aircraft itself as it relates to control harmony & (yes) forgiveness, & design for ease of flight (just look at the attrition rate of the Me-109 due to its splayed out narrow tracked landing gears) & then somehow objectively combine them together to give a short list. I used the term “list” as in my humble opinion, no single aircraft qualifies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 3, 2019)

A thought on easiest warbird to fly. Seems there are different ways of looking at this and the aircraft that would qualify could be different depending on the definition.
Example; easiest defined as takes the least training, has a well layed out cockpit, and doesn't keep the pilot too busy or easiest defined as least likely to get ones own self into trouble with. i.e. stall or spin characteristics for example.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Nov 3, 2019)

Michael r:
Exactly my point. Once this definition is clarified, refined & accepted: then we can focus on what truly constitutes the definition of what is the easiest warbird to fly. IMHO: the least easiest would be the Mustang & Me-109 for starters. The -109 was previously explained, but on the Mustang with that unforgiving laminar flow wing combined with a powerful Merlin or Packard, a tail dragger that will emphasize the torque & P-factor combined with gyroscopic precession, she has to be treated with utmost respect on takeoffs, landings & combat maneuvering. That last note is for the pilot to be constantly aware of high speed stall-spin. I’ll admit there would probably be a debate on this but isn’t that the point of this discussion?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 3, 2019)

While I did include an answer that was a tad outside what the OP meant, my definition of " easy to fly" would include well-harmonized controls, good departure characteristics, well-laid out cockpit, and good visibility.

All the air forces paid at least some attention to all those issues but many air forces would also tolerate some nasty aircraft behavior, mostly because good handling is hard to achieve (even for aircraft where high performance isn't the primary driver) but also because the skills of pilots, especially the comparatively less-trained wartime pilots, were overestimated. Of course, even those pre-war pilots were going to have off-days, as wartime operations will continue in weather that may ground the same service in peacetime, have a much higher sortie rate, so pilots will be more fatigued, and much higher stress levels because wartime.

Obviously, high-power, highly loaded aircraft, like fighters will be much more difficult to design for good handling -- "easy to fly" -- than a light plane, but the excuse that the pilots are so good that handling doesn't matter is BS. At least part of the reason the Hellcat did so well was because the pilots could fly the airplane to its limits without worrying that it was going to bite them in their asses and that they could get back onto a carrier while tired, recovering from an adrenaline high, and with their blood sugar crashing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 3, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> While I did include an answer that was a tad outside what the OP meant, my definition of " easy to fly" would include well-harmonized controls, good departure characteristics, well-laid out cockpit, and good visibility.
> 
> All the air forces paid at least some attention to all those issues but many air forces would also tolerate some nasty aircraft behavior, mostly because good handling is hard to achieve (even for aircraft where high performance isn't the primary driver) but also because the skills of pilots, especially the comparatively less-trained wartime pilots, were overestimated. Of course, even those pre-war pilots were going to have off-days, as wartime operations will continue in weather that may ground the same service in peacetime, have a much higher sortie rate, so pilots will be more fatigued, and much higher stress levels because wartime.
> 
> Obviously, high-power, highly loaded aircraft, like fighters will be much more difficult to design for good handling -- "easy to fly" -- than a light plane, but the excuse that the pilots are so good that handling doesn't matter is BS. At least part of the reason the Hellcat did so well was because the pilots could fly the airplane to its limits without worrying that it was going to bite them in their asses and that they could get back onto a carrier while tired, recovering from an adrenaline high, and with their blood sugar crashing.


I think that's a great discription of how/ why a good, docile handling fighter is such an asset for the legeons of new pilots comming on line so to speak.
Although I'm not a pilot I've thought more than once about if I were put into a ww2 fighter after probably less than an ideal amount of training under high stress wartime conditions what would I want it be.
Given that realistically I should probably be worried at least as much about killing myself in an accident as the enemy taking me out the best/easiest two fighters from this perpective, at least my impression, are 1: the F6f and 2: Thunderbolt.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 3, 2019)

Skyediamonds said:


> If I may add to Flyboy’s repeating of the original OP, he did quote “..... for example...” & went on to list what types of warbirds were considered easiest to fly. I interpreted his original opening remarks to mean WWII type aircraft that served or were designed  to serve in combat during that era. That’s why he gave a short list of aircraft to begin with; to help narrow down the types of which aircraft would be classified A) as a warbird as defined within the narrow scope of his definition & B) did it fly or serve in combat to have enough pilots, to subjectively describe what they considered “easy.” Not trainers converted or modified into warbirds such as the Piper L-4s & Cessna T-41s which, by the way is just a military designation for the venerable -172 that came into existence long after the war was over.
> 
> L-4s did serve in the war, but did they serve in combat? That answer is “affirmative” because in addition to serving as liaison or even FACs (Forward Air Control) it was also occasionally field modified to be equipped with rockets. But was it originally designed for combat? To that, I’d have to question.
> 
> So in keeping what is the easiest warbird to fly would have to include the skill level of the pilot (which may or may not be a reflection of his training), the aircraft itself as it relates to control harmony & (yes) forgiveness, & design for ease of flight (just look at the attrition rate of the Me-109 due to its splayed out narrow tracked landing gears) & then somehow objectively combine them together to give a short list. I used the term “list” as in my humble opinion, no single aircraft qualifies.


The OP's question was about Fighter/interceptor aircraft that fought during WWII.
While my beloved L-4 was pressed into fighter service _once_, as you say, it was never _designed_ for such a role.
This is why I never included it in my remarks, but I still say the easiest to fly was probably one of the jets.
Going off of pilot reactions during that time (and especially after the war), one thing they seemed to love was how easy they were to fly. 
JMHO.


Elvis


----------



## Skyediamonds (Nov 6, 2019)

Which gets back to the original question on which warbird/s being easiest to fly. Do jets fall into the definition of “warbird?”


----------



## Elvis (Nov 6, 2019)

Gloster Meteor, Bell P-59 Airacomet and Messerschmitt 262 all flew during WWII, so I would have to say Yes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2019)

Skyediamonds said:


> Which gets back to the original question on which warbird/s being easiest to fly. Do jets fall into the definition of “warbird?”



Why wouldn’t they?


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 6, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Gloster Meteor, Bell P-59 Airacomet and Messerschmitt 262 all flew during WWII, so I would have to say Yes.


Also the p80. I believe 3 were stationed in Italy several months before wars end and actually flew some missions although they never encountered any enemy aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 6, 2019)

Skyediamonds said:


> Which gets back to the original question on which warbird/s being easiest to fly. Do jets fall into the definition of “warbird?”



If they were intended to operate in direct combat, like the Meteor and Me262, yes. The Aircomet, maybe not.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 6, 2019)

swampyankee,

I'm sure the intent was there....we just fell a little short with the execution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike,

I didn't realize the P80 was operational that early (also, I was thinking I'd forgotten to mention the Me 163, but it was a rocket, so it doesn't really qualify, technically).
Anyway, very interesting.
I know there was one at Itami AFB in Japan in 1946, because my dad was there then and took some pictures of it.


Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2019)

Lockheed YP-80 Shooting Stars in flight near Vesuvio, Italy 1945. SN 44-83028, 44-83029.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 6, 2019)

Bachem Ba 349 Natter. Just sit back and enjoy the flight.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Nov 6, 2019)

Gentlemen,
To one & all, I stand corrected. Let’s include jets as part of a list to debate on the merits of what is determined as the easiest warbird to fly. To me personally, only reason the jets were not considered was my own attendance to various air shows & air races (Full disclosure: I live in Reno, NV; home of the pylon air races). Anytime the word “warbird” was mentioned they always had piston powered aircraft -usually of the fighter category- in the display area or during the show or races. If jets were included, the announcer always classified them separately as “jets.” So it would only be natural for me to simply accept the general consensus of what was defined as “warbird” & “jets.” The same can be said during my attendance to the EAA AirVenture where 10,000 plus aircraft were flown in. Everyone would classify “warbird” & “jets” the same way.

Having accepted this: other than carefully monitoring the exhaust temperatures & avoiding rapid throttle movements, would warbird jets be easiest to fly?


----------



## Elvis (Nov 6, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 559693
> 
> 
> Lockheed YP-80 Shooting Stars in flight near Vesuvio, Italy 1945. SN 44-83028, 44-83029.


Nice pic, Flyboy.
If I ever find those pictures my dad took, I will post them here.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen them in years.


Elvis

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2019)

Skyediamonds said:


> Having accepted this: other than carefully monitoring the exhaust temperatures & avoiding rapid throttle movements, would warbird jets be easiest to fly?


Having flown both, the jets are easier, "carefully monitoring the exhaust temperatures & avoiding rapid throttle movements" IMO is greatly exaggerated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 7, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Having flown both, the jets are easier, "carefully monitoring the exhaust temperatures & avoiding rapid throttle movements" IMO is greatly exaggerated.



FBJ,

I agree. However I would bet there were some improvements made to the T-bird along the way for reliability.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 7, 2019)

According to the pilots who speak at our monthly events at the Planes of Fame, the engines in the YP-59A / P-59A/B were VERY sensitive to over-throttle. They say that too much throttle would pool jet fuel in the belly that would ignite on startup and result in flames coming out of the jet exhaust. This was especially not-good on the YP-59A since the elevators were fabric!

I would imagine that the P-80s that made squadron service a bit later were much-improved over the YP-59A, so Jow would be correct in it being overstated. but the VERY early ones were apparently somewhat persnickety about abrupt throttle movement. I cannot say from personal experience, but my bet is that we'll likely find out in the next year or two when we expect our YP-59A to fly again!

In the book "Flame Powered, The Story of the Bell P-59, " there are a couple of pics of a YP-59A with flames coming out of the pipes. That is what KILLED the early turbine blades. Hopefully, we won't have those issues since our pilots are aware of it and KNOW there are no more engines lying around as spares! Actually, we have ONE spare, but that's it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Nov 7, 2019)

Only mentioned the cautious approach to operating jet engines based upon my reading of the early jets, particularly the Jumo 004 on the Messerschmitt-262. There were several articles over a period of time where the Jumos had an extremely short life expectancy before overhaul. Flameouts were considered common. Am I correct here? Insofar as GE jet engines powering the P-80, I'm assuming they too were going through their early teething problems. I’m keeping in mind this is during the Second World War period when the jet engines were just beginning to make their debut in the Aviation world. No doubt as time went on, the jets improved in their reliability & performance. Personally, I have no experience operating jets other than starting an old J-33 jet engine that was inside a T-33 from my A&P school days, so I’ll go by what Flyboy & others have to say. It seems however this discussion is heading towards jets as being tge easiest to fly. P-80?


----------



## Skyediamonds (Nov 7, 2019)

GregP,
I totally agree with everything you’ve mentioned about the early jet engines, especially as it pertains to the Bell YP-59A. However, I’d like to add that the (late) Paul Allen’s Historical Aviation Collection in Seattle had their original Jumos to the Me-262 upgraded with modern alloys in the turbine section & I’m sure other areas of interest were addressed to account for throttle movements while still maintaining the integrity of originality to the whole engine/airframe. Are the folks such as Steve Hinton & Planes of Fame Co., going to take a similar route & have the original jet engines upgraded with modern plasma-coated alloys? By the way, in keeping to the topic of this discussion, has anyone read anything on the flying characteristics of the Bell? How would it compare to say the P-80 or Me-262, or the Gloster 28/39?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2019)

Here's my take - define "overthrottle." Are you gently moving the "power levers" forward in a smooth motion, or slamming them against the stops? Here's a video that shows a German training film, about half way through the clip watch the way the pilot is moving the power levers HD Stock Video Footage - German pilot flying a ME-262 aircraft in Germany as instructors observe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Nov 7, 2019)

GregP writes during their monthly meetings at Planes of Fame, pilots would report that early jet engines on the Bell P-59 series, that too much throttle would pool jet fuel in the belly that would ignite during startups causing flames to come out of the exhaust. I’m having a little bit of trouble wrapping my mind around that one. Could you clarify? 

Fuel should not pool up in the belly of the aircraft but rather in the “belly” of the combustion chambers of the engines themselves. This would make more sense, especially the lower combustion chambers as the early jets would have individual chambers or “cannula” chambers mounted around the engine. The annular chambers came later.

Insofar as fuel pooling up, my guess it would be most likely oil rather than fuel. Almost all jet engines have a positive oil displacement pump. This means so long as the engine is spinning (compressor & turbine sections), regardless of whether it’s running or not, the driveshaft connected to the oil pump via a system of gears is also spinning & thus, the oil pump itself continues to pump oil into various parts of the engine particularly the bearings. To shut down a jet engine entails shutting off the fuel flow. However, the engine would continue to rapidly spool (spin) & the oil pump continues to pump oil but it’s the oil that settles into the lower chambers. This is why we see that telltale puff of smoke on modern jet engines during startups.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

