Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Depending what period of the war, a Cessna AT-8/ AT-17 or a Curtiss AT-9. Some pilots never received formal multi (twin) engine training.
But I think the F15/22 parallel holds, almost no leading edge front-line military design is easy to fly ( fight, properly) they all require a lot of training are demanding.
Cadet? Cadets only exist at the USAFA and the only thing they fly is a T-53 (T-51 if they are on the flying team and sometimes a T-41). Try commissioned officer, at least a 1Lt, if not a Capt. and at least a few hundred hours of jet time (T-38 ) under his or her belt.look at how many fighters and bombers back in ww2 were tail draggers. very few were tricycle gear. today it the opposite if we even have a tail dragger at all! tricycle gear is easier to handle on the ground...which probably is a major contributor to landing and taxi accidents of early planes.....plus these were 19 to ~24 year old guys flying them. a cadet these days probably wont even hit the seat of an F15 or the like until they are in their mid to upper 20s.
The aircraft will "float" while you're trying to flare and land, in other words it will still want to fly - better be landing on a long runway....
I always was under the impression that BF109 when airborne was pretty easy to fly, and the take off and landing accidents were not much higher than most of the other air forces. Problem is looking at todays sources we cannot tell if the accident was caused by design flaw, pilot error, or mechanical faliure.... (at least in most cases).....
I have not heard or read that early in the war there would be loads of tako off/landing accidents when pilots had loads of flight hours Before they even got in the 109. Later on you have completely inexpirienced pilots getting into Very Powerful and Torquey plane. And that for me is disaster waiting to happen.
I am not a pilot, surely (to my mind surely) if you are on the glide path down to the runway you will touch down, the B26 has tricycle undercarriage after all. not being provocative , I just dont really follow.
From what I understand 3 pointHow they landed the 109? Two point or three point?
3-point on grass or dirt. Pavement was not desired at all.
When an aircraft gets close to the ground, it hits ground effect, which is like a cushion that arrests a descent. Add to that the fact hat you need to flare, so that the nosewheel doesn't hit first (or so that you don't hit too hard and bounce back into the air), and even a small increase in airspeed has a large effect on landing distance.
When an aircraft gets close to the ground, it hits ground effect, which is like a cushion that arrests a descent. Add to that the fact hat you need to flare, so that the nosewheel doesn't hit first (or so that you don't hit too hard and bounce back into the air), and even a small increase in airspeed has a large effect on landing distance.
I've been told if you could fly a Pitts, you could fly almost any tail dragger. I've flown Cubs, 180 hp Super Cubs, Cessna 180s and Citabrias, the later being the easiest, the Super cub the most demanding but the most fun. No desire to fly anything hotter - well maybe if I ever build a CR.32!200+ hours in a Pitts Special would be a good start. It isn't 500+ HP but IS short-coupled and has enough power to get you in trouble almost anytime. If you have successfully navigated it for a long time, you may be able to convince us to give you a shot. The shot will be in a T-6. When you show mastery of THAT, you might get a shot at a Mustang.